Nominals as complements

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Nominals as complements
Physical Description:
viii, 148 leaves. : 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Albury, Donald Herbert, 1943-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
English language -- Noun   ( lcsh )
English language -- Syntax   ( lcsh )
English language -- Grammar, Generative   ( lcsh )
Linguistics thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Linguistics -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 145-147.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 14046201
System ID:
AA00024748:00001

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
        Page ii
    Dedication
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    Abstract
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Chapter 1. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Chapter 2. Defining derived nominal complements
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Chapter 3. The productivity of derived nominal complements
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
    Chapter 4. Rule-ordering and derived nominal complements
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
    Chapter 5. Conclusions
        Page 143
        Page 144
    Bibliography
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
    Biographical sketch
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
Full Text












NOMl-iliALS AS COl-PLBEENTS









By

DONALD HERBERT ALBURY











A DISSERTATION PRESENTED !U THE GRADUATE COUNCIL,
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF TE~E REQUIREiIFNTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA 1974

































Copyright
1974 By
Donald Herbert Albury




















To
Ginny and
Rebecca














AC KNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank first of all my chairman, Jean

Casagrande, who has always encouraged me to approach linguistics in terms of what are the facts of language, and, then, what do the facts say about the theory. He has had the faith to let me try unorthodox approaches until I could either justify them or give them up. He has, above all, helped me "keep the faith" with my orn proposals when my enthusiasm flagged.

I also wish to thank Peter Ivenzel, who has pointed out many errors and inconsistencies in my arguments. Of course, all remaining errors remain my responsibility.

My wife Ginny and daughter Rebecca have had to put up with me for the last year while I worked on this dissertation. am grateful for their patience and support.
T also wish to acknowledge financial support from the University of Florida, in the form of a scholarship and a research assistantship, during the writing of this dissertation.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . ................ iv

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . vii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of Purpose . . . . . . 1

The Lexical Hypothesis . ......... . 3

Derived Nominals as Complements on Nouns . 5 Some Assumptions . . . . . . 9

Outline . . . . .................. 11

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . 13

II DEFINI-NG DERIVED NOMINAL COMPLEMENTS ... . 15 First Definitions . . . . . . . 15

The Surface Structure of Derived Nominal
Complements . . . . . . . . 16

Action Nominals . . . . . . . 25

Agentive Nominals . . . . . . . 42

Summary . . . . . . . . . 44

NOTE S . . . . . . . . . . 45

III THE PRODUCTIVITY OF DERIVED NOMINAL COMPLE.IENTS 48

The Evidence for Lack of Productivity . .. 48 Chomsky's Subcategorization Account . . 51 RAISING Rules . ............... 55

V






vi

CHAPTERS Page

IT-EXTRAPOSITION .... 60

Passive Sentences ......... .......... 66

NP-PREPOSING ..... .. ............... 70

Dummy Subject Insertion ................ 93

EQUI-NP-DELETION ............... 97

DATIVEn-O0VEMENT ..... ............... .102

Psychological Predicates ........... 103

Conclusion ........ ............ .... .108

NOTES .......... ................... 110

IV RULE-ORDERING AND DERIVED NOMINAL COMPLEMENTS 116

Introduction . . ............... 116

Newmeyer's Proposal ............... 117

The Order of the Rules. ........... .121

The Cycle and Complementation .. ........ .127

Complementation as a Process .... .......... 139

NOTES. . .................. 142

V CONCLUSIONS ......... .................. 143

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......... ...................... 145













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


NOMINALS AS COMIPLEMVENTS

By

Donald Herbert Albury

March, 1974

Chairman: Jean Casagrande
Major Department: Linguistics
The syntactic construction known as the derived nominal presents problems to a transformational grammar of English.

Noam Chomsy has claimed that derived nominals have restricted productivity, an internal structure 'like that of noun phrases, and idiosyncratic semantic relationships to their associated predicates. Chomsky's claim that the Lexical Hypothesis provides a better explanation of the characteristics of derived nominals than the transformational position is rejected. A predicate-initial analysis of the

underlying structure of English and an analysis of derived nominals as complements of nouns in underlying structure are adopted, it is then shown that the productivity of derived nominals is not as restricted as Chomsky claims, and that the remaining restrictions are due to the failure of certain rules to apply in the derivation of derived nominals.
vii






viii

Frederick Nevmeyer's proposal that such rules fail to apply because DERI/ED NOMINALIZATION applies before they do, and nominalizes the predicate which is a part of the structural description of those rules, is adopted. It is then argued that the same rule-ordering arguments that account for the restrictions on productivity of derived nominals will also account for the noun phrase-like internal structure of derived nominals. It is further argued that the predicate-initial analysis eliminates the need for any rule of extraposition in English, that DERIVED NO MINALIZATION is a cyclic rule, and that the formation of complements from underlying embedded sentences in general is a process of the cycle applying to the embedded sentence, and not of some

higher application of the cycle.













CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION


Statement of Purpose

The question of the extent of regularity in language has been a recurrent theme in linguistics since ancient times, when the Analogists of Alexandria disputed with the Anomalists of Pergamon. This question has recently become once more prominent in the study of transformational grammar. In an important sense, a transformation is an abstraction of a regularity in language. The question of whether a particular structure in a language can be described transformationally is an empirical one, and is equivalent to the question of whether that structure in that language exhibits a regular correspondence to another structure of that language. An assumption of transformational grammar has been that language is basically regular, and, as a consequence, transformational grammars have emphasized the regularity of a language.

Noam Chomsky (1970) has claimed that the English complement construction which he calls the derived nominal constitutes a part of English grammar which is not regular in the sense indicated above, and which cannot be described transformationally. He supports his claim by contrasting derived nominals to gerundive nominals, another type of complement
1






2

which he considers to be derived by transformations from underlying embedded sentences. This is an empirical claim, and may be tested by examining the sentences of English which contain these two types of complements. The forms of these complements, and their relation to each other and to sentences, is illustrated in 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3; the main clauses in 1.1 having the corresponding gerundive nominals in 1.2 and derived nominals in 1.3.

1.1a) John is usually calm under stress, which pleases

b) John completed the assignment early, which
leased Mary.

1.2a). John's usually being calm under stress pleases
LMary.
b) John's completing the assignment early pleased


1.3a) John's usual calmness under stress pleases Mary.
b) John's early completion of the assignment
leased Mary.

The underlined words are intended to supply appropriate contexts for the nominal complements as well as showing how sentences and nominal complements can be alternate realizations of a common underlying structure. Gerundive nominal complements often resemble sentences with progressive aspect. While this may be confusing at times, the intended reading of such forms as gerundive nominal complements may be made clear by putting them into a context such as ...is surprisinz,- or Ann is worried about....

Chomsky's argument that derived nominal complements are not regular, and cannot be derived from underlying embedded sentences, as are gerundive nominal complements, is based on






3
three characteristic properties; A, that productivity is more restricted for derived nominal complements than for gerundive nominal complements, B, that semantic relations between derived nominals and their associated propositions are varied and idiosyncratic, and C, that derived nominal complements have the internal structure of noun phrases, Having concluded that derived nominal complements cannot be derived transformationally, Chomsky claims that the phrase structure rules of English must be complicated to provide the structure of derived nominal complements directly and that derived nominals are lexical entries. This is the Lexical Hypothesis, and amounts to a claim that derived nominal complements show less regularity than other structures in English, and the limits of regularity have been found for this oart of the grammar of English. If Chomsky is krong about the implications of the properties s of derived nominal complements, then his argument for the need for the Lexical Hypothesis is weakened. I propose to show that Chomsky's three properties do not establish the irregularity of the formation of derived nominal complements, that their formation is as regular as other transformational processes, and that a transformational account of derived nominal

complements is at least as well motivated as the Lexical Hypothesi-s.

The Lexical Hypothesis

Chomsky (1970:188) states the lexicalist position as the choice of extending the base rules, with concomitant






4

simplification of the transformational component. By contrast, he gives the transformationalist position as the choice of simplifying the base structure and extending the transformational apparatus. Chomsky states that the choice between the two positions is entirely an empirical one. Chomsky's 1970 study is a presentation of arguments for the validity of the lexicalist position. I will consider those arguments at appropriate points below, but for now I will give a summary of the Lexical Hypothesis as presented by Chomsky.

The theory within which Chomsky is making his claims about derived nominals pictures syntax as being strictly divided between a base component and a transformational component (the "Aspects" model: cf. Katz and Postal, 1964, and Chomsky, 1965). The point of connection between the two components, when all the base (phrase-structure) rules have applied, but before any transformational rules have applied, is called deep structure. A third component is the lexicon, which supplies lexical items to be inserted in, and only in, deep structure.

The Lexical Hypothesis involves the claim that derived nominal complements are produced directly by a subset of the base rules, that derived nominals are supplied directly from the lexicon in deep structure, and that derived nominal complements are not subject to most transformational rules. Chomsky (1970:195) notes that such a claim implies that phrase structure rules must introduce an extensive range of






5

derived nominal complement structures parallel to the structures oft embedded sentences. Indeed, there seem to be few, if an y, sentential deep structures in Chomsky's system which do not have corresponding derived nominal complements.

According to Chomsky (1970:190), in early transformnational theory, "there was no other way to express the fact that the contexts in which refuse appears as a verb and refusal as a noun are closely related" than in terms of transformational rules. Chomsky further states that when contextual features were introduced into the theory (in Chomsky, 1965), it became possible to separate the lexicon from the categorical component of the base, and thus to adopt the Lexical Hypothesis. According to Chomsky (1970t

1.90), refuse is entered in the lexicon with certain features specified, but with no specification of the categorical features [noun] and [verb]. He adds that fairly idiosyncratic morphological rules would be involved in deriving -forms like refusal in derived nominal convolements.

Derived Nominals as Complements on Nouns

The term complement has been used in ways different

enough -to make it worth while indicating here what I mean by gerundive nominal complement and derived nominal complement. On the one hand, anything that completes a structure can be regarded as a complement. Thus, the underlined parts of the examples in 1.4 are all complements of the verbs in their respective sentences.






6

1.4a) John arrived yesterday.
b) I want to leave now.
c) Mike totaled his car.

On the other hand, complement has been used to refer to nominalized (or otherwise reduced) embedded sentences such as those cited in 1.2 and 1.3. By nominal complement I will refer to nominalized embedded sentences which are complements of nouns in noun phrases.

Peter Rosenbaum (1967) argued that the type of complement structure he called Noun Phrase Complementation is a noun phrase in deep structure, consisting of the pronoun it as the head noun, and an embedded sentence as a complement of it. Rosenbaum contrasted Noun Phrase Complementation with Verb Phrase Complementation, in which an embedded sentence is a complement of a verb in deeo structure.

Rosenbaum's claim that the pronoun it is present in

noun phrase complements in deep structure now appears to be wrong. I will present arguments against that claim in the section on TT-EXTRAPOSITION in Chapter Three.

Peter enzel (1969) has argued that gerundive nominal complements (and, less explicitly, derived nominal complements) are complements of one of a certain set of deletable head nouns in underlying structure. He points out (pp. 7781) that verbs which take gerundive nominal complements, with a few exceptions such as verbs of belief and say, declare and claim, also allow the construction Noun + Complement, or just the noun as object. The nouns which can appear in such constructions (i.e., fact, proposition, event,






7

action, etc.) may also be taken as names of the types of complements a verb allows. Thus, John's coming can be both a fact and an event, and we get the sets of possible sentences in 1.5 and 1.6.

1.5a) John's coming occurred at ten o'clock.
b) The event of John's coming occurred at ten
o'clock.
c) The event occurred at ten o'clock.

1.6a) John's coming is surprising.
b) The fact of John's coming is surprising.
c) The fact is surprising.

The noun action can only take subjectless gerundive nominal complements, while other nouns, such as event, require a gerundive nominal complement with a subject (Menzel, 1969t82-83). At the same time, of the nouns which take gerundive nominal complements, only action allows a proposed possessive noun.2 Thus, we find the pattern of acceptability shown in 1.7.

1.7a) the action off*John's eating the meat.
eating the meat
b) the event of fJohnls eating the meaty L*eating.the meat J
c) ons *event of eating the meat


Most of the nouns on Menzel's list also take derived nominal complements, and any derived nominal complement, unless it is a complement of a verb of belief, or of ay, declare, or claim, can be a complement of at least one of those head nouns, as is indicated by the examples in 1.8.

1.8a) The fact of John's departure cannot be contested.
b) The event of the destruction of Jerusalem
occurred in 67 AD.
c) The state of Mike's awareness is unpredictable.





8

The head noun action never takes a derived nominal comnplemnent, no matter where the possessive agent is placed, or even if it is deleted. The examples in 1.9 are all unacceptable, even though the parallel forms in 1.10 are perfectly acceptable.

1.9a) *The action of Humphrey's refusal of the offer
caused trouble.
b) *Humphrey's action of refusal of the offer caused
'trouble.
c) *The action of refusal of the offer caused
trouble.

1.10a) The fact of Humphrey's refusal of the offer
caused trouble.
b) Humphrey's action of refusing the offer caused
trouble.
c) The action of refusing- the offer caused trouble.

Mvenzel (1969251) notes that gerundive nominal complements can also be complements of act. He states that acts are a subclass of actions, with the restriction that "an act is an action which the speaker either (a) disapproves of strongly (in a legal or moral sense); or (b) admires greatly." He also notes that this distinction does not seem to be recognized by some speakers.

While derived nominal complements do not occur as complements of action, a restricted class does occur as c omplements of act. The head noun act does not take derived nominal complements with object prepositional phrases. The examples in 1.11 illustrate the differences between gerundive nominal complements and derived nominal complements in






9

regard to the head nouns action and act. The adjective cowardly is more appropriate for the complements of act.

1.11 (in the conPtext ...was unexpected/cowardly.)

a) John's denying the request
b) John's action of denying the request
c) John's act of denying the request
d) John's denial of the request
e) *John's action of denial of the request
f) *John's act of denial of the request
g) John's act of denial

Gerundive nominal complements and derived nominal complements are alike in that they both can be complements of a limited set of head nouns in surface structure, and seem to always be complements of such nouns in underlying structure. The two types of complement differ in that only gerundive nominal complements can be complements of action.
Some Assumotions

In this study I will be making certain assumptions

bearing on the structures and rules I will discuss. First of all, I will assume that grammatical rules apply in a fixed order and cyclically. The cyclic application of rules means that the full set of rules would first apply in order to the deepest embedded sentence, S2, in 1.12.
1.12 SO


S 1


S 2






10

After all the rules have had a chance to apply to

the rules would apply in the same order to the next higher sentence, S1, which is in turn embedded in So. After all the rules have had a chance to apply to SI, the rules would

apply again in the same order to the highest sentence, S03

I will also adopt here a predicate-initial analysis of the underlying structure of English sentences. McCawley (1970) presents arguments for such an analysis for structural representations comparable to those in Chomsky (1965). A predicate-initial analysis is also at least implicit in the case grammar of Fillmore (1968). The underlying structures in case grammar differ greatly from the underlying structures postulated in Chomsky (1965). In Fillmore's case grammar, the noun phrases in deeply underlying structures are identified by their semantic relationship to the predicate of the sentence, and not by any syntactic relationship. Without adooting case grammar in to+o, I will assume that, before any syntactic rules have applied, there is no ordered relationship between the constituents of the underlying propositions, and that at least some syntactic rules must recognize semantic relationships and transform such semantic rela4
tionshirs into word-order syntactic relationships. For convenience of representation, however, I will assume that underlying sentences have structures like that in 1.13

before any syntactic rule has applied.5

1.13 S

PRED NP NP







Assuming predicate-initial order in structures such as

1.13 is a way of expressing the pivotal role of the predicate in most syntactic rules. An alternative statement could be that noun phrases are assigned linear order in relation to the predicate by syntactic rules.

McCawley (1970) explicitly assumes that underlying sentences have the order Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) before the application of any transformations, but does not present any evidence for preferring that order over one of Verb-Object

-Subject (VOS). I believe that the evidence points to a VOS order, if there is any order at all to the noun phrases to .he right of the predicate in deeply underlying structures.6 In the rest of this work, the relative order of noun phrases in trees representing deeply underlying structures will be arbitrary, and represent no claims as to the actual order.

Outline
This study is concerned primarily with the internal

structure of nominal complements, by which I mean the relationships of the constituents of nominal complements to each other, as opposed to the relationships of nominal complements to items which are not constituents of the said nominal complements. I compare such internal structures to those of sentences and of other clausal complements. I point out that the differences between such structures are regular, and easily accounted for by independently motivated syntactic rules, given certain conditions on the cycle in which the rules apply.






12

I do not discuss the problem of the apparent irregularities in the semantic relationship between related predicates and derived nominals. I will adopt Newmeyer's (1971) claim that, at the worst, the transformationalist position is no less adquate on this point than the Lexical Hypothesis, since, if there are no regularities, the information on restrictions on meanings of derived nominals must be part of the lexical entry& of the underlying predicate with the transformationalist position, of the underlying predicate/nominal with the Lexical Hypothesis.

Chapter Two is a discussion of the surface structure of derived nominal complements, and arguments for including in the class of derived nominal complements certain structures which have not previously been so identified. Chapter Three discusses the rules which do not apply in the derivation of derived nominal complements, or which have different conditions on applicability in derived nominal complements, but which apply without restriction to sentences and gerundive nominal complements. Chapter Four discusses the ordering of rules which will account for the structure of derived nominal complements, and the question of which cycle the appropriate rules apply on. Chapter Five summarizes the thesis, and presents certain questions of theoretical import.














NOTES


A source of possible confusion is the fact that both the nouns formed by adding a suffix to a verb stem, and the complements in which such nouns occur, can be called nominals, To avoid confusion, I will reserve the term nominal for the nouns so formed, and refer to the complements they occur in as nominal complements. I will use nominalization to refer to the process by which nominals are created. I will have more to say about the choice of the term complement below.
2The possessive agent on action is always identical

with the deleted agent of the complement of action. Menzel argues that the agent cannot have been raised from the complement. Among suggestions of possible sources for the possessive agent, he states that "in a grammar based on the transformationalist position...the agent on the head noun action would be derived from an underlying sentence embedded on the noun action, or more probably on the verb act." Ross (1972a) argues that sentences with verbs of action (which are the only sentences that can be embedded as complements of the head noun action) are embedded on the verb do in underlying structures, with the agent of do identical to the agent of the embedded sentence. The substitu13






14

tion of action for do in nominal complements, and the deletion of the lower of two identical agents (cf. EQUI-NP-DELETION in Chapter Three), will account for the above facts within the transformationalist position.
3 There are extensive arguments in the literature for cyclical ordering, I am not concerned here with the arguments over extrinsic vs. intrinsic ordering, but will merely state that assuming ordering permits useful generalizations, as in Chapter Four and Chapter Five.
At this point I am rejecting the Aspects model of grammar. The Aspects model has syntax as the most basic component of the grammar, with both semantics and phonology acting as interpretive components of the output of the syntactic component. I believe that this model is unrealistic, even as a model of competence rather than of performance. Speech is a stream of sound perceived as a linear string of distinct units. Semantic propositions, on the other hand, are unordered in any dimensional sense. There is no dimensional order implied in the statement that someone is the agent t of such-and-such action. Syntax, then, is that part of grammar which relates unordered semantic relationships to linearly ordered phonological strings.
5 James 1cCawley, during a discussion at the 1972 LSA Annual .meeting, summed up the predicate-initial hypothesis in the statement that if there is any linear order so early in the grammar, it is a predicate-initial order.
6 1 will present my arguments for this analysis in Albury (forthcoming).













CHAPTER TWO
DEFINING DERIVED NOMINAL COViPLEMENTS

First Definitions

Chomsky (1970) does not explicitly define derived nominal complements, but a definition may be extracted from the various examples he cites in discussing the characteristics of derived nominals. It is obvious throughout that Chomsky intends the class of derived nominals to include only those nominals which are morphologically derived from a verb by
1
means other than the suffix -ing. He explicitly excludes gerunds (those nomrainals derived by adding -ing to a verb) from the set of derived nominals. Chomsky (19701214) notes certain similarities to derived nominal complements shown by structures called "action nominals" in Lees (1963) and Fraser (1970), which have nominals formed with -ing, but he claims a number of differences which would seem to preclude treating them as derived nominal complements. I will have more to say about these forms below. Chomsky thus limits the term derived nominal to those nominals formed by adding a derivational suffix to a verb, such as refusal (from refuse) and marriage (from marry); nominals identical (except for stress) to verbs, such as search (from search) and

6 ot (from export); and nominals phonologically modified from a verb, such as deed (from did).
15






16

I will temporarily accept Chomsky's implied morphological definition of derived nominals, and define derived nominal complements as those complements in which nominals formed without an -in suffix are found. Starting from this definition of derived nominal complements, I would like to build up a detailed description of the structure of these complements. Chomsky's method of comparing sentences, gerundive nominal complements and derived nominal complements to illustrate the characteristics of derived nominal complements is useful, and I will adopt it here.

The Surface Structure of Derived Nominal Complements

Chomsky (1970:187-88) cites the sentences in 2.1 as having the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in

2.2 and the corresponding derived nominal complements in 2.3. The gerundive nominal complements have gerundive nominals corresponding to the verbs in the sentences, while the derived nominal complements have derived nominals corresponding to the verbs in the sentences.

2.1a) John is eager to please.
b) John refused the offer.
c) John criticized the book.

2.2a) John's being eager to please
b) John's refusing the offer
c) John's criticizing the book
2.3a) John's eagerness to please
b) John's refusal of the offer
c) John's criticism of the book Determiners

One characteristic shared by gerundive nominal complements and derived nominal complements is the presence of






17
possessive nouns corresponding to the subject nouns in the sentences. Chornsky points out that the two types of nominal complement differ in that the possessive nouns in derived nominal complements can be replaced by other determiners, as is shown by the derived nominal complements in 2.4 (of. 2.3), while the possessive nouns in gerundive nominal complements cannot be so replaced, as is indicated by the fact that forms like those in 2.5 (cf. 2.2) do not occur. The derived nominal complements in 2.4 appear to be parallel to the derived nominal complements in 2.3, but the derived nomin al comnplements in 2.6 are closer in meaning to those in 2.3 than the ones in 2.4 are. 2

2.4a) ?the eagerness to please
b) the refusal of the offer
c) the criticism of the book

2.5a) *the being eager to please
b) *the refusing the offer
c) *the criticizing the book

2.6a) ? the eagerness to please by John
b) the refusal of the offer by John
c) the criticism of the book by John Aective-Adverb Correspondences

A second difference between gerundive nominal complements and derived nominal complements which Chomsky discusses is the fact that derived nominal complements can have an adjective preceding the nominal, while gerundive nominal comnplements cannot. These prenominal adjectives correspond to adverbs in sentences and gerundive nominal complements, so that there are sentences like those in 2.7, with the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 2.8, and the corres-






18

ponding derived nominal complements in 2.9. The fact that strings like those in 2.10 are unacceptable shows that gerundive nominal complements do not take prenominal adjectives.
2.7a) John is overwhelmingly eager to please.
b) John abruptly refused the offer.
c) John criticized the book unmercifully.

2.8a) John's being overwhelmingly eager to please
b) John's abruptly refusing the offer
c) John's criticizing the book unmercifully

2.9a) John's overwhelming eagerness to please
b) John's abrupt refusal of the offer
c) John's unmerciful criticism of the book

2.10a) *John's being overwhelming eager to please
b) *John's abrupt refusing the offer
c) *John's unmerciful criticizing the book
The prenominal adjectives in some derived nominal complements, such as those in 2.11, do not have corresponding adverbs in gerundive nominal complements, as in 2.12, or sentences, as in 2.13.

2.11a) John's troublesome eagerness to please
b) John's untimely refusal of the offer
c) John's unmotivated criticism of the book

2.12a) *John's being troublesomely eager to please
b) *John's untimely refusing the offer
c) *John's criticizing the book unmotivatedly

2.13a) *John is troublesomely eager to please.
b) *John untimely refused the offer.
c) *John criticized the book unmotivatedly.

That the acceptability of the forms in 2.11, and the unacceptability of the forms in 2.12 and 2.13 is due to these adverbs alone can be seen by inspecting the forms in 2.1, 2.2, 2.7 and 2.8. The adjectives which appear in prenominal position in the derived nominal complements in 2.11 can also be predicated of such complements, as in 2.14.






19
2.14a) John's eagerness to please is troublesome.
b) John's refusal of the offer was untimely.
c) John's criticism of the book was unmotivated.
The prenominal adjectives in the derived nominal complements in 2.9 can also be predicated of those complements, as in 2.15.

2.15a) John's eagerness to please is overwhelming.
b) John's refusal of the offer was abrupt.
c) John's criticism of the book was unmerciful.
The parallel I have been drawing between the adverbs in sentences and gerundive nominal complements and the adjectives in derived nominal complements suggests that the adverbs and adjectives are derivationally related. The fact that the adverbs are morphologically derived from the adjectives by adding the suffix -ly reinforces that hypothesis.

The three-way correspondence between prenominal adjectives in derived nominal complements, adjectives predicated of derived nominal complements, and adverbs in sentences and gerundive nominal complements suggests that the adjectives and adverbs have as a common source a higher predicate. If the higher predicate is the highest matrix predicate (ignor,ng abstract higher predicates) then it may be expressed as an adverb of the embedded sentence (raised to surface sentencehood) or as a predicate on a derived nominal complement. If the higher predicate is in turn embedded under a predicate which will appear in surface structure, then it may be expressed as an adverb with a gerundive nominal complement, or as a prenominal adjective with a derived nominal complement. The higher predicate-prenominal adjective relation-






20

ship is also seen in simple noun phrases, so that no new rule need be postulated to derive prenominal adjectives in derived nominal complements from higher predicates.

Chomsky (1970,195) points out that a claim that the prenominal adjectives in derived nominal complements are derivationally related to adverbs leads to the prediction that sentences like those in 2.16 will have corresponding derived nominal complements like the structures in 2.17, which are not acceptable.

2.16a) John refused the offer in a surprising manner.
b) John is sincere to a limited extent.

2.17a) *John's refusal of' the offer in a surprising manner
b) *John's sincerity to a limited extent

However, there are structures like those in 2.18 which include derived nominal complements, and which seem to correspond to the sentences in 2.16'.

2.18a) the surprising manner of John's refusal of
the offer
b) the limited extent of John's sincerity

Adverbs which are morphologically derived from adjectives seem to be included within the scope of structures which have corresponding derived nominal complements, while adverbs which are prepositional phrases seem not to be included within the scope of such structures. It is not necessary to claim that the prenominal adjectives are derived from adverbs to support the claim that the prenominal adjectives and adverbs are derived from the same underlying structures. The restrictions on the inclusion of' adverbial prepositional phrases within the scope of derived nominal complements does not invalidate such a claim.






21

Object Pre positions

Another characteristic which distinguishes derived nominal complements from sentences and' 'gerundive nominal comnplements is the presence of a preposition preceding the noun phrases in derived nominal complements which correspond to the objects of verbs in sentences, if such object noun phrases do not already have a preposition. Among the sentences in 2.19, corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 2.20 and corresponding derived nominal complements in

2.21, only the derived nominal complements have the preposition of preceding the object.3

2.19a) John refused the offer.
b) John criticized the book.
c) John robbed the bank.

2.20a) John's refusing the offer
b) John's criticizing- the book
c) John's robbing the bank

2.21a) John's refusal of the offer
b) John's criticism of the book
c) John's robbery of the bank

When object noun phrases are preceded by prepositions in sentences such as those in 2.22 and in the corresponding Rerundive nominal complements in 2.23, then the same prepositions also appear in the corresponding derived nominal complements, as in 2.24.

2.22a) John was amused at the children's antics.
b) John delighted in teasing Alice.
c) John was doubtful about Dick's honesty.

2.23a) John's being amused at the children s antics
b) John's delighting in teasing Alice
c) John's being doubtful about Dick's honesty

2.24a) John's amusement at the children's antics
b) John's delight in teasing Alice
c) John's doubts about Dick's honesty





22

Pluralization

Another characteristic of derived nominals discussed by Chomsky (1970,189) is that they may be pluralized, while gerundive nominal complements may not. Thus, we find the derived nominal complements in 2.25, which correspond to the sentences in 2.26, while the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 2.27 are not pluralized.

2.25a) John's three proofs of the theorem
b) John's repeated attempts to scale the wall
c) Agnew's many attacks on the press

2.26a) John proved the theorem three (times, ways, etc.).
b) John repeatedly attempted to scale the wall.
c) Agnew attacked the press many times.

2.27a) John's proving the theorem three (times, ways, etc.)
b) John's repeatedly attempting to scale the wall
c) Agnew's attacking the press many times

The sentences in 2.26 and the gerundive nominal complements in 2.27 express repetitive events. The derived nominal complements in 2.25 also express repetitive events, but with plural nominals rather than adverbs of repetition. Repetition is not always expressed explicitly in sentences such as those in 2.28, which therefore have two sets of corresponding derived nominal complements, those in 2.29, which express explicitly the singularity of the events and those in 2.30, which express explicitly the repetition of the
4
event.

2.28a) John has proved the theorem.
b) John has attempted to scale the wall.
c) Agnew has attacked the press.

2.29a) John's proof of the theorem
b) John's attempt to scale the wall
c) Agnew's attack on the press






23

2.30a) John's proofs of' the theorem
b) John's attempts to scale the wall
c) Agnew's attacks on the press

Not all derived nominals can be pluralized. The sentences in 2.31 have the corresponding derived nominal complements with singular derived norainals in 2.32, but derived nominal complements with plural derived nominals like those in 2.33 corresponding to the sentences in 2.31 do not occur.

2.31a) The enemy has destroyed the city on three
occassions.
b) The crowd laughed repeatedly.

2.32a) the enemy's destruction of' the city on three
occassions
b) the crowd's repeated laughter

2.33a) *the enemy's destructions of' the city on three
occassions
b) *the crowd's repeated laughters Auxiliaries

Another characteristic of the structure of' derived nominal complements discussed by Chomsky (1970:189) is the absence of' any auxiliary verbs. Gerundive nominal compQlements, on the other hand, can have any auxiliary (with the exception exempliied by 2.35c) except modals. Perfective aspect can appear in gerundive nominal complements, so that sentences like those in 2-34a and b have the corresponding

Eerunclive nominal complements in 2.35a and b. Progressive aspect can also appear in gerundive nominal complements, but only in conjunction with perfective aspect, as in 2,35b, so that the sentence in 2.34c does not have a corresponding gerundive nominal complement with ben corresponding to a form of' be which is acceptable (cf. 2.35c and d).-





24

2.34a) John has criticized the book.
b) John had been criticizing the book.
c) John is criticizing the book.

2.35a) John's having criticized the book
b) John's having been criticizing the book
c) *John's being criticizing the book
d) John's criticizing the book
Forms of the verb be which appear as copulas in sentences with predicate adjectives or predicate nouns, or in combination with past/passive participles in passive sentences, such as those in 2.36, also appear in gerundive nominal complements such as those in 2.37. But the derived nominal complements in 2.38 which correspond to the sentences in 2.36 do not have any form of be.

2.36a) John is strong.
b) Alice is beautiful.
c) John is the chairman.
d) The city was destroyed by the enemy.
e) Abby was acquitted by the jury.
2.37a) John's being strong
b) Alice's being beautiful
c) John's being the chairman
d) the city's being destroyed by the enemy
e) Abby's being acquitted by the jury

2.38a) John's strength
b) Alice's beauty 6
c) John's chairmanship
d) the city's destruction by the enemy
e) Abby's acquittal by the jury A Redefinition

I would now like to abandon my first provisional definition of derived nominal complements as those complements with nominals formed without an -1ng suffix, and instead define derived nominal complements as those complements which show one or more of the following features: a wide






25

variety of' determiners; prenominal adjectives instead of' adverbs; pluralization of' the nominal; prepositions preceding object noun phrases when they do not appear in the corresponding sentences; and complete absence of' auxiliaries, including copulas and the passive be. The form of' the nominal in derived nominal complements does not enter into this definition.

Action Nominals

Chomsky's Analysis

There are nominal complements which satisfy the new

definition of' derived nominal complements given above, but which have what appear to be gerundive nominals corresponding to the verb, such as the nominal complements in 2.390 Nominal complements of' this type are called "action nominals" in Lees (1963) and Fraser (1970).

2.39a) John's refusing of the offer
b) john's proving of the theorem
c) the growing of' tomatoes

Chomsky (l970s214.-15) believes that these complements

belong to a third class of' nominal complements distinct from both 'gerundive nominal complements and derived nominal complements. He does not identify them as "action noniinals." Chomsky claims that these nominal complements appear to have the same internal structure of' noun phrases that derived nominal complements have, as evidenced by the possibility of' a determiner- other than a possessive noun appearing (cf'. 2.39c), but that prenominal adjectives seem quite unnatural in such complements. He says that the complement is limited in





26

productivity as well, so that we cannot get structures like those in 2.40. Chomsky (1970:215) finally states that "there is an artificiality to the whole construction that makes it quite resistant to systematic investigation."

2.40a) *the feeling sad
b) *the trying to win
c) *the arguing about money
d) *the leaving

I would like to put aside for now the problems involved in the forms in 2.39a and b and 2.40, and consider in detail the complement in 2.39c, the growing of tomatoes. Part of the data cited by Chomsky (1970:192) to support his claim that the Lexical Hypothesis provides the best explanation for the origin of derived nominals involves transitive verbs derived from intransitive verbs by the rule of CAUSATIVE FORA'ATION (cf. G. Lakoff, 1970), such as grow, as in John grovs tomatoes, derived from Zro as in tomatoes grow. At some point in its derivation, the underlying structure of john grows tomatoes can be represented by the tree in 2.41. The structure underlying tomatoes grow is embedded as S1 in the tree in 2.41,

2,41) 0

V NP NP
CAUSE I


V NP

grow tomatoes John

Chomsky points out that there is a derived nominal complement, the growth of tomatoes, which corresponds to the






27
sentence tomatoes grow, but not to the sentence John grows tomatoes, as would be expected from the apparently parallel example of the derived nominal complement, the rejection of the offer, which corresponds to the verb phrase reject the offer. In other words, the rejection of the offer is an object nominal complement, while the growth of tomatoes is a subject nominal complement, and Chomsky takes the fact that there is no interpretation of the growth of tomatoes as an object nominal complement as proof that there is no derived nominal complement corresponding to John grows tomatoes. In terms of the Lexical Hypothesis, this is to be expected because John grows tomatoes involves a derivation from an underlying structure which includes tomatoes grow as an embedded sentence, as in the tree in 2.41. This is consistent with the claim that derived nominals are associated lexically with the underlying verb. Since grow occurs in the lexicon only in the intransitive, noncausative sense, the transitive sense being derived transformationally by the rule of CAUSATIVE FORMATION, only the intransitive sense can have a corresponding derived nominal, according to the Lexical Hypothesis.

Some Counterexamoles to Chomsky's Analysis

Smith (1972) has pointed out that there are many exceptions to Chomsky's claims concerning the occurrence of derived nominals corresponding to verbs derived by the rule of CAUSATIVE FORMATION. The verb convert occurs as both transitive and intransitive, and both forms have associated






28

derived norninals. Thus, Robert's conversion to hedonism, which at some point in its derivation has an underlying structure like that of the embedded sentence S. in the tree in 2.4I2, and John's conversion of Robert to hedonism, which at some -ooint in its derivation has an underlying structure like that of the whole tree in 2.42, are both acceptable derived nominal complements. The derived nominal complement the conversion of Robert, like many other nominal complements such as the shooting of the hunters, is therefore interpretable as either a subject nominal complement or as an object nominal complement.

2.42 0



CAUSE

VNP NP

convert to Robert hedonism John

So-me verbs listed by Smith which also form derived nominals in both transitive and intransitive forms are exlode, di-vide, accelerate, e2Mand, repeat, neutralize,. conclude and unify. She then points out that all the listed counterexamples share a morphological property their derived nominals are formed with suffixes of Latin origin. She then goes on to claim that there are almost as many verbs of the typoe convert as there are of the type gr and then states what she sees as the conditioning factor in distinguishing the two types; "Whether or not a verb has a transitive






29

nominal depends on how the nominal is formed. If a causative verb takes a nominalizing suffix of Latin origin (-tion, -al, -merit), then it has both transitive and intransitive derived nominals. If a causative verb does not take such a nominalizing suffix, then it occurs only intransitively in derived nominals." She then observes that, in general, verbs of Latin origin form derived nominals with the suffixes of Latin origin, while verbs of what she calls Anglo-Saxon origin form derived nominals with the suffixes

-th, -ness, or Z (null), which can be considered to be native, as opposed to the suffixes borrowed from Latin.

Smith has, based on the data above, reached the conclusion that "the grammar must distinguish at least two classes of 'causative' verbs: those that do and do not have transitive derived nominals." As we have just seen above, that distinction is to be based on something like a native/borrowed-Latin dichotomy. It seems very strange, however, to state that a part of the lexicon associated with borrowed (Latinate) derivational suffixes shows more productivity than another part of the lexicon associated with native derivational suffixes. This raises the possibility that the causative verbs associated with native derivational suffixes also have corresponding derived nominals, but that for some reason SmIt and Chomsky have failed to recognize them. Using the definition of derived nominal complements I have developed above, I will now look for derived nominal complements corresponding to sentences with such causative verbs.





30

Nominals of Causatives

Consider verbs such as ro, raise and move. These

verbs occur in both intransitive and transitive forms, the latter being derived by the rule of CAUSATIVE FORML-ATICN. The verbs in the intransitive form are used in sentences such as those in 2.43, which have the corresponding derived
nominal complements in 2.44 and 2.45.7

2.43a) The tree grew slowly.
b) The temperature rose rapidly.
c) The table moved mysteriously.

2.44a) the tree's slow growth
b) the temperature's rapid rise
c) the table's mysterious movement
2.45a) the slow growth of the tree
b) the rapid rise of the temperature
c) the mysterious movement of the table

The verbs in the transitive form are used in sentences such as those in 2.46, which have the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 2.47, and the corresponding derived nominal complements in 2.48 and 2.49.

2. 46a) John grows tomatoes skillfully.
b) Tom raised the temperature deliberately.
c) Mike moved the table accidentally.

2.4?a) J ohn's growing tomatoes skillfully
b) Tom's raising the temperature deliberately
c) Mike's moving the table accidentally

2 .48a) John's skillful growing of tomatoes
b) Tom's deliberate raising of the temperature
c) Mike's accidental moving of the table

2.49a) the skillful growing of tomatoes by John
b) the deliberate raising of the temperature by Tom
c) the accidental moving of the table by Miike

The derived nominal complements in 2.48 and 2.49 are

completely consistent with the definition of derived nominal






31

complements which I have adopted. I will therefore assume for now that -g is one of the suffixes forming nominals in derived nominal complements, which happens to be homophonous with the gerundive suffix -_hg. Nominals of Deadjectival Verbs

The rule of CAUSATIVE FORMATION is not the only rule by which a verb may be derived from an underlying form with different properties. Smith (1972) mentions that we find the derived nominal complement the light's dimness, but not
*John's dimness of the light. Dim is homophonous for three senses: adjective, intransitive verb derived by the rule of INCHOATIVE FORMnATION (cf. G. Lakoff, 1970), and transitive verb derived by the rule of CAUSATIVE FORMATION. Other adjective-verb sets related by these rules are low:lower: lower and wide:widenswiden. The adjectives are used in sentences like those in 2.50, which have the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 2.51, and the corresponding derived nominal complements in 2.52 and 2.53.

2.50a) The light was dim.
b) The bridge was low.
c) The road was wide.

2.51a) the light's being dim
b) the bridge's being low
c) the road's being wide

2.52a) the light's dimness
b) the bridge's lowness
c) the road's width

2.53a) the dimness of the light
b) the lowness of the bridge
c) the width of the road






32

The intrans!ive verbs are used in sentences like those in 2.54, which have the corresponding gerundive nominal comDlements in 2.55, and the corresponding derived nominal complements in 2.56 and 2.57.

2.54a) The light slowly dimmed.
b) The bridge gradually lowered.
c) The road suddenly widened.

2.55a) the light's slowly dirmming
b) the bridge's gradually lowering
c) the road's suddenly widening

2.56a) the light's slow dimming
b) the bridge's gradual lowering
c) the road's sudden widening

2.57a) the slow dinmming of the light
b) the gradual lowering of the bridge
c) the sudden widening of the road

The transitive verbs are used in sentences like those

in 2.58, which have the correspondng gerundive nominal com-,ements- in 2.59, and the corresponding derived nominal complements in 2.60 and 2.61.

2.58a) John suddenly dimmed the light.
b) The tender gradually lowered the bridge.
c) the city widened the road recently,

2.59a) John's suddenly dimming the light
b) the tender's gradually lowering the bridge
c) the city's widening the road recently

2 60a) John's sudden dimming of the light
b) the tender's gradual lowering of the bridge
c) the city's recent widening of the road

2. 61a) the sudden dimming of the light by John
b) the gradual lowering of the bridge by the tender
c) the recent widening of the road by the city
All of the derived nominal complements in 2.56, 2.57,

2.60 and 2.61 have nominals formed with the -ing suffix. Only the nominals in 2.52 and 2.53, which correspond to






33
adjectives, are formed without the -ing suffix. Both this set of adjectives and verbs and the previous set of verbs show the sam e pattern. The form of the verb which is presumably entered in the lexicon (the intransitive form of gro rise and move and the adjective form of di, low and Lj) has a corresponding nominal in derived nominal complements formed by means other than the -ing suffix, while all the derived forms of the verbs have corresponding nominals in derived nominal complements formed with the -ing suffix. This suggests that the form of the associated nominals is specified in the lexicon, but that this specification is not retained when other forms of the verbs or adjectives are derived from the form entered in the lexicon. With verbs like convert, on the other hand, the specification of the form of the associated nominal is retained when another form of the verb is derived from the lexical entry. Other Nominals in -inog

Verbs derived from other underlying verbs are not the

only verbs to correspond to norninals in derived nominal complements formed with the -ing suffix. Sink is another verb which is used both intransitively and transitively. The intransitive use is illustrated in 2.62a, the transitive in

2.62b. These sentences have the corresponding gerunidive no-minal complements in 2.63, and the corresponding derived nominal complements in 2.64 and 2.65.

2.62a) The Bismark sank.
b) The British Navy sank the Bismark.








