The semantics of conversion nouns and -ing nominalizations: A quantitative and theoretical perspective

Rochelle Lieber,Ingo Plag

doi:10.1017/s0022226721000311

Abstract

This paper addresses a fundamental problem of derivational morphology: which meanings are possible for the words of a given morphological category, which forms can be chosen to express a given meaning, and what is the role of the base in these mappings of form and meaning? In a broad empirical study we examine the extent to which two types of nominalizations in English – conversion nouns and -ing nominalizations – can express either eventive or referential readings, can be quantified as either count or mass, and can be based on verbs of particular aspectual classes (state, activity, accomplishment, achievement, semelfactive). Past literature (for example, Grimshaw 1990 Brinton 1995, 1998 Borer 2013) has suggested an association between conversion nominalization, count quantification, and referential reading on the one hand, and between -ing nominalization, mass quantification and eventive reading on the other. Using a subset of the data reported in Andreou & Lieber (2020), we give statistical evidence that the relationship between morphological form, type of quantification, and aspectual class of base verb is neither categorical, as the literature suggests, nor completely free, but rather is probabilistic. We provide both a univariate analysis and a multivariate analysis (using conditional inference trees) that show that the relationship among the variables of morphological form, eventivity, quantification and aspectual class of base is complex. Tendencies sometimes go in the direction suggested by past literature (e.g. -ing forms tend to be eventive), but sometimes contradict past predictions (conversion also tends to be eventive). We also document that an important role is played by the specific verb underlying the nominalization rather than the aspectual class of verb. Finally, we consider what the pattern of polysemy that we uncover suggests with respect to theoretical modeling, looking at syntactic models (Distributed Morphology), lexical semantic models (the Lexical Semantic Framework), Analogical Models, and Distributional Semantics.

Highlights

Andreou & Lieber (2020) have established that conversion and -ing nominalizations in English are capable of expressing a wide range of readings, both in terms of quantification and in terms of eventivity, contrary to earlier claims in the literature (e.g. Grimshaw 1990 Brinton 1995, 1998 Borer 2013)
We build on the work of Andreou & Lieber and examine the readings of conversion and -ing nominalizations in further depth, looking at how common it is for each morphological form to be construed as either count or mass, or as eventive or referential, and whether the aspectual class of the nominalization’s verbal base has any influence at all on the choice of reading
Looking at the relationship between morphological form and aspectual class, we find from the semasiological point of view that conversion nouns have no preference for any particular aspectual class

Summary

Introduction

Andreou & Lieber (2020) have established that conversion and -ing nominalizations in English are capable of expressing a wide range of readings, both in terms of quantification (count versus mass) and in terms of eventivity (eventive versus referential readings), contrary to earlier claims in the literature (e.g. Grimshaw 1990 Brinton 1995, 1998 Borer 2013). Andreou & Lieber (2020) argue that the morphological form of the nominalization does not determine whether the nominalization will be construed as either count or mass, either eventive or referential. 334–335) that the aspectual class of the nominalization’s base has little or no influence on either the form of the nominalization or its construal Rather, they argue that context plays the most important role in determining the ultimate reading of either type of nominalization. We build on the work of Andreou & Lieber and examine the readings of conversion and -ing nominalizations in further depth, looking at how common it is for each morphological form to be construed as either count or mass, or as eventive or referential, and whether the aspectual class of the nominalization’s verbal base has any influence at all on the choice of reading. Further we look at the extent to which the individual verbal base of the nominalization influences its possible readings

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion