Sentential and VP-nominalizations: syntax and semantics
Most of the Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages possess two types of nominalized constructions: the sentential type (all the arguments retain the same morphological marking as in the corresponding independent clause) (1) and VP-nominalizations (2) (the subject is marked with genitive/possessive, while all the other arguments retain the same marking as in a corresponding independent clause: the POSS-ACC type, see Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993). Both the constructions are possible with one and the same verbal noun (see (1) and (2)). The question arises about the functional distribution and the formal properties of the two constructions. Syntactically, type 2 constructions seem to belong to the “sentential” type. However, in both FinnoUgric languages and in Tuvinian, nominative case is used not only to mark subjects in an independent sentence, but also modifiers in NPs, see (3b). Hence, the question arises, 1) whether the nominative in nominalizations is inherited from the independent clause or a modifier nominative assigned in the higher DP, and 2) if the nominalization in (2) is a nominalized IP or a DP with a verbal noun as head. To answer these questions, I propose to analyze the following syntactic properties of the constructions in question: (A) Subject properties (see Keenan 1976); (B) Allowance of embedded dependent clauses in nominalizations; (C) Allowance of noun predicates, secondary predicates, or light verbs in nominalizations; (D) Restrictions on the word order: if they are different in independent and nominalized clauses, and in DPs. According to these parameters, nominalizations with nominative subjects in Finno-Ugric and Tuvinian behave in a different way: (A) Nominative subjects in Mari and Komi-Zyrjan nominalizations do not show subject properties, while Tuvinian nominalizations do. Moreover, on the contrary to the Tuvinian nominalizations, Mari and Komi-Zyrjan constructions do not allow (B) any dependent clauses embedded in the nominalization, (C) noun predicates, secondary predicates, or light verbs in the nominalization. (D) In Mari and Komi-Zyrjan, the restrictions on the word order in independent and nominalized clauses are different: type 1 constructions are subject to the same restrictions as independent clauses, while type 2 constructions follow the restrictions on word order imposed in DPs. I argue that the type 2 constructions in Mari and Komi-Zyrjan do not belong to the “sentential” type. As (A) shows, this type does not preserve the subject position. (B)-(D) show that these constructions do not have the same syntactic structure as independent clauses. Hence, they do not preserve the clausal syntactic structure. On the contrary, Tuvinian nominalizations with nominative subject demonstrate all the properties of an independent clause given in (A)-(D). Semantically, Finno-Ugric and Tuvinian constructions also differ. In both Mari and Komi-Zyrjan, the choice of the NOM-ACC / GEN-ACC construction is regulated by the following: • animacy of the subject: if it is animate, it is more likely to be marked with genitive; • semantic role of the subject: the more it is closer to the agent, the more it is likely to be marked with genitive; • referential properties of the subject: definite subjects are more likely to acquire genitive, while indefinite and non-specific subjects are more likely to be assigned nominative. In Tuvinian, the choice of the construction depends on the semantics of the dependent clause and the matrix verb: if the matrix verb is factive (see Kiparsky, Kiparsky 1971), and the dependent clause belongs to the presupposition, genitive case is preferred. The sentential construction is chosen with the matrix verbs that take dependent clauses introducing an asserted proposition (like believe, think, e.a.). In other words, nominative subjects are more likely to appear in the assertion, while genitive subjects are preferred in presupposed dependent clauses. This correlates with the syntactic properties of these constructions: the sentential constructions in Tuvinian preserve more clausal properties that the GENACC constructions. Hence, they are more likely to appear in the assertion.
Examples: MARI (EASTERN) (1) ača-m-ən father-POSS.1SG-GEN
tide
pört-əm
čoŋ-əm-əž-əm
me
pal-ena.
this
house-ACC
build-NZR-POSS.3SG-ACC
we
know-PRS.1PL
We know that (my) father has built this house. (2) məjə I
lum
lum-m-əm
už-am.
snow(NOM)
to.snow-NZR-ACC
see-PRS.1SG
I see it snow. (3) a. tunəktəš-ən teacher-GEN
joltaš-əže friend-POSS.3SG
the/a teacher’s friend
b. pursa pea(NOM)
šür soup
pea soup
References Bresnan J. 1997. Mixed Categories as Head Sharing Constructions // M. Butt, T. H. King (eds.). Proceedings of the LFG’97 Conference. University of California, San Diego: CSLI Publications. http://www-lfg.stanford.edu/lfg/archive/archive.html Lyutikova E., Graschenkov P. 2005. Nominalization as a mixed category // Syntax and Semantics, Paris, 2005. Keenan E. L. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of ‘Subject’ // Ch. Li (ed.), pp. 303-333. Kiparsky P., Kiparsky C. 1971. Fact. L. Jakobovits and D. Steinberg (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Cambridge University Press. Koptjevskaja-Tamm M. 1993. Nominalizations. (Theoretical Linguistic Series). London, New York. Malouf R. 1997. Mixed Categories in the Hierarchical Lexicon // Stanford University Department of Linguistics Colloquium, June 6, 1997. http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~malouf/pubs.html Pires A. 2001. Clausal and TP-Defective Gerunds: Control Without Tense // North East Linguistic Society, v.31, pp. 389-406.