2.63a) the Bismark's sinking
b) the British Navy's sinking the Bismark

2.64a) the Bismark's sinking
b) the British Navy's sinking of the Bismark

2.65a) the sinking of the Bismark
b) the sinking of the Bismark by the British Navy

Presumably, there is no specification of the form of

the nominal in a derived nominal complement corresponding to sink in the lexical entry, so that the form with -ing is supplied by the grammar for sink intransitive and transitive just as it is supplied for the nominals in derived nominal complements corresponding to sentences with the derived verbs gro raise, move, dim, lower and widen. One consequence of this is that it is possible for the gerundive nominal complement and derived nominal complement corresponding to a particular sentence to be identical in surface structure, as are the forms in 2.63a and 2.64a. It will therefore not always be possible to decide whether a nominal complement is actually a gerundive nominal complement or a derived nominal complement, unless the context supplies such information.
One objection which might be made to the identification of any nominal complements with nominals formed with -ing as derived nominal complements is that they do not readily form plurals. However, it is not true that they never form plurals, as shown by the examples in 2.66.

2.66a) the wanderings of an old mind
b) the leavings of a great feast
c) the makings of a great scholar
d) the cravings of a glutton
e) the comings and goings of the workers





35
As was noted above (cf. 2.33), not all derived nominals form plurals, so the fact that many apparent derived nominals in -in do not is not strong counter-evidence. Paired Nominals

The nominal complements in 2.39a and b (repeated here in 2.67), cited by Chomsky (1970:214), appear to be derived nominal complements with nominals formed with -irZ which are parallel to the derived nominal complements in 2.68, which have nominals formed other than with the suffix -ing.

2.67a) John's refusing of the offer
b) John's proving of the theorem

2.68a) John's refusal of the offer
b) John's proof of the theorem

The derived nominal complements with nominals formed

other than with the -n suffix in 2.68 readily take prenominal adjectives, as was discussed above, so that we have derived nominal complements like those in 2.69t

2.69a) John's abrupt refusal of the offer
b) John's brilliant proof of the theorem
The nominal complements with nominals formed with the

-inz suffix in 2.67 seem to less readily accept prenominal adjectives, as is indicated by the strangeness of the nominal complements in 2.70. That this strangeness is not due to the nominal having an -_g suffix alone is shown by the normal occurrence of prenominal adjectives with derived nominal complements with nominals formed with -ig in 2.48,

2.49, 2.56, 2.57, 2.60 and 2.61 above.

2.7Oa) ?John's abrupt refusing of the offer
b) ?John's brilliant proving of the theorem






36

Chomnsky (1970:215) notes that derived nominal complements with nominals formed with the -incr suffix seem rather clumsy when a derived nominal complement with a nominal formed other than with the -i suffix also exists. It is also these nominal complements which do not readily take a prenominal adjective. Since I have claimed above that the suffix -ing in general appears in derived nominal complements when no other means of forming the nominal is specified, it seems possible that pairs of nominals like refusal: refusing and proof:proving represent a misapplication of the rule supplying the -1;ng suffix, and the full regularity of derived nominal complements with forms like refusing and proving is blocked by the existance of forms like refusal and ro of.

Some Apparent Counterexamples

Chomsky (1970:214) also noted that derives nominal complements with -L seem to be limited in production since we do not get forms like those in 2.40, repeated here as 2.71.

2.7ia) *the feeling sad
b) *the trying to win
c) *the arguing about money
d) *the leaving
The forms in 2.71 would presumably correspond to the verb phrases in 2.72.

2.72a) feel sad
b) try to win
c) argue about money
d) leave
Chomsky (1970:186) argues that sentences like 2.73a

have a structure of Noun Phrase-Verb-Predicate parallel to






37

the Noun Phrase-Verb-Noun Phrase structure of a sentence like 2.73b.

2.73a) John felt sad.
b) John felt sadness.

There is a derived nominal complement which corresponds to 2.73b, John's feeling of sadness. Peter Menzel (personal communication) has pointed out to me that feeling is the nominal of a derived nominal complement, and thus would be followed by a preposition, presumably of, so that the proper question is why we do not get *the feeling of sad. The presence of the preposition means that any complement of feeln within a derived nominal complement must be nominalized. Hence, derived nominalization can apply to an embedded sentence like that in 2.73b, but not to one like that in 2.73a, unless sad is nominalized to sadness as part of the nominalization of feel.

The nominal complement in 2,7!c, *the arguing about money would not be expected to occur because the regular derived nominal complement corresponding to argue about mone is the argument about money.

Chomsky (1970:214) gives as unacceptable the example :in

2.7!d, the leaving. At least some speakers do accept nominal complements like John's hurried leaving (cf. John left hurriedly), and I am told that such forms have appeared in print. My ovm judgment agrees with that of Chomsky, however. The dialects that accept forms like John's hurried leaving present no problem to my analysis, so I will turn to those dialects that do not accept such forms.








In my dialect, leave (=depart), try (attempt) (cf. 2.71b), be (exist, occur, be present), have (=possess) and live (=reside) (and other verbs) are alike in that they have no corresponding nominal forms which appear in derived nominal complememts. (I am refering here to be and-have when they are main surface verbs, not auxiliaries.) The existence of verbs such as these poses a serious challenge to the transformationalist position. It would appear that the rule (or rules) producing derived nominal complements is blocked from applying to underlying structures with certain verbs as their predicates. It is Chomsky's claim that this is one of a number of facts supporting the Lexical Hypothesis over the transformationalist position.

The verbs mentioned above (which are all of Germanic origin) occur in sentences like those in 2.74.

2.74a) John tried vainly to win the race.'
b) John left hurriedly on the bus.
c) There is a God.
d) There was a riot yesterday.
e) There is some wine in the bottle.
f) John has a car.
g) Bill usually lives in a hotel.

The Latinate synonyms of those verbs (for meanings

inherent in the sentences in 2.74) occur in sentences like those in 2.75.

2.75a) John attempted vainly to win the race.
b) John departed hurriedly on the bus.
c) There exists a God.
d) There occurred a riot yesterday.
e) There is some wine present in the bottle.
f) John possesses a car.
g) Bill usually resides in a hotel.






39
I find the sentences in 2.75 to be formal and even awkward in comparison to those in 2.74, a difference presumably

attributable to the choice of predicate.

All of these sentences have acceptable corresponding

gerundive nominal complements, those in 2.76 corresponding

to the sentences in 2.74, and those in 2.77 corresponding to

the sentences in 2.75.

2.76a) John's trying vainly to win the race
b) John's leaving hurriedly on the bus
c) there being a god
d) there being a riot yesterday
e) there being some wine in the bottle
f) John's having a car
g) Bill's usually living in a hotel

2.77a) John's vainly attempting to win--the race
b) John's departing hurriedly on the bus
c) there existing a god
d) there occurring a riot yesterday
e) there being some wine present in the bottle
f) John's possessing a car
g) Bill's usually residing in a hotel

Again, the gerundive nominal complements in 2.76 based

on Germanic verbs seem less formal that the gerundive nominal complements based on Latinate verbs in 2.77. 9

Finally, there are no derived nominal complements corresponding to the sentences in 2.74 and gerundive nominal

complements in 2.76, the forms in 2.78 being unacceptable.

2.78a) *John's vain trying to win the race
b) *John's hurried leaving on the bus
c) *the being of a god
d) *the being of a riot yesterday
e) *the being of some o.,ine in the bottle
f) *John's having of a car
g) *Bill's usual living in a hotel






40

On the other hand, the derived nominal complements in 2.79, which correspond to the sentences in 2.75 and gerundive nominal complements in 2.77, are perfectly acceptable.

2.79a) John's vain attempt to win the race
b) John's hurried departure on the bus
c) the existence of a god
d) the occurrence of a riot yesterday,
e) the presence of some wine in the bottle
f) John's possession of a car
g) Bill's usual residence in a hotel

It seems, therefore, that it is possible for a Germanic (or native) verb to have no corresponding nominal in a derived nominal complement when there is a closely synonymous Latinate verb with such a corresponding nominal. The transformationalist position may be maintained in the face of these examples in at least two ways: verbs like try, leave, be, have and live can be marked in the lexicon to block DE~RIVED NOMINAILIZATION, which ignores the existence of the Latinate synonyms; or, some sort of lexica-t alternation may be -posited, with the Latinate option being mandatory in derived nominal complements. I prefer the second position, and I will discuss some different evidence for such lexical alternation for the synonyms of be in Chapter Three. Action Nominals and the Head Noun Action

in %Chapter One I noted that derived nominal complements did not occur as complements of the head noun action. If action nominal complements are a subclass of derived nominal complements, then they should not occur as complements of action either. The examples in 2.80 show that this is indeed the case.





41

2.80a) *John's action of opening of the door
b) *John's action of sinking of the boat
c) *John's action of dimming of the light
d) *John's action of refusing of the offer
e) *John's action of proving of the theorem

Menzel (1970) argues that the head nouns associated

with nominal complements in specific structures define what the nominal complement is, i.e., a complement of event is an event, a complement of action is an action, etc. It is ironic that those structures called "action nominals" cannot be complements of the head noun action, and thus are not actions.

Summary

I have shown in this section that the so-called "action Inominals" have the surface structure of derived nominal complements. That is, the nominal complements sometimes called "action nominals" share with other derived nominal complements the features of a possible variety of determiners, prenominal adjectives corresponding to adverbs in sentences, prepositions with all objects, the possibility of pluralization (although less for action nominals than is so for other derived nominal complements), the complete absence of auxiliaries, and the restriction from being the complement of the head noun action. The fact that action nominal complements have nominals formed with the suffix -ing, as do gerundive nominal complements, ought to have no bearing on this classification.






~4.

Az-entive Nominais

Agentive nominal complements share the characteristics of derived nominal complements. The examples in 2.81, corresponding to the sentences in 2 82, show that such complements may have determiners other than possessive nouns, prenominal adjectives, object prepositions and pluralization. Agentive nominal complements do not have any reflexes of' auxiliaries.

2.81a) the short-sighted designers of this building
b) the unlucky holders of Imperial Russian bonds
c) the greedy despoilers of the Earth

2.82a) The ones who designed this building were
short -sighted.
b) The ones who held Imperial Russian bonds
were unlucky.
c) The ones who despoil the Earth are greedy.

*Some characteristics of agentive nominal complements

deserve further comment. Agentive nominal complements never have possessive nouns as determiners which correspond to underlying agents. When agentive nominal complements do have possessive nouns as determiners, as in 2.83, the possessive nouns correspond to the underlying objects of the verbs in sentences which correspond to the agentive nominal complements, as in 2.84.

2.83a) Mike's helper
b) General Electric's workers
c) America's educators

2.84a) Someone helps Mike.
b) Some people work for General Electric.
c) Some people educate America.






43

It is usually possible to get an agentless passive sentence closely corresponding to such agentive nominal complements, as in 2.85a and c, although 2.85b seems odd.

2.85a) Mike is helped.
b)??General Electric is worked for.
c) America is educated. (Not the stative reading.)

However, the sentences in 2.84 (and 2.85) are not the only ones corresponding to the agentive nominal complements in 2.83. For instance, on a different reading, 2.83c, America's educators, corresponds to the educators of America.

The absence of possessive nouns corresponding to underlying agents in agentive nominal complements is due to the fact that sentences corresponding to agentive nominal complements always have nonspecified agents. Other derived nominal complements may also correspond to sentences with nonspecific agents, as in the refusal of the offer, which, like the agentless passive sentence, the offer was refused, corresponds to an underlying structure of the form SOMEONE refused the offer.

The prenominal adjectives in agentive nominal complements are not always related to adverbs in corresponding sentences. Vendler (1968) points out that beautiful in the beautiful dancer may correspond in meaning to beautiful in the dancer is beautiful, or to beautiful in SOMEONE dances

beautifully.

The nominals in agentive nominal complements also seem to more readily form compounds with their objects than do the nominals of other derived nominal complements. Thus, we






44

find many compounds like those in 2.86 corresponding to the agentive nominal complements in 2.87.

2.86a) lion tamer
b) bookkeeper
c) shock absorber

2.87a) tamer of lions
b) keeper of books
c) absorber of shocks

But some nominals in other derived nominal complements also form such compounds, as in 2.88, corresponding to the derived nominal complements in 2.89.

2.88a) token payment
b) tax assessment c) art collection

2.89a) payment of a token
b) assessment of a tax
c) collection of art

Agentive nominal complements have the same surface

structure as derived nominal complements. I see no reason to not include agentive nominal complements in the class of derived nominal complements.
Summary :
In this chapter I have defined derived nominal complements in terms of surface structure as those nominal complements which allow a variety of determiners, allow prenominal adjectives which correspond to adverbs in sentences, have prepositions with all objects, and allow the nominal to be pluralized, but which have no auxiliaries. Using this definition, I have then argued that the structures known as action nominals and agentive nominals are really subclasses of the class of derived'nominal complements.













NOTES


1 Chomsky presumably also excludes agentive nominals formed with -er, although he never mentions them except to argue against the positing of abstract verbs underlying nominals which otherwise have no corresponding predicates. Agentive nominal complements share several characteristics with derived nominal complements, and I will argue below that agentive nominal complements are a special class of derived nominal complements.
2 The derived nominal complements in 2.4a and 2.6a seem quite strange to me, but 2.4a, at least, is acceptable in a context such as the eagerness to lease shown by John, which, however, seems to correspond to the sentence, an eagerness to ]lease was shown by John, and not to the sentence in 2.1a.
3 The preposition of is the unmarked form. Some verbs have corresponding derived nominal complements with other prepositions, e.g., attack:attack on.
Simple past tense seems to imply a single occurrence of an event unless otherwise specified. Present perfect tense seems to imply only at least one occurrence of an event.
5 The constraint on the occurrence of adjacent forms with the -in__g suffix, which blocks constructions like that in 2.35c, is discussed in Ross (1972b) and Milsark (1972).
45





46
6 The formation of derived nominal complements corresponding to sentences with predicate nouns does not seem to be completely free. Thus, while John's manhood is possible, it corresponds to a limited meaning of John is a man, and Jane's womanhood seems very strange. Nevertheless, many predicate nouns do have corresponding derived nominals, as can be seen in the sentences in i with the corresponding derived nominal complements in ii.

ia) Joan enjoys being a mother.
b) Ralph was governor recently?
c) Billy is a minor.
d) Stephen was a martyr.
e) John is a member in good standing in the lodge.
f) Sam is legally a pauper.

iia) Joan enjoys motherhood.
b) Ralph's recent governorship
c) Billy's minority
d) Stephen's martyrdom
e) John's membership in good standing in the lodge
f) Sam's legal pauperdom

Chomsky (1970:198-99) argues that the inclusion of verbs and adjectives in a category of predicator, as in G. Lakoff (1970:ll5ff.), is wrong, since nouns share the same distributional properties. The examples above of derived nominals corresponding to predicate nouns supports Chomsky's conclusion. Chomsky further claims, however, that such distributional properties are properties of lexical categories. It appears to be more correct to say that properties such as the stative-active distinction and the possession of a corresponding derived nominal, are properties of predicates. Such properties are exhibited by verbs (which are always predicates), adjectives (which presumably are always predicates in underlying structures) and predicate nouns.






4+7
7The corresponding gerundive nominal complements, as in i, which I find awkward, but still acceptable, are com-. pletely unacceptable to at least some speakers. I have no explanation for this fact.

ia) the tree's growing slowly
b) the temperature's rising rapidly
c) the table's moving mysteriously

More generally, possessive inanimate nouns are often awkward. Arnold Zwicky (personnel communication) pointed out that historically inanimates have -not always been able to form possessives in English. The two facts may be related.
8 Although move is borrowed ultimately from Latin and the derived nominal corresponding to the intransitive form of the verb is formed with -mnt move does not appear to belong to the class of Latinate verbs described by Smith (1972).

I will discuss the fact that there does not take the possessive suffix in gerundive -nominal complements in more detail in Chapter Three.













CHAPTER THREE
THE PRODUCTIVITY OF DERIVED NOMINAL COMPLEMENTS

The Evidence for Lack of Productivity

One of the three reasons Chomsky (1970:187-88) gives for rejecting a transformational account of the origin of derived nominal complements in favor of the Lexical Hypothesis is that gerundive nominal complements "can be formed fairly freely from propositions of subject-predicate form," while "productivity is much more restricted" for derived nominal complements. In support of this statement, Chomsky (1970:188-89) refers to the example of sentences like those in 3.1, which have the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.2, and the corresponding derived nominal complements in 3.3, while the sentences in 3.4 have the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.5, but the expected corresponding derived nominal complements in 3.6 are not

acceptable.

3.1a) John is eager to please.
b) John refused the offer.
c) John criticized the book.

3.2a) John's being eager to please
b) John's refusing the offer
c) John's criticizing the book

3.3a) John's eagerness to please
b) John's refusal of the offer
c) John's criticism of the book
48





49

3.4a) John is easy to pJ.easeb) John is certain to w% in the prize.
c) John amused the children with his stories.

3.5a) John's being easy to please
b) John's being certain to win the prize
c) John's amusing the children with his stories

3.6a) *John's easiness to please
b) *John's certainty to win the prize
c) *John's amusement of the children with his stories

Chomsky (1970:189) points out that there are acceptable derived nominal complements like those in 3.7 which superficially resemble the unacceptable strings in 3.6, and which correspond to the sentences in 3.8 and gerundive nominal compolements in 3.9, and comments, "these discrepancies between gerundive and derived nominal [complements] call -for explanation. Specifical-ly, we must determine why the examples of [3.6] are ruled out although those of [3.7] are permitted."

3.7a) John's eagerness to please
b) John's certainty that Bill will win the prize
c) John's amusement at the children's-antics

3.8a) John is eager to please.
b) John is certain that Bill will win the -Prize.
c) John was amused at the children's antics.

3-9a) John's being eager to please
b) John's being certain that Bill will win the prize
C) John's being amused at the children's antics

in this chapter I will try to answer Chomsky's question by showing t1hat sentences like those in 3.4, which do not nave acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements, have undergone certain transformational rules in their derivations which sentences like those in 3.8, which do have acceptable corresponding derived nominal co mplements, have not undergone. Chomsky (1970:191) claims that this is so






50

because derived nominal complements are noun phrases in deep structure, not embedded propositions. He claims that derived nominal complements correspond only to deep structure phrase markers and a few transforms. I will argue that most rules are blocked from applying to derived nominal complements, or have different conditions on their applicability to derived nominal complements, because they are nominalized embedded propositions. I will also show that many rules can apply in the derivation of gerundive nominal complements that cannot apply in the derivation of derived nominal complements.

I will show in detail how the application of a number

of rules is blocked or modified in the derivation of derived nominal complements. I will discuss the effect of adopting a nredicate-initial analysis on the formulation of rules, and certain consequent simplifications of the rules, particularly with regard to derived nominal complements. i will argue that certain facts of derived nominal complements raise problems for the currently accepted formulation of the rule of IT-EXTRAPOSITION, and that with a predicate-initial analysis, no rule of IT-EXTRAPOSITION is needed in a grammar of English. Throughout this chapter I will show that whenever a sentence does not have an acceptable corresponding derived nominal complement, it is because the sentence has undergone a rule in its derivation which is blocked from applying to derived nominal complements.





51
Chomsky's Subcategorization Account

I will first consider Chomsky's (1970:191) claim that a correct account of the facts of productivity of derived nominal complements should be based on subcategorization features. The pair of sentences in 3.10 and the pair of sentences in 3.11, with their corresponding gerundive and derived nominal complements, present parallel problems.
3.10a) John is easy to please.
b) John is eager to please.
3.11a) John is certain to win the prize.
b) John is certain that Bill will win the prize.
The corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.12 and 3.13 and the corresponding derived nominal complements in 3.14b and 3.15b are all acceptable, while the expected corresponding derived nominal complements in 3.14a and 3.15a are not acceptable.
3.12a) John's being easy to please
b) John's being eager to please
3.13a) John's being certain to win the prize
b) John's being certain that Bill will win the prize

3.14a) *JoImh's easiness to please
b) John's eagerness to please
3.15a) *John's certainty to win the prize
b) John's certainty that Bill will win the prize
Chomsky (1970:191) attempts to explain the acceptability of the derived nominal complements in 3.14b and 3.15b, in contrast with the unacceptability of forms like those in
3.14a and 3.15a, in terms of the subcategorization features of e eas and certain. Chomsky states that eager is entered in the lexicon with a strict subcategorization






52
feature indicating, that it can take a sentential complement, as in 3.16, derived from underlying structures something like those in 3.17.

3.16a) John is eager to please.
b) John is eager for us to please.

3.17a) John is eager [sJohn please SOMEONE]
b) John is eager [,we please SOMEONE]s

Chomsky says that no further comment is necessary to

account for the acceptability of the derived nominal complements in 3.18.

3.18a) John's eagerness to please
b) John's eagerness for us to please
According to the Lexical Hypothesis, the lexical entry for ager is also the entry for eagerness, and the strict subcategorization feature applies to adjective and nominal alike. Thus, ee can appear in a construction of the form Noun Phrase-Predicate-Sentential Complement, ad eagerness can appear in a construction of the form Possessive Noun-Nominal-Sentential Complement.

Chomsky claims that, on the other hand, there is no

such suboategorization feature in the lexical entry for easy and that there are no base phrase markers of the form e~sv-Sentential Complement. Chomsky (1970,191) says that easy appears in base phrase markers as an adjective predicated of propositions as subject, as in the sentences in

3.19, with sentences like those in 3.20 derived by I-EXTRAPOSITION, and with sentences like those in 3.21 derived in turn from extraposed sentences by TOUGH-MOVEENT.2





53
3
3.19a) To please John is easy.
b) For us to please John is easy.

3.20a) It is easy to please John.
b) It is easy for us to please John.

3.21a) John is easy to please.
b) John is easy for us to please.

3.22a) John is eager to please.4
b) John is eager for us to please.

Even though we get sentences like those in 3.21, which in surface form exactly parallel those in 3.22, Chomsky argues that just as easy cannot be introduced into structures of the form Subject-Predicate-Sentential Complement, easiness cannot be introduced into structures of the form Possessive Noun-Nominal-Sentential Complement, thus preventing the formation of derived nominal complements like those in 3.23.

3.23a) *John's easiness to please
b) *John's easiness for us to please

Chomsky assumes that gerundive nominal complements are transformationally derived from structures which are in turn derived from base structures. That is, 'ERUNDIVE NOMINALIZATION applies to embedded sentences which have already been subject to all or almost all cyclical rules. It is therefore possible to have gerundive nominal complements like those in 3.24.

3.24la) John's being easy to please
b) John's being easy for us to please

Chomsky is assuming that transformations apply to structures dominated by an S but not to structures dominated by an NP even though the two types of structures may be composed of the same lexical items.






54

Similarly, Chomsky (1970:191) states that certain, with the meaning used in 3.11b, John is certain that Bill will win the prize, also has a subcategorization feature which allows certain in this meaning to take a sentential complement in a structure like FS[NpJohn]NP[VP[ Vbe certain] V[ Bill will win the prize]VP]S, from which 3.11b is derived. Thus, the derived nominal certainty, corresponding to this meaning of certain, has the same subcategorization feature, and can appear in derived nominal complements with a sentential complement, as in 3.15b, John's certainty that Bill will win the prize.

Like the lexical entry for easy, the lexical entry for certain in the meaning used in 3.11a, John is certain to win the prize, has no subcategorization feature allowing certain in this meaning to take a sentential complement. Chomsky says that certain in this meaning appears in base phrase markers as an adjective predicated of propositions as subject, as in for John to win the prize is certain. Applying the same arguments Chomsky used with easy, sentences like it is certain for John to win the prize are derived by IT-EXTRAPOSITION, and sentences like John is certain to win the _rize are derived by RAISING-TO-SUBJECT from extraposed sentences.

According to the Lexical Hypothesis, derived nominals

occur in nominal structures corresponding to the base phrase markers of sentences. Such nominal structures are not subject to most rules which apply to sentences. The derived








nominal certainty corresponding to the second meaning of certain, like easiness, cannot occur in nominal structures corresponding to derived phrase markers.

Chomsky has argued that the lack of productivity of derived nominal complements is explai ned by the Lexical Hypothesis. Under that hypothesis, *John's easiness to please is not acceptable because the lexical entry underlying easy and easiness does not have a subcategorization feature allowing sentential complements. On the other hand, John's eagerness to please is acceptable because the lexical entry underlying eageer and eagerness has a subcategorization feature allowing sentential complements.

RAISING Rules

RAISING-TO-OBJECT

As was indicated in Note 2 of this chapter, RAISING is a general term for three different movement transformations. The first movement I will discuss here is from subject of an embedded sentence to object of the next highest sentence, as has occurred in the derivation of the sentences in 3.25, which are deriLved from the same underlying structures as the sentences in 3.26. 6

3.25a) John believes himself to be heroic.
b) Bill expects them to be here soon.
c) Dick is believed to have been involved by everyone.

3.26a) John believes that he is heroic.
b) Bill expects that they will be here soon.
c) Everyone believes that Dick was involved.

That the nouns in question have been raised to object

position in the higher sentences is indicated by the reflex-





56

ive form himself in 3.25a, the accusative them in 3.2'b and the fact that Dick is the derived subject in a passive sentence in 3.25C. Reflexivization is restricted to clause mates in English, pronouns take the accusative form in object position and an underlying object becomes the surface subject in passive sentences.

The sentences in 3.25, which have undergone RAISING-TO--OBJECT, have the acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.27, but no acceptable corresponding- derived nominal complements, the forms in 3.28 being unacceptable.

3.27a) John's believing himself to be heroic
b) Bill's expecting- them to be here soon
c) Dick's being believed by everyone to have been
involved

3.28a) *John's belief of himself to be heroic
b) *Bill's expectation of them to be here soon
c) *Dick's belief by everyone to have been involved

The sentences in 3.26, which have not undergone RAISING-TO -OBJECT, have the acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.29 and derived nominal complements in 3.30.

3.29a) John's believing that he is heroic
b) Bill's expecting that they will be here soon
c) everyone's believing that Dick was involved

3.'10a) John's belief that he is heroic
b) Bill's expectation that they will be here soon
c) everyone's belief that Dick was involved

?A!ISINGT -TO -SUBJECT

The second movement is from subject of an embedded sentence to subject of the next higher sentence, as has occurred





57

in the derivation of the sentences in 3.31, which are derived from the same underlying structures as the sentences in 3.32.
3.31a) John is certain to win the prize.
b) Bill is likely to be drafted.
c) Jerry appeared to open the door.

3.32a) It is certain that John will win the prize..
b) It is likely that Bill will be drafted.
c) It appeared that Jerry opened the door.

The sentences in 3.31, which have undergone

RAISING-TO-SUBJECT, have the acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.33, but no acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements, the forms in 3.34 being unacceptable.

3.33a) John's being certain to win the prize
b) Bill's being likely to be drafted c) Jerry's appearing to open the door

3.34a) *John's certainty to win the prize
b) *Bill's likelihood to be drafted
c) *Jerry's appearance to open the dock_7

The sentences in 3.32, which have not undergone

RAISING-TO-SUBJECTt have the acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.35.8

3.35a) it(s) being certain that John will win the prize
b) it(s) being likely that Bill will be drafted
c) it(s) appearing that Jerry opened the door

The apparently corresponding derived nominal complements in 3.36 are not acceptable, but the derived nominal complements in 3.37, which have the same word order as the sentences in 3.32, but do not have any reflex of it, are acceptable.






58

3.36a) *its certainty that John will win the prize
b) *its likelihood that Bill will be drafted
c) *its appearance that Jerry opened the door

3.37a) the certainty that John will win the prize
b) the likelihood that Bill will be drafted
c) the appearance that Jerry opened the door

I will argue below (cf. Dummy Subject Insertion) that

it in sentences like those in 3.32 is inserted, and not present in underlying structures. The unacceptability of the forms in 3.36, and the acceptability of the forms in 3.37 is simply explained by blocking IT-INSERTION in derived nominal

complements.

T0U H -M 0V *Ivrf".E

The third RAISING movement is from object of an embedded sentence to subject of the next higher sentence, as has occurred in the derivation of the sentences in 3.38, which are derived from the same underlying structures as the sentences in 3.39.

3.38a) John is easy to please.
b) Algebra is difficult to learn.
c) This test is fun to take.

3.39a) it is easy -to please John.
b) It is difficult to learn algebra.
c) It is fun to take this test.

The sentences in 3.38, which have undergone TOUGH-MOVE.NT, have the acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.40, but no acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements, the forms in 3.41 being unacceptable.

