@cite{wood-2023} — Icelandic Nominalizations and Allosemy #
@cite{wood-2023} @cite{wood-2015} @cite{wood-marantz-2017}
Icelandic Nominalizations and Allosemy. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865155.001.0001
Overview #
@cite{wood-2023} argues that Icelandic deverbal nominalizations are built on the structure [nP n [vP v √ROOT]] (a complex head, NOT a phrasal VoiceP), and that the ambiguity between CEN, SEN, and RN readings arises from allosemy of v and n — one syntactic terminal with multiple context-dependent meanings:
- CEN (Complex Event Nominal): v = eventive, n = Ø (identity). The noun inherits the verb's meaning, including event variable and argument structure (Ch. 5, (5.14)).
- SEN (Simple Event Nominal): v = Ø, n = SEN alloseme. Event reading without full argument structure (Ch. 5, (5.6)).
- Result/Product Nominal: v = eventive, n = result alloseme. Entity whose existence results from the event (Ch. 6, (6.30)).
- Simple State: v = Ø, n = state alloseme. State reading (e.g. aðdáun 'admiration' as lasting state) (Ch. 1, (1.18)).
- Simple Entity: v = Ø, n = entity alloseme. Entity reading with no event connection (e.g. þvottur 'laundry') (Ch. 5, (5.13)).
Key Claims Formalized #
No Voice in nominalizations (Ch. 3, Ch. 5): The external argument is introduced by a Poss head (= i* from @cite{wood-marantz-2017}), NOT by Voice. Voice diagnostics in nominalizations really test for agentive semantics, which Poss can also provide.
Borer's Generalization (Ch. 5 §5.1.5): CEN reading entails the existence of a morphologically related verb with the same meaning. This follows from the architecture: CEN requires v, and n cannot trigger root suppletion past v.
P-prefixing patterns (Ch. 4): Three patterns of preposition-verb interaction in nominalizations, depending on whether P conditions root meaning.
marg- and endur- diagnostics (Ch. 6): Iterative marg- 'many-' is only compatible with CEN; repetitive endur- 're-' is compatible with CEN, SEN, and result/product RN, but not simple entity RN.
-vaeða verbs always compositional (Ch. 6 §6.5): Because -vaeða is a compound (√VAEÐA adjoins to v), the root cannot interact idiosyncratically with n past v. Therefore -vaeðing nominals never have idiosyncratic RN readings.
Wood's reading derivation: v and n alloseme combinations.
@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 5 (5.4a–e):
- v eventive + n zero → CEN (noun = verb meaning)
- v zero + n simpleEvent → SEN (event-entity reading)
- v zero + n entity → simple entity (entity reading)
- v eventive + n result → result/product (entity from event)
CEN and SEN differ in which head contributes eventive meaning: CEN = v eventive (event from verb), SEN = v zero (event from n).
The five reading types from @cite{wood-2023} Ch. 1 (1.18) are pairwise distinct.
Whether a nominalization has Voice (it doesn't, per @cite{wood-2023}).
@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 5 §5.1.3: "I will assume, as discussed in Chapter 3, that there is in fact no Voice head in the structure." The external argument is introduced by Poss (= i*), not Voice.
Equations
- Wood2023.nomHasVoice = false
Instances For
Poss head semantics: parallel to Voice but for nominals. @cite{wood-2023} Ch. 5 (5.22): ⟦Poss⟧ ↔ λxλe. agent(x)(e) / __ agentive nP
@cite{wood-marantz-2017}: Voice and Poss are the same head i*, appearing in different categories (vP vs nP).
- agent : PossReading
- possessor : PossReading
- experiencer : PossReading
Instances For
Equations
- Wood2023.instDecidableEqPossReading x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Wood2023.instReprPossReading = { reprPrec := Wood2023.instReprPossReading.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Poss gets agent reading only with agentive (CEN) nP. @cite{wood-2023} Ch. 5 (5.24): "i* ↔ λxλe. agent(x)(e) / __ (agentive event)"
Equations
- Wood2023.possReading nPisCEN = if nPisCEN = true then Wood2023.PossReading.agent else Wood2023.PossReading.possessor
Instances For
Three patterns of preposition-verb interaction in nominalizations.
@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 4:
- Pattern 1: P conditions root meaning, must be prefixed, can also appear as complement PP (ráða um → umráðun á)
- Pattern 2: P conditions root meaning, must be prefixed, cannot be doubled (gera við → viðgerð á, not *viðgerð við)
- Pattern 3: P does NOT condition root meaning, is not prefixed (hugsa um → hugsun um, not umhugsun)
- pConditionsDoubles : PPrefixPattern
- pConditionsNoDouble : PPrefixPattern
- pDoesNotCondition : PPrefixPattern
Instances For
Equations
- Wood2023.instDecidableEqPPrefixPattern x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Wood2023.instReprPPrefixPattern = { reprPrec := Wood2023.instReprPPrefixPattern.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Pattern assignment for fragment nominalizations.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
P-prefixed nominalizations use pattern 2 (no doubling).
