Dorobantu Alexandra

Frangu Cristina Alexandra

MLLE 1st year

Romanian nominalizations: case and aspectual structure

Alexandra Cornilescu

Part I Dorobantu Alexandra

1. Preliminaries

The present paper focuses on Grimshaws theory and on the ways in which it can be
improved taking into consideration the Romanian data.

Grimshaw (1900) makes the distinction between:

- Verb-based nouns which illustrate complex events e-nominals

- Verb-based nouns which illustrate the result of the events r-nominals

E-nominals have argument structure (a-structure) while R-nominals and underived

nominals dont have a-structure.

The two important claims that Grimshaw makes, regarding nominalization, come as follow:

1. Nominalization operates on the a-structures, suppressing the external argument of the verb.
Suppressed positions are not satisfied by arguments, but may licence argument-adjuncts.
The Gen subject of an event or result nominal is always a modifier, and this explains why it is
always optional, unlike the subject of a finite clause. (Cornilescu, 467, 1996)

2. E-nominals have obligatory arguments. Due to the fact that the Agent is a modifier, this
obligation troubles only the Object of transitive nominalizations.

Starting from the point that E-nominals have a-structure, the paper doesnt follow the
assumption that nominalizations suppress the external argument. On the contrary, the subject
in e-nominals is not a modifier but an argument. E-nominals share their a-structure, having
analogous l-syntax. Also the aspectual type of the nominalization plays a significant role for
the projection, lexicalization and Case assignment of the argument. Another important aspect
focuses on the obligatoriness of projecting the Object. Thus, it will be seen that this
projection is obligatory only in perfective nominalizations. [+Telic]

Turning to Romanian, the two verb-based nouns which will be examined are:
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

- the infinitive ( the most productive nominalization in Romanian)

FORM: the basic form of the verb + the suffix re

e.g. citi read citi+re read+inf, reading

The infinitive confirms Grimshaws theory of event/result nominalization.

- the supine

FORM: + the suffixes Vt and (V)s , where V is a stem vowel

e.g. citi read citit+ul read-sup+the, the reading

The supine confirms Grimshaws theory only in part.

The infinitive and the supine the name of the action action nominals

These two nominalizations will be compared in:

- Noun + Object NO structures which have an event reading

- Noun + Subject NS structures - the infinitive NS is always an r-nominal

- the supine NS may be an e-nominal

As we have already mentioned, the aspectual properties play an important role.

- Supine [-Telic] project Object or Subject in e-nominals

- Infinitive [+Telic] requires the projection of the Object

In nominals the Aspect and Case are checked in the same projection.

It will be seen that there is a contrast between infinitive and supine e-nominals according to
the aspectual properties of the two nominals.

2. THE NOUN+ OBJECT STRUCTURE

2.1. Properties of e-nominals

- The infinitive and the supine have an eventive meaning in the NO structure
- The presence of the Object is obligatory
- The absence of the object may lead to ungrammaticality (1) and (2)

*
(1) Cumprarea (casei) a fost inutil.
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

Buy.INF+the house+the.GEN was useless.

The buying (of the house) was useless. (Cornilescu, 469, 1996)

(2) Cumpratul *(casei) a fost inutil.

Buy.SUP+the house+the.GEN was useless.

The buying of the house was useless. (Cornilescu, 469, 1996)

The Agent identified by an argument-adjunct de ctre by-phrase

- The by-phrase can be licenced if the Object is present.

- The Object is an obligatory constituent of the e-nominal for the infinitive (3) and the
supine (4)

*
(3) Cumprarea (acestei casei) de ctre Ion a fost inutil.

Buy.INF+the this.GEN house by Ion was useless.

The buying (of this house) by Ion was useless. (Cornilescu, 469, 1996)
*
(4) Drmatul (acestei biserici) de ctre stat a fost o eroare.

Demolish.SUP+the this.GEN church by the state was a mistake.

The demolition (of this church) by the state was a mistake. (Cornilescu, 470, 1996)

- The Subject alone in the Gen case ungrammaticality (5) and (6)

(5) *Cumprarea lui Ion a fost inutil.

Buy.INF+the the.GEN Ion was useless.

Ions buying was useless. (Cornilescu, 470, 1996)

(6) *Drmatul statului a fost o eroare.

Demolish.SUP+the state+the.GEN was a mistake. (Cornliescu, 470, 1996)

Because there is only one Gen case position the Subject and the Object cannot be
both lexicalized in the infinitive or in the supine nominals
(7) *Cumprarea lui Ion a casei a fost inutil.

Buy.INF+the the.GEN Ion AL house +the.GEN was useless

Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

Ions buying (of the house) was useless. (Cornilescu, 470, 1996)

(8) *Drmatul statului al bisericii a fost o eroare

Demolish.SUP+the state+the.GEN AL church+the.GEN was a mistake

The states demolishing (of the church) was a mistake. (Cornilescu, 470, 1996)

- Aspectual modifiers constant and frequent ( characteristic of e-nominals)

licenced in the infinitive and the supine nominalizations

In Romanian the e-nominal and the r-nominal are different with respect to the adjuncts they
allow.

When they modify underived nouns Romanian PPs or AdvPs take the preposition de

e.g. Cartea este aici. The book is here. cartea de aici - the book here

In Romanian, only the r-nominals share with underived nouns the ability to licence these
adjectival space/time adjuncts. Complex e-nominals exclude them. (Cornilescu, 471, 1996)

- e-nominal with the aspectual modifier frequent (9)

(9) semnarea frecvent a unor importante documente la Bucure ti

Sign.IMF+the frequent AL some.GEN important documents at Bucharest

The frequent signing of some important documents at Bucharest (Cornilescu, 471,1996)

- de-modifiers are excluded (10)

(10) *semnarea frecvent a unor importante documente de la Bucure ti

Sign.INF-the frequent AL some.GEN important documents DE at Bucharest

(Cornilescu, 471, 1996)

2.2. The representation of the Agent

The Agent cannot be lexicalized in e-nominals, for lack of a second Case position.
(Cornilescu, 471, 1996)
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

- The IA in infinitive and supine may be qualified by several adjectives intenionat

intended, deliberat deliberate, premeditate intended, planned, etc
- The IA may act as the antecedent of a DP internal anaphor
- The emphatic reflexive pronoun el nsui interpreted as bound by the IA (11)

(11) Aprarea lui nsui naintea juctorilor este singura preocupare a lui Ion.

Defend.INF+the he.GEN himself before the judges is only concern Ions

His own defence before the judges is Ions only concern. (Cornilescu, 472, 1996)

- IAs may licence an adjectival predicative adjunct

- The IA has control properties
- IA resembles PRO because it can be controlled.
- When IA is arbitrary a generic reading or an existential reading
- But the hypothesis of PRO encounters some difficulties:
o A syntactic PRO in e-nominals is problematic for Control and apparently not
required for Binding Theory (Cornilescu, 473, 1996)
o PRO will not obey the same control principles as in the verbal environments.
o Control in Romanian DPs also differs from control in infinitives or in
Romanian subjunctive clauses
o The main problem is the difficulty of finding examples of anaphoric PRO
o Control is not always obligatory in e-nominals
o PRO does not behave like an anaphor
- The Subject position of e-nominals is saturated in lexical structure.

Infinitive and supine NO structures allow the