3.40a) John's being easy to please
b) algebra's being difficult to learn
c) this test's being fun to take





59
3.41a) *John's easiness to please
b) *algebra's difficulty to learn
c) *this test's fun to take
The sentences in 3.39, which have not undergone
TOUGH-MOVEMENT, have the acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.42.

3.42a) it(s) being easy to please
b) it(s) being difficult to learn algebra
c) it(s) being fun to take this test
The apparently corresponding derived nominal complements in 3.43 are not acceptable, but those in 3.44 are acceptable. The argument used with the examples in 3.36 and 3.37 applies here as well.

3.43a) *its easiness to please John
b) *its difficulty to learn algebra
c) *its fun to take this test

3.44a) ?the easiness of pleasing John
b) the difficulty of learning algebra
c) the fun of taking this test
RAISING-TO-OBJECT, RAISING-TO-SUBJECT and TOUGH-MOVEmENT do not apply in the derivation of derived nominal complements. The three rules share the property of moving a noun phrase to a higher sentence. They appear to apply at the same point in the cycle.10 G. Lakoff (1968) has argued that there is only one rule of RAISING (IT-R-EPLACEiMENT in his paper). To collapse the three types of RAISING to one, Lakoff has to write a complex rule, which includes simultaneous structural descriptions. I consider such a rule to be unlikely in a natural language. I will, therefore, suspend judgment on whether it is possible to collapse the RAISING rules.






6o

IT-EXTRAPOSiTiO lT

introduction

The rule of __T-EXTRAPOSITION was proposed by Rosenbaum (1967) to account for the relationship of sentences like those in 3.45 to the sentences in 3.46.11

3.45a) That John left so early is surprising.
b) For John to quit now would be a disaster.
c) That Mary will come to her senses is to be
hoped for.
3.46a) It is surprising that John left so early.
b) It would be a disaster for John to quit now.
c) It is to be hoped for that Mary will come to
her senses.

In Rosenbaum's analysis, the subject it in the sentences in 3.46 is present in deep structure as the head noun of noun phrases with the structure of 3.47. The rule of iIT-EX!RAPOSITION is given in 3.48.

3.47) NP
N Sit that John left so early

3.48) 1T-.-zXTR A -TION (Optional)

X N S Y
[+PRO(i.e. it)] 1$ 2l 4+3
1 2 3 4
If iT-EXTRAPOSITION does not apply, the head pronoun it is deleted. if IT-EXTRAPOSITION does apply, moving the embedded sentence to the right end of the next higher sentence, the head pronoun it is isolated in subject position, and no longer subject to deletion.

In this section I will first discuss the derivation of certain examples via the rule of IT-EXTRAPOSITION, showing






61

that the pattern of occurrence of derived nominal complements casts doubt on the validity of IT-EXTRAPOSITION as proposed by Rosenbaum. I will then consider other evidence counter to his analysis, and argue that there is no rule of IT-EXTRAPOSITION in English grammar. In a later section (cf. NP-PREPOSING) I will present an alternate analysis of the relationship between the sentences in 3.45 and 3.46. WNith Sublects of Predicate Adjectives

We have seen above that sentences like those in 3.49

have acceptable corresponding gerundive nominalcomplements, as in 3.50, and derived nominal complements, as in 3.51.

3.49a) It is certain that John will win the prize.
b) It is difficult to learn algebra.
c) It is fun to take this test.

3.50a) it(s) being certain that John will win the prize
b) it(s) being difficult to learn algebra
c) it(s) being fun to take this test

3,51ai) the certainty that John will win-the prize
ii) the certainty of John's winning the prize
b) the difficulty of learning algebra
c) the fun of taking this test

According to Chomsky's (1970) analysis, the sentences in 3.49 are derived from the phrase markers underlying the sentences in 3.52 by the rule of IT-EXTRAPOSITION. The sentences in 3.52 do not have acceptable corresponding gerundive nominal complements or derived nominal complements, as is shown by the unacceptability of the expected forms in

3.53 and 3.54.

3.52ai) That John will win the prize is possible.
ii) John's winning the prize is certain.
bi) To learn algebra is difficult.
ii) Learning algebra is difficult.






62

3.52ci) To take this test is fun.
ii) Taking this test is fun.

3.53ai) *that John will win the prize's being certain
ii) *John's winning the prize's being certain
bi) *to learn algebra's being difficult 1i) *learning algebra's being difficult
ci) *to take this test s being fun ii) *taking this test's being fun
3.54ai) *that John will win the prize's certainty
ii) *John's winning the prize's certainty
bi) *to learn algebra's difficulty
ii) *learning algebra's difficulty
ci) *to take this test's fun ii) *taking this test's fun

The Lexical Hypothesis predicts that there should be derived nominal complements corresponding to the sentences in 3.52, which are supposedly closer to base phrase markers than the extraposed sentences in 3.49, but the unacceptability of the strings in 3.53 and 3.54, in contrast to the acceptability of the nominal complements in 3.50 and 3.51, is counter to that prediction.12 With Passives

By Rosenbaum's analysis, IT-EXTRAPOSITION also applies to passive sentences with complements in the derived subject position. Thus, the extraposed sentences in 3.55 are derived from the phrase markers underlying the passive sentences in 3.56. The sentences in 3.56 do not have any acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements, the expected forms in 3.57 being unacceptable, but the extraposed passive sentences in 3.55 have the corresponding derived nominal complements in 3.58.
3.55a) It was discovered by John that Jerry was a
bigamist.
b) It is doubted by them that you will go.






63
3.56a) That Jerry was a bigamist was discovered by John.
b) That you will go is doubted by them.

3.57a) *that Jerry was a bigamist's discovery by John
b) *that you will go's doubting by them
3.58a) the discovery by John that Jerry was a bigamist
b) the doubting by them that you will go
Chomsky suggests that derived nominal complements such as those in 3.59 are derived by the obligatory application of a rule called AGENT-POSTPOSING (cf. Passive Sentences below) to the underlying noun phrases in 3.60.
3.59a) the necessity for John to leave
b) the likelihood that John will leave
3.60a) [Sfor John to leaves' necessity
b) [Sthat John will leave]s's likelihood
This solution will explain why the examples in 3.51 and
3.59 are acceptable while those in 3.53 and 3.54 are not. AGENT-POSTPOSING seems to be a poor name for a rule which moves complements in such structures, however, and there is a curious problem with forms like those in 3.57 and 3.58. If the fact that the derived nominal complements in 3.58 are acceptable but not those in 3.57 is to be explained by the ad hoc obligatory application of AGENT-POSTPOSING, we are left with the problem of accounting for the post-verbal k_-phrases in 3.58. I must reject Chomsky's implied claim that AGEN-PFOSTPOSING has applied in the derivations of the derived nominal complements in 3.58, but not in those in
3.59, and in so doing, reject his claim that AGENT-POSTPOSING moves any complement within derived nominal complements,






64

With Psvcholozical Predicates

iT-EXTRAPOSITION can also apply to sentences like those in 3.61. These are active sentences with complements as subjects. The verbs which permit this construction share a number of other characteristics, and will be called osycholozical predicates here (cf. Postal, 1971:39-54, and the section Psvcholozical Predicates, below). The sentences in

3.61 are subject to IT-EXTRAPOSITION in Rosenbaum's analysis, yielding the sentences in 3.62.

3.61a) That John is here surprises me.
b) For Mary to be so late worries Bill.
c) For Jim to leave now would disturb Alice,

3.62a) It surprises me that John is here.
b) It worries Bill for Mary to be so late.
c) it would disturb Alice for Bill to leave now.

Neither the sentences in 3.61 nor the sentences in 3.62 have acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements, as shown by the unacceptable forms in 3.63 and 3.64, and there are no acceptable derived nominal complements with determiners which are not possessive nouns corresponding to the extraposed sentences in 3.61, as is shown by the unacceptable examples in 3.65.
3.63a) *that John is here's surprise to me
b) *for Mary to be so late's worry to Bill
c) *for Jim to leave now's disturbance of Alice
3.64a) *its surprise to me that John is here
b) *its worry to bill for Mary to be so late
c) *its disturbance of Alice for Bill to leave now

3.65a) *the surprise to me that John is here
b) *the worry to Bill for Mary to be so late
c) *the disturbance of Alice for Bill to leave now






65

Psychological predicates appear to be the only predic t.es which form extraposed sentences which do not have acceptable corresponding derived nominal complements. Further Problems with the Rule

The acceptable derived nominal complements in 3.51,

3.58 and 3.59 all show the same order of major constituents as the extraposed sentences in 3.46, 3.49 and 3.55. There is no subject pronoun it in these derived nominal complements. This fact can be explained by having it in extraposed sentences supplied by a rule of IT-INSERTION, which does not apply to derived nominal complements (cf. Dummy Subject inserting, below). The arguments for not having it present in deep structure are well summarized in Stockwell et al. (1973:527ff.). Given the absence of it in underlying structures, the derived nominal complements in 3.51, 3.58 and 3.59 may be taken as corresponding directly- to the extraposed sentences cited above. If Chomsky's claim that derived nominal complements correspond only to base phrase markers is at all correct, then extraposed sentences would appear to be more basic than nonextraposed sentences.

Although this conclusion goes against a generally accepted analysis, there is some independent supporting evidence. The intransitive verbs seem, annear and h take subject

complements which must be extraposed.13 The extraposed sentences in 3.66 are acceptable while the nonextraposed ones in 3.67 are not.





66

3.66a) It seems that John is late.
b) It appears that Iildred has fallen down.
c) It happens that Mlike is a brilliant student.

3.67a) *That John is late seems.
b) *That M~ildred has fallen down appears.
c) *That Mike is a brilliant student happens.

It would seem that at least some sentences can be
derived only by obligatory application of IT-EXTRAPOSITION. I have noted above in Chapter One certain arguments for assuming an underlying predicate-initial order in English. All extraposed sentences, including those resulting from the obligatory application of IT-EXTRAPOSITION, have a predicate-initial order, if the presence of the semantically empty pronoun it in subject position is discounted. I propose that there is no rule of IT-EXTRAPOSITION in English, and that nonextraposed sentences are derived from the structures underlying extraposed sentences. I will discuss the details of such derivations in the section on NP-PREPOSING below.
Passive Sentences
I will turn next to a problem which is not raised by
Chomsky's examples; that of derived nominal complements corresponding to passive sentences. The sentences in 3.68 have the corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.69 and derived nominal complements in 3.70.

3.68a) John refused the offer.
b) John criticized the book.
c) The enemy destroyed the city.
d) The jury acquitted Abby.

3.69a) John's refusing the offer
b) John's criticizing the book





67

3. 69c) the enemy's destroying- the city
d) the jury's acquitting Abby
3.70a) John's refusal of the offer
b) John's criticism of the book
c) the enemy's destruction of the city
d) the jury's acquittal of Abby

The sentences in 3.68 also have the corresponding passive sentences in 3.71.

3.71a) The offer was refused by John.
b) The book was criticized by John,
c) The city was destroyed by the enemy.
d) Abby was acquitted by the jury.

The passive sentences in 3.71 have the correspDondin'g gerundive nominal complements in 3.72, but only the sentiences in 3.71c and d have the corresponding derived nominal complements in 3.73c and d, while the strings in 3-73a and b, which seem to correspond to the sentences in 3.71a and b, are not acceptable.

3.72a) the offer's being refused by John
b) the book's being criticized by John
c) the city's being destroyed by the enemy
d) Abby's being acquitted by the jury

3.73a) *the offer's refusal by John
b) *'he book's criticism by John
c) he city's destruction by the enemy
d) Abby's acquittal by the jury

The derived nominal complements in 3.74, all of which are acceptable, are related to the derived nominal complements in 3.70 and 3.73, but do not correspond exactly to any sentences. These derived nominal complements would correspond to predicate-initial underlying structures.

3.74a) the refusal of the offer by John
b) the criticism of the book by John
c) the destruction of the city by the enemy
d) the. acquittal of Abby by the jury






68

Chomsky's claim that derived nominal complements correspond only to base phrase markers creates a problem here if a predicate-initial analysis is not adopted. Not only are there derived nominal complements corresponding to active sentences, as in 3.70, there are also derived nominal complements corresponding to some, but not all, passive sentences, as in 3.73, and there are derived nominal complements which do not correspond to any sentences at all (what might be called "half-passives"), as in 3.74.

Chomsky (1970z202ff.) proposes two transformations

which must both apply in the derivation of passive sentences from phrase markers parallel to those underlying active sentences, one of which also can apply to noun phrases (including derived nominal complements). Chomsky proposes a rule of NP-PREPOSING which will transform phrases like those in

3.75 into phrases like those in 3.76. This rL'e thus applies to noun phrases whether they have a simple noun or a derived nominal as their head.

3.75a) the picture of John
b) the bottom of the barrel
c) the destruction of the city
d) the murder of John

3.76a) John's picture
b) the barrel's bottom (the literal meaning)
c) the city's destruction
d) John's murder

There are similar phrases which do not undergo the rule of NP-PREPOSING, and again the phrases can have either a simple noun or a derived nominal as their head. The phrases in

3.77 do not have acceptable corresponding forms like those in 3.78.





69

3.77a) the algebra of revolution
b) the strategy of war
c) the refusal of the offer d) the criticism of the book

3.78a) *revolution's algebra
b) *war's strategy
c) *the offer's refusal
d) *the book's criticism

Chomsky proposed a rule of AGENT-POSTPOSING to move the subject noun phrase to a post-verbal position in phrase markers which are to become passive sentences. NP-PREPOSING would then apply to move the object noun phrase into pre-verbal position. Chomsky goes on to say that since passivizability is a property of verbs (i.e., is a governed process), then derived nominal complements containing nominals corresponding to such verbs can also be passivized. it would seem that the passivizability of a verb is best expressed by having AGENT-POSTPOSING apply optionally to structures with verbs which can appear in passive sentences. That is, verbs which can appear in passive sentences are marked as allowing the optional application of AGENT-POSTPOSING, while verbs which cannot appear in passive sentences are marked as not allowing the application of AGENT-POSTPOSING. On the other hand, NP-PREPOSING applies obligatorily in the derivation of any sentence in which AGENT-POSTPOSING has already applied, and optionally in the derivation of any noun phrase (including derived nominal complements) whose head noun (or nominal) is marked as allowing the rule. A given lexical entry may therefore be marked differently for AGENT-POSTPOSING and for NP-PREPOSING.