Verbal prefixes that diagnose nominalization readings.
@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 6 §6.4:
- marg- 'many-' adds iterativity to the event. Only compatible with CEN, because only CEN has an event variable at the v level.
- endur- 're-' adds presupposition of prior eventuality. Compatible with CEN, SEN, and result/product RN (all have event variables), but NOT with simple entity RN or simple state (no event variable). Per (6.46)–(6.53): endurprentun 'reprint' (result RN) is OK, but endur-þvottur 'laundry' (simple entity) is not.
- marg : VerbalPrefix
- endur : VerbalPrefix
Instances For
Equations
- Wood2023.instDecidableEqVerbalPrefix x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Wood2023.instReprVerbalPrefix = { reprPrec := Wood2023.instReprVerbalPrefix.repr }
Whether a prefix is compatible with a reading.
Key distinction: endur- is compatible with result/product nominals (where v is eventive and the entity is computed from the event) but NOT with simple entity nominals (where v is zero, no event variable). @cite{wood-2023} Ch. 6 (6.46)–(6.53).
Equations
- Wood2023.prefixCompatible Wood2023.VerbalPrefix.marg Morphology.DM.Allosemy.NominalizationReading.complexEvent = true
- Wood2023.prefixCompatible Wood2023.VerbalPrefix.marg x✝ = false
- Wood2023.prefixCompatible Wood2023.VerbalPrefix.endur Morphology.DM.Allosemy.NominalizationReading.complexEvent = true
- Wood2023.prefixCompatible Wood2023.VerbalPrefix.endur Morphology.DM.Allosemy.NominalizationReading.simpleEvent = true
- Wood2023.prefixCompatible Wood2023.VerbalPrefix.endur Morphology.DM.Allosemy.NominalizationReading.result = true
- Wood2023.prefixCompatible Wood2023.VerbalPrefix.endur x✝ = false
Instances For
marg- only compatible with CEN (@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 6 (6.38)).
endur- compatible with CEN, SEN, and result/product RN, but not simple entity RN (@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 6 (6.46)–(6.53)).
marg- is strictly more restrictive than endur-.
Borer's Generalization: CEN reading entails the existence of a morphologically related verb with the same meaning.
@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 5 §5.1.5: This follows from two assumptions: (a) verbs are semantically special (they introduce event variables), (b) n cannot trigger root suppletion past v.
Equations
- Wood2023.borersGeneralization nom = (nom.availableReadings.contains Morphology.DM.Allosemy.NominalizationReading.complexEvent = true → nom.baseVerb ≠ "")
Instances For
All CEN-capable nominals in the fragment have base verbs (Borer's Generalization holds).
-vaeða verbs are compounds: √VAEÐA adjoins directly to v. Because √VAEÐA is meaningless (like English do-support √DO), the root it compounds with must be categorized (n) first.
@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 6 (6.60): [v [n ... √ROOT n] [v √VAEÐA v]]
This structure entails:
- Root cannot idiosyncratically select complement PPs
- -vaeðing nominals never have idiosyncratic RN readings
- PP complements of -vaeða verbs are always compositional
- -vaeða verbs cannot select ApplP
- idiosyncraticPP : Bool
Root can condition idiosyncratic complement PP?
- idiosyncraticRN : Bool
Nominalization can have idiosyncratic RN reading?
- selectsApplP : Bool
Verb can select ApplP?
- alwaysCompositional : Bool
Meaning of nominalization always compositional?
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Wood2023.instReprVaedaProperties = { reprPrec := Wood2023.instReprVaedaProperties.repr }
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Wood2023.instBEqVaedaProperties.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
-vaeða verbs have maximally restricted properties.
Equations
- Wood2023.vaedaProps = { idiosyncraticPP := false, idiosyncraticRN := false, selectsApplP := false, alwaysCompositional := true }
Instances For
All -vaeða restrictions hold simultaneously.
opnun 'opening' connects to opnast 'open-ST' (anticausative).
The nominalization is built on the same root as the -st verb;
the -st voice morphology does not appear in the nominal
(nominalizations lack Voice). The Wood-2015 stType for opnast
is sourced from opnast_info in the Wood2015 study file (the
Fragment carries only consensus lexical data).
Anticausative -st verbs can be nominalized: the nominalization lacks Voice (hence no -st), but retains the root's meaning. @cite{wood-2023} Ch. 3: -st and nominalization both require non-agentive contexts, but the nominal achieves this by lacking Voice entirely rather than having non-agentive Voice.
The Voice flavor of the -st verb is irrelevant for the nominal:
nominalizations derive readings from v/n allosemy, not from Voice.
The voice flavor is read from Wood2015.opnast_info.
All nominalizing suffixes spell out the same head n. Different suffixes do NOT indicate different functional heads — this is allomorphy of n, not different morphemes. @cite{wood-2023} Ch. 2 (2.1), Ch. 3.