70

I will claim here that there is a rule of AGENT-PREPOSING (the reverse of Chomsky's AGENT-POSTPOSING) which applies to predicate-initial underlying structures to yield active sentences and nominal complements such as those in

3.68, 3.69 and 3.70. If AGENT-PREPOSING does not apply, then the resulting obligatory application of NP-PREPOSING gives the passive sentences and gerundive nominal complements in 3.71 and 3.72. If AGENT-PREPOSING does not apply in the derivation of derived nominal complements, then NP-PREPOSING applies optionally with some underlying verbs, giving the pairs of derived nominal complements in 3.73c and d and 3.74c and d, and not at all with other verbs, giving the derived nominal complements in 3.74a and b.
By Chomsky's analysis, passive sentences are derived

from structures underlying active sentences by the application of two rules, both of which must apply. .y my analysis, all sentences are derived from underlying predicate-initial structures, with active sentences derived by one rule and passive sentences by another rule.
NP-PREPOSING

With Simole Noun Phrases
The application of AGENT-PREPOSING to underlying predicate-initial structures with agents yields active sentences like those in 3.79, and their corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.80 and derived nominal complements in 3.81.






71

3.79a) The enemy destroyed the city.
b) The jury acquitted Abby.
c) John refused the offer.
d) John criticized the book.

3.80a) the enemy's destroying the city
b) the jury's acquitting Abby c) John's refusing the offer
d) John's criticizing the book

3.81a) the enemy's destruction of the city
b) the jury's acquittal of Abby
c) John's refusal of the offer
d) John's criticism of the book

If AGENT-PREPOSING does not apply to the structures

underlying the active sentences and nominal complements in

3.79, 3.80 and 3.81, then the rule of NP-PR4EPOSING applies

obligatorily in the derivation of passive sentences and gerundive nominal complements like those in 3.82 and 3.83.

3.82a) The city was destroyed by the enemy.
b) Abby was acquitted by the jury.
c) The offer was refused by John.
d) The book was criticized by John.

3.83a) the city's being destroyed by the-enemy
b) Abby's being acquitted by the jury
c) the offer's being refused by John
d) the book's being criticized by John

Either AS-NT-PREPOSING or NP-PREPOSING must apply in

the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal complements. Forms like those in 3.84 and 3.85, in which neither

rule has applied, are not acceptable.

3.84a) *Was destroyed the city by the enemy.
b) *Was acquitted Abby by the jury.
c) *Was refused the offer by John.
d) *Was criticized the book by John.

3.85a) *being destroyed the city by the enemy
b) *being acquitted Abby by the jury
c) *being refused the offer by John
d) *being criticized the book by John






72

On the other hand, in the derivation of derived nominal complements, if AG NT-PR'POSING does not apply, then the application of NP-PREPOSING is optional for some nominals (or underlying verbs), giving the paired acceptable derived nominal complements in 3.86a and b and 3.87a and b, and blocked for other nominals, so that the derived nominal complements in 3.87c and d are acceptable, but not those in

3.86c and d.

3.86a) the city's destruction by the enemy
b) Abby's acquittal by the jury c) *the offer's refusal by John
d) *the book's criticism by John

3.87a) the destruction of the city by the enemy
b) the acquittal of Abby by the jury c) the refusal of the offer by John
d) the criticism of the book by John

If there is no specified agent noun phrase in an underlying structure, then NP-PREPOSING applies obligatorily in the derivation of sentences, as in 3.88, and gerundive nominal complements, as in 3.89, with the forms in 3.90 and 3.91 being unacceptable.

3.88a) The city was destroyed.
b) Abby was acquitted.
c) 2he offer was refused.
d) The book was criticized.

3.89a) the city's being destroyed
b) Abby's being acquitted
c) the offer's being refused
d) the book's being criticized

3.90a) *Was destroyed the city.
b) *Was acquitted Abby.
c) *Was refused the offer.
d) *Was criticized the book

3.91a) *being destroyed the city
b) *being acquitted Abby
c) *being refused the offer
d) *being criticized the book





73

Again,.when AGENT-PRoPOSING has not applied in the

derivation of' a derived nominal complement, the application of NP-PREPOSING is optional for some norninals and blocked for others, as indicated by the derived nominal complements in 3.92 and 3.93.

3.92a) the city's destruction
b) Abby's acquittal
c) *the offer's refusal
d) *the book's criticism

3.93a) the destruction of the city
b) the acquittal of Abby
c) the refusal of' the offer
d) the criticism of the book

Finally, if the underlying predicate-initial structure contains an intransitive predicate, then NP-PREPOSING applies obligatorily in the derivation of' sentences like those in 3.9)4 and gerundive nominal complements like those in 3.95, with the forms in 3.96 and 3.97 being unacceptable.

3.94a) The boat sank suddenly.
b) John arrived.
c) Nvary is kind.
d) Bill is friendly.

3.95a) the boat' s sinking suddenly
b) John's arriving
c) Mary's being kind
d) Bill's being friendly

3.96a) *Sank the boat suddenly.
b) *Arrived John.
c) *Is kind Mary.
d) *is friendly Bill.

3.97a) *sinking the boat suddenly
b) *arriving John
c) *being kind Mdary
d) *being friendly Bill

Again, the application of NP-PREPOSING in the derivation of derived nominal complements corresponding to






74

intransitive sentences is'optional, so that the derived nominal complements in 3.98 and 3.99 are acceptable.

3.98a) the boat's sudden sinking
b) John's arrival c) Mary's kindness
d) Bill's friendliness

3.99a) the sudden sinking of the boat
b) the arrival of John c) the kindness of Mary
d) the friendliness of Bill

The application of NP-PREPOSING to simple noun phrases shows a simple pattern. If there is no noun phrase in subject position when NP-PREPOSING is applicable (as is the case with all intransitive predicates, transitive verbs with unspecified agents and transitive verbs with specified agents to which AGENT-PREPOSING has not applied), then NP-PREPOSING moves the underlying object noun phrase into subject position. This movement is obligatory in the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal complements and optional in the derivation of derived nominal complements (with the exception that certain nominals corresponding to transitive verbs block the application of the rule in derived nominal complements). With Nominal Comolements

As I indicated in Chapter One, I have accepted Menzel's (1969) analysis of nominal complements as complements of a restricted set of head nouns in underlying structures. These head nouns are optionally deletable, and in the following examples will be enclosed in parentheses to indicate this optionality.






?5

Again, I will claim that AGENT-PREPOSING has applied to

predicate-initial underlying structures to yield the sentences in 3.100, and their corresponding gerundive nominal

complements in 3.101 and derived nominal complements in 3.102.

3.100a) John complained about Peter's (action of)
insulting Tom.
b) Jerry testified about Bill's (action of)
leaving Peggy.
c) Mike attested to (the fact of) Mary's participation in the crime.
d) David reported on (the event of) Alice's
disappearance.

3.101a) John's complaining about Peter's (action of)
insulting Tom
b) Jerry's testifying about Bill's (action of)
leaving Peggy
c) Mike's attesting to (the fact of) Mary's
participation in the crime
d) David's reporting on (the event of) Alice's
disappearance

3.102a) John's complaint about Peter's (action of)
insulting Tom
b) Jerry's testimony about Bill's (action of)
leaving Peggy
c) 2ike's attestation to (the fact of) Mary's
participation in the crime
d) David's report on (the event of) Alice's
disappearance

The verbs complain about, attest to and report on allow

passivization in my dialect, while testify about does not.

That is, AGENT-PREPOSING applies optionally to the first

three predicates and obligatorily to testify about in the

derivation of sentences. If AGENT-PREPOSING does not apply,

then NP-PREPOSING must apply to yield sentences like those

in 3.103. The expected corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.104 and derived nominal complements in 3.105

are not acceptable (cf. Note 12 above).






76

3.103a) Peter's (action of) insulting Tom was complained about by Torn.
b) *Bili's (action of) leaving Peggy was testified
about by Jerry.
c) (The fact of) Mary's participation in the
crime was attested to by Mike..
d) (The event of) Alice's disappearance was
reported on by David.

3.104a) *Peter's (action of) insulting Tomn's being
complained about by John
b) *Bill's (action of) leaving Peggy's being
testified about by Jerry
c) *(the fact of) Mary's participation in the
crime's being attested to by Mike
d) *(the event of) Alice's disappearance's being
reported on by David

3.105a) *Peter's (action of) insulting Tom's complaint
about by John
b) HBill's (action of) leaving Peggy's testimony
about by Jerry
c) *the fact of) Mary's participation in the
crime's attestation to by Mike
d) *(the event of) Alice's disappearance's5 report
on by David

Failure of both AGENT-PREPOSING and NP-PREPOSI:G to

apply in the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal

complements results in unacceptable forms, as in 3.106 and

3.107, but derived nominal complements to which neither rule

has applied are acceptable, including one with testimony

about (from testify about), as in 3.108.

3.106a) *Wlas complained about by John Peter's (action
of) insulting Tom.
b) *Was testified about by Jerry Bill's (action
of) leaving Peggy.
c) *Wa attested to by Mike (the fact of) Mary's
participation in the crime.
d) *Wlas reported on by David (the event of)
Alice 's disappearance.

3.107a) *being complained about by John Peter's (action
of) insulting Tom
b) *being testified about by Jerry Bill's (action
of) leaving Peggy





77

3.107c) *being attested to by Mike (the fact of) Mary's
participation in the crime
d) *being reported on by David (the event of)
Alice's disappearance

3.108a) the complaint by John about Peter's (action
of) insulting Tom
b) the testimony by Jerry about Bill's (action
of) leaving Peggy
c) the attestation by Mike to (the fact of)
Mary's participation in the crime
d) the report by David on (the event of) Alice's
disappearance

While the head nouns of the embedded nominal complemaents in the examples above may be deleted, they may not be

separated from the complements, i.e., by moving the head

nouns into surface subject position but leaving the complements at the right end of the structure (of. With That-Compolements, below), so that all of the examples in 3.109,

3.110 and 3,111 are unacceptable.

3.109a) *Peter's action was complained about by John of
insulting Tom.
b) *Bill's action was testified about by Mike of
leaving Alice.
c) *The fact was attested to by Mike of Mary's
participation in the crime.
d) *The event was reported on by David of Alice's
disappearance.

3.110a) *?Peterls action's being complained about by
John of insulting Tom
b) *Bill's action's being testified about by Jerry
of leaving Peggy
c) *the fact's being attested to by Mike of Mary's
participation in the crime
d) *the event's being reported on by David of
Alice's disappearance

3.1l1a) *Peterls action's complaint by John about
insulting Torn
b) *Bill's action's testimony by Jerry about
.leaving Peggy
c) *the fact's attestation by Mike to Mary's participation in the crime,
d) *the event's report by David on Alice's disappearance






78

Like destroy, acquit, refuse and criticize, the predicates cmolain about, attest to and report on also form

agentless passives. Again, AGENT-PREPOSING does not apply

to underlying structures with unspecified agents. Thus,

NP-PREPOSING must apply in the derivation of sentences, as

in 3.112, but does not apply in the derivation of gerundive

and derived nominal complements, so that the forms in 3.113

and 3.114 are not acceptable.

3.112a) Peter's (action of) insulting Tom was complained about.
b) (The fact of) Mary's participation in the
crime was attested to.
c) (The event of) Alice's disappearance was
reported on.

3.113a) *Peter's (action of) insulting Tom's being
complained about
b) *(the fact of) Mary's participation in the
crime's being attested to
c) *(the event of) Alice's disappearance's
being reported on

3.114a) *Peter's (action of) insulting Tom's complaint
about
b) *(the fact of) Mary's participation in the
crime's attestation to
c) *(the event of) Alice's disappearance's
report on

Failure of both AGENT-PREPOSING and NP-PREPOSING to

apply in the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal

complements results in unacceptable forms, as in 3.115 and

3.116, but derived nominal complements to which neither

rule has applied, as in 3.117, are acceptable.

3.115a) *Was complained about Peter's (action of)
insulting Tom.
b) *Was attested to (the fact of) Mary's participation in the crime.
c) *Was reported on (the event of) Alice's disappearance.






79

3.116a) *beinz complained about Peter's (action of)
insulting Tom
b) *being attested to (the fact of) .,iary's participation in the crime
c) *beinz reported on (the event of) Alice's
disappearance
3.117a) the complaint about Peter's (action of)
insulting Tom
b) the attestation to (the fact of) iviary's
participation in the crime
c) the report on (the event of) Alice's disappearance

Again, while the head nouns of the embedded nominal complements in the examples above may be deleted, they may not

be separated from the complements, so that all the examples

in 3.118, 3.119 and 3.120 are unacceptable.

3.118a) *Peter's action was complained about of
insulting Tom.
b) *The fact was attested to of Mary's participation in the crime.
c) *The event was reported on of Alice's disappearance.

3.119a) *Peter's action's being complained about of
insulting Tom
b) *the fact's being attested to of Mary's participation in the crime
c) *the event's being reported on of Alice's
disappearance

3.120a) *Peter's action's complaint about insulting
TOfl
b) *the fact's attestation to Mary's participation in the crime
c) *the event's report on Alice's disappearance

if the underlying predicate-initial structure contains

an intransitive predicate, then NP-PREPOSING applies obligatorily in the derivation of sentences, as in 3.121, but is

blocked from applying in the derivation of nominal complements, so that the forms in 3.122 and 3.123 are unacceptable.






80

3.121a) (The fact of) John's leaving so early was
unexpected.
b) Bill's (action of) refusing the offer is
unfortunate.
c) (The event of) Dick's resignation is likely.
d) (The fact of) Jimmy's testimony was remarkable.

3.122a) *(the fact of) John's leaving so early's being
unexpected
b) *Bill's (action of) refusing the offer's being
unfortunate
c) *(the event of) Dick's resignation's being
likely
d) *(the fact of) Jim-my's testimony's being
remarkable

3.123a) *(the fact of) John's leaving so early's
unexpectedness
b) *Bill's (action of) refusing the offer's
unfortunateness
c) *(the event of) Dick's resignation's likelihood
d) *(the fact of) Jimmy's testimony's remarkableness
Failure of both AG2NT-PREPOSING and NP-PREPOSING to

apply in the derivation of sentences and gerundive nominal
complements results in unacceptable forms, as in 3.124 and
3.125, but derived nominal complements to which neither rule

has applied, as in 3.126, are acceptable.
3.124a) *Was unexpected (the fact of) John's leaving
so early.
b) *Was unfortunate Bill's (action of) refusing
the offer
c) *is likely (the event of) Dick's resignation.
d) *,Tas remarkable (the fact of) Jimmy's testimony.
3.125a) *being unexpected (the fact of) John's leaving
so early
b) *being unfortunate Bill's (action of) refusing
the offer
c) *being likely (the event of) Dick's resignation
d) *being remarkable (the fact of) Jimmy's testimony

3.126a) the unexpectedness of (the fact of) John's
leaving so early
b) the unforunateness of Bill's (action of)
refusing the offer
c) the likelihood of (the event of) Dick's
resignation
d) the remarkableness of (the fact of) Jimmy's
testimony






81

Again, while the head nouns of the embedded nominal complements in the examples above may be deleted, they may not be separated from the complements, so that all the examples in 3.127, 3.128 and 3.129 are unacceptable.

3.127a) *The fact was unexpected of John's leaving so
early.
b) *Bill's action was unfortunate of refusing the
offer.
c) *The event was likely of Dick's resignation.
d) *The fact was remarkable of Jimmy's testimony.

3.128a) *the fact's being unexpected of John's leaving
so early
b) *Bill's action's being unfortunate of refusing
the offer
c) *the event's being likely of Dick's resignation
d) *the fact's being remarkable of Jimmy's
testimony

3.129a) *the fact's unexpectedness of John's leaving
so early
b) *Bill's action's unfortunateness of refusing
the offer
c) *the event's likelihood of Dick's resignation
d) *the fact's remarkableness of Jimmy's
testimony

The examples above show that either AGENT-PREPOSING or NP-PREPOSING must apply in the derivation of sentences with embedded nominal complements, that the only acceptable gerundive nominal complements with embedded nominal complements are those to which AGENT-PREPOSING has applied, and that derived nominal complements with embedded nominal complements to which AGENT-PREPOSING has applied, as well as derived nominal complements with embedded nominal complements to which neither AGENT-PREPOSING nor NP-PREPOSING has applied, are acceptable. No other possibilities are acceptable, not is any case in which the head noun is separated from the embedded nominal complements.





82

44ith That-Complements

That-complements also appear to have head nouns in underlying structure (cf. Menzel, 1969). Like the head nouns of nominal complements, these head nouns are deletable. The optional presence of head nouns in surface structure will again be indicated by the use of parentheses.

As before, I will claim that AGENT-PREPOSING has applied to predicate-initial underlying structures to yield the sentences in 3.130, and their corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.131 and derived nominal complements in 3.132.

3.130a) Tom reported (the fact) that the account was
overdrawn.
b) Jerry revealed (the fact) that Alice was smart.
c) INary denied (the claim) that Peggy was
pregnant.

3.131a) Tom's reporting (the fact) that the account
was overdrawn
b) Jerry's revealing (the fact) that Alice was
smart
c) Mary's denying (the claim) that Peggy was
pregnant

3.132a) Tom's report (of the fact) that the account
was overdrawn
b) Jerry's revelation (of the fact) that Alice
was smart
c) ary's denial (of the claim) that Peggy was
pregnant

If AENT-PREPOSING does not apply, then NP-PREPOSING applies obligatorily in the derivation of sentences. However, NP-PRLPOSING applies in two ways. Either the head noun and the that-complement are preposed as a unit, as has happened in the derivation of the sentences in 3.133, or only the head noun is preposed, in which case the sentences in 3.134 result if the head noun is retained in surface






83
.structure, and the sentences in 3.135 result if the head

noun is deleted.

3.133a) (The fact) that, the account was overdrawn was
reported by Tom.
b) (The fact) that Alice was smart was revealed
by Jerry.
c) (The claim) that Peggy was pregnant was denied
by Mary.

3.134a) The fact was reported by Tom that the account
was overdrawn.
b) The fact was revealed by Jerry that Alice was
smart.
c) The claim was denied by M~'ary that Peggy was
pregnant.

3.135a) It was reported by Tom that the account was
overdrawn.
b) It was revealed by Jerry that Alice was smart.
c) It was denied by Mary that Peggy was pregnant.

The sentences in 3.133 are passive. Sentences like

those in 3.134 have been described as being derived by the

rule of EXTRAPOSITICN FROM NP (of which I will have more to say below). The sentences in 3.135 are extraposed (i.e.,

supposedly derived by IT-EXTRAPOSITION).

In no case in which head nouns are retained in surface

structure are both the head noun and the that-complement to

-the right of the predicate in sentences. Thus, there are no

acceptable sentences like those in 3.136.

3.136a) *I't was reported by Tom the fact that the
account was overdrawn.
b' *It was revealed by Jerry the fact that Alice
was smart.
c) *It was denied by Mary -the claim that Peggy
was pregnant.

The sentences in 3.124 do not have any acceptable corresponding gerundive or derived nominal complements, the

forms in 3.137 and 3.138 all being unacceptable.






84

3.137a) *(tUhe fact) that the account was overdrawn's
being reported byA Torn
b) *(the fact) that Alice was smart's being
revealed by Jerry
c) *(the claim) that Peggy was pregnant's being
denied by Mary

3.138a) *(the fact) that the account was overdrawn's
report by Tomn
b) *(the fact) that Alice was smart's revelation
by Jerry
c) *(the claim) that Peggy was pregnant's denial
by Mary

The sentences in 3.134 do not have any acceptable corresponding gerundive or derived nominal complements, the

forms in 3.139 and 3.140 all being unacceptable.

3.139a) *the fact's being reported by Torn that the
account was overdrawn
b) *the fact's being revealed by Jerry that Alice
was smart
c) *the claim's denial by Mary that Peggy was
pregnant

3.140a) *the fact's report by Torn that the account was
overdrawn
b) *the fact's revelation by Jerry that Alice was
smart
c) *the claim's denial by Mary that Peggy was
pregnant

The sentences in 3.135 have the acceptable corresponding

gerundive nominal complements in 3.141 and derived nominal

cornlernen-ts in 3.142.

3.141a) its being reported by Tom that the account
was overdrawn
b) its being revealed by Jerry that Alice was smart
c) it being denied by Mary that Peggy was
pregnant

3-142a). the report by Tomn that the account was overdrawn
b) the revelation by Jerry that Alice was smart
c) the denial by Mary that Peggy was pregnant






85

Finally, although the sentences in 3.136, and their

expected corresponding gerundive nominal complements in 3.143, are all unacceptable, the derived nominal complements in

3.144, with the same linear order as the forms in 3.136 and
3.143, are acceptable.

3.143a) *its being reported by Tom the fact that the
account was overdrawn
b) *its being revealed by Jerry the fact that
Alice was smart
c) *its being denied by Mary the claim that Peggy
was pregnant

3.144a) the report by Tom of the fact that the account
was overdrawn
b) the revelation by Jerry of the fact that
Alice was smart
c) the denial by Mary of the claim that Peggy
was pregnant

By referring to the examples given for simple noun

phrases and nominal complements, the reader should be able to convince himself that the patterns of acceptability exhibited for the examples with transitive pred-icates and specified agents given immediately above also hold for forms with transitive predicates and unspecified agents and for forms with intransitive predicates.

If we understand NP-PREPOSING to apply either to the head noun alone or to the head noun plus its that-complement, we see that the rule has the same conditions on application to that-complements that it has to nominal complements: it applies optionally in the derivation of sentences, and not at all in the derivation of derived nominal complements. Acceptable gerundive nominal complements occur only if the head noun is deleted.






86
EXTA.POSITION FROM NP

Ross (1967) proposed a rule, which he called EXTRAPOSITION FROM NP, to account for the relationship of sentences like those in 3.145 to sentences like those in 3.146.

3.145a) A gun which I had cleaned went off.
b) He let the cats which were meowing out.
c) He expected someone who I was acquainted with
to show up.

3.146a) A gun went off which I had cleaned.
b) He let the cats out which were meowing.
c) He expected someone to show up who I was
acquainted with.
Ross stated the rule in the form given in 3.147.
Although Ross does not state the rule in the context of the cycle, the restrictions he gives on the forms of the variable Y indicate that the rule is cyclic.

3.147 EXTRAPOSITION FROM NP

X N[NP S]I Y
____ OPT
1 2 3 == 1, 3+2
EXTRAPOSITION FROM NP is not needed to account for the relationship of the sentences in 3.145 to the sentences in 3-146 if NP-PREPOSING is stated to apply to such noun-relative clause combinations in the same manner as with that-complements and their head nouns. Thus. NP-PREPOSING would





87

have preposed both the head noun and its relative clause in the sentences in 3.145, while it would have preposed only the head noun in the sentences in 3.146. The examples in

3.145 and 3.146 require a modification of the rule to allow preposing across the separable particle of a verb-particle predicate. This would, however, eliminate any need for a rule to postpose such separable particles across the object of the verb.

NP-PREPOSING and Pied Piping

In light of the behavior of NP-PREPOSING with that-complements and relative clauses, I will modify the rule so that it applies to the head noun of the structures in question, and allow the Pied Piping convention to account for the optional preposing of the that-complements and relative clauses with the head nouns. The Pied Piping convention is proposed by Ross (1967) to handle just such phenomena. The Pied Piping convention is as follows:15

The Pied Pioing Convention
Any transformation which is stated in such a way as to effect the reordering of some specified node NP, where this node is preceded and followed by variables in the struct-ural index of the rule, may apply to this NP or to any non-coordinate NP which dominates it, as long
as there are no occurrences of any coordinate node, nor
the node S, on the branch connecting the higher node
and the specified node.

Ross further mentions that Pied Piping is obligatory in some contexts. The distributional facts discussed above are accounted for if NP-PREPOSING applies to head nouns, with Pied Piping being obligatory for nominal complements and optional for that-complements (and relative clauses).





88

Conditions on Application

The conditions on the application of NP-PREPOSING that i have discussed above fall along two parameters. The contextual parameter opposes sentences and gerundive nominal complements to derived nominal complements. The noun phrase parameter opposes simple noun phrases to head nouns of complements. The interaction of these parameters is indicated in the chart in 3.148.

3.148 Conditions on the Application of NP-PREPOSING
(AGENT-PREPOSING has not applied)

in sentences and in derived nomigerundive nomi- nal complements nal complements

simple noun obligatory optional*
phrases

head nouns of obligatory blocked
complements
*blocked for specific predicates

In Chapter Four I will argue that when NP-PREPOSING

applies in the derivation of gerundive nominal complements, they are still sentences. Thus, NP-PREPOSING is obligatory


when it apDlies within structures dominated by an S. On the other hand, I will argue that when NP-PREPOSING applies in the derivation of derived nominal complements, they are already nominalized. Thus, NP-PREPOSING is optional or blocked when it applies within structures dominated by an ;I. I will have more to say about how this distinction is achieved in Chapter Four.






89

Emonds' POSSESSIVE Transformation

Emonds (1969:78-81) argues that NP-PREPOSING does not

apply in the derivation of "passive" derived nominal complements such as those in 3.149.

3.149a) the city's destruction by the enemy
b) Abby's acquittal by the jury

He argues that the possessive noun phrases the city's and Abby's are preposed by a rule he calls the POSSESSIVE Transformation. First he notes that NP-PREPOSING may prepose a noun phrase over a verb-particle predicate, as in

3.150, but claims that the POSSESSIVE Transformation never does, so that forms like that in 3.151 are blocked.

3.150) The strike was refered to briefly in the report.

3.151) *the strike's brief reference to in the report

Since many derived nominals idiosyncratically block

preposing of object noun phrases, the fact that verbs with lexical prepositions also block preposing is weak evidence for the separate existence of the POSSESSIVE Transformation.
A second reason Emonds gives for requiring as a separate rule the POSSESSIVE Transformation is that NP-PREPOSING is associated with the occurrence of the passive morpheme be-en, which never appears in "passive" derived nominal complements. As was mentioned in Chapter Two, derived nominal complements never have any auxiliaries. All that is needed is a simple rule or principle that insures that no auxiliaries are present in the surface structures of derived nominal







90

complements. If it is assumed that auxiliaries are present in deeply underlying structures, then they are deleted at some point in the derivation of derived nominal complements. If it is assumed that auxiliaries are inserted, then the insertion rules are blocked from applying to derived nominal complements. Thus, there will be no passive morpheme be-en in "passive" derived nominal complements.

A third reason cited by Jmonds is more complex. He

points out that the POSSESSIVE Transformation apparently can apply to noun phrases other than the one immediately following the derived nominal, whereas NP-PREPOSING (in sentences and gerundive nominal complements) applies only to noun phrases which immediately follow the predicate (or gerundive nominal). That is, he claims that the POSSESSIVE Transformation can apply to noun phrases which are not objects of the predicate. He cites the occurrence of prepositionless time adverbials preceding the derived nominal, as in 3.152, which, according to Emonds, represent derivations from the structures underlying the derived nominal complements in 3.153.

3.152a) last week's discussion of novels by the
librarian
b) this morning's speech to the nation by the
president

3.153a) the discussion of novels by the librarian
last week
b) the speech to the nation by the president
this morning






91
The application of NP-PkREPOSING in this way is not possible in sentences, so that we find the sentences in 3.154, but the sentences in 3.155 are not acceptable.

3.154a) The librarian discussed novels last week.
b) The president spoke to the nation this morning.
3.155a) *Last week was discussed novels by the
librarian,
b) *This morning was spoken to the nation by the
president.

But it cannot be the POSSESSIVE Transformation which

has moved the prepositionless time adverbials to a position preceding the derived nominals in 3.152, since the forms in

3.156 are not acceptable, indicating that the POSSESSIVE Transformation (or NP-PREPOSING) is blocked for discussion and speech in derived nominal complements.

3.156a) *novel's discussion by the librarian last week
b) *the nation's speech by the president this morning

All time adverbials are subject to fronting in sentences, as in 3.157.

3.15?a) Last week the librarian discussed novels.
b) This morning the president spoke to the nation.
The application of a rule of ADYVERB-FRONTING to the structures underlying the derived nominal complements in

3.153 (with subsequent addition of the suffix 's) will produce the derived nominal complements in 3.152.

Other time adverbials are also subject to ADVERB-FRONTING, but do not form determiners of derived nominals. The time adverbials with prepositions, however, are subject to deletion of the preposition, and then behave just like other