The same suffix (-un) can yield different readings: opnun has CEN + simple entity, notkun has CEN only. The reading is determined by allosemy, not by the suffix.
Different suffixes can yield the same reading type: opnun (-un) and þvottur (-stur) both have CEN readings. The reading comes from v/n allosemy, not from the suffix.
Wood vs Panagiotidis on the n head #
@cite{wood-2023} Ch. 1 §1.2.3 + Ch. 5: nominalisations are systematically
ambiguous (CEN/SEN/RN/SimpleState/SimpleEntity). All readings stem from
ONE structure; the interpretive variation comes from n (and v)
having multiple allosemes — n can be zero / sortal / relational / alienator / content / simpleEvent / result / state / entity (9 cases per
Theories/Morphology/DM/Allosemy.lean).
@cite{panagiotidis-2015} treats n as a uniform categoriser bearing the
interpretable feature [N]. There is no alloseme machinery in
Panagiotidis: interpretation of an n-headed projection follows from
[N] (sortal perspective) plus what the complement contributes. Per p. 95,
"categorizers are not functional" and per Ch. 4 "categorial features [N]
and [V] are LF-interpretable" — features, not allosemes, do the
interpretive work.
The two frameworks are incommensurable on n's interpretive
contribution: Wood says context-determined alloseme choice; Panagiotidis
says uniform [N] feature. Applied to @cite{mcnally-deswart-2011}'s
InflectedAnalysis rivals (which all involve some n head), they
diverge on what additional commitment is required.
This is the cross-framework divergence the @cite{mcnally-deswart-2011}
bridge in Panagiotidis2015.lean (namespace MdSBridge) noted as
open — addressed here.
Wood's framework requires every n-headed nominalisation to commit
to an NAlloseme (one of the 9 cases). Panagiotidis's framework
requires no such commitment — n is uniformly [N].
For the @cite{mcnally-deswart-2011} hetAsCap analysis (where M&deS
posit a trope interpretation, an entity correlate of a property
uniquely instantiated in one bearer per @cite{moltmann-2004}), Wood's
framework would need to specify which alloseme het selects. None
of the 9 NAlloseme cases is "trope":
relational, sortal, alienator, content— semantically wrong type (relational arguments / kind sortation / possessor closure / CP-complement-selection)zero— identity function, would inherit the AP's adjectival meaning verbatim, missing the trope-reificationsimpleEvent, result, state— event-nominalisation allosemes, conceptually for V→N transitionsentity— closest fit, but M&deS distinguish tropes from ordinary entities (§3.4 + cite of @cite{moltmann-2004} ontology)
So Wood's framework would require extending NAlloseme to model M&deS's trope analysis. Panagiotidis's framework would not.
Equations
- Wood2023.MdSPanaDivergence.woodAllosemeForRival Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.nominalisation = some Morphology.DM.Allosemy.NAlloseme.entity
- Wood2023.MdSPanaDivergence.woodAllosemeForRival Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.ellipsis = none
- Wood2023.MdSPanaDivergence.woodAllosemeForRival Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.hetAsCap = none
Instances For
Equations
- Wood2023.MdSPanaDivergence.instDecidableEqOptionNAlloseme = inferInstance
The Panagiotidis-side prediction: for any rival, what does
Panagiotidis say n does interpretively? Answer (from
referential_predicative_asymmetry): bears [N], makes the
projection referential. No alloseme choice required.
Equations
Instances For
The Wood-side requirement: each rival must specify an alloseme, or the framework must be extended to cover it.
Equations
Instances For
The substantive divergence. Wood's framework requires an
alloseme commitment for every rival; Panagiotidis's framework
requires none. The two frameworks make incommensurable demands on
a theory of het rode van X (and of nominalisations in general).
The substantive gap on hetAsCap. Wood's NAlloseme inventory
has no case obviously fitting M&deS's trope analysis. Wood's
framework would need extension; Panagiotidis's framework would not.
Concrete: woodAllosemeForRival .hetAsCap = none, recording the
gap.
The 9 NAllosemes are exactly: relational, sortal, alienator, content, zero, simpleEvent, result, state, entity. None of these is "trope". The bridge documents this as a substantive limitation of Wood's inventory when applied to M&deS's adjectival nominalisation data.
Three-way framework dialogue #
The Subkinds substrate now anchors a three-way cross-framework dialogue on Dutch nominalisation morphology:
McNallyDeSwart2011: provides the data (het rode van X, modifier distribution) and the trope analysis (Moltmann 2004).Panagiotidis2015: applies §6.7.1 modifier-distribution diagnostic geometrically; agrees with M&deS on each rival's predictions (shared Ackema & Neeleman 2004 lineage).Wood2023: requires alloseme commitment per rival; identifies a framework gap (no "trope" NAlloseme), making the divergence with Panagiotidis (uniform [N], no allosemes) substantive.
Each framework's distinctive theoretical primitives generate distinct empirical commitments on the same Dutch data — exactly the kind of cross-framework incompatibility linglib is designed to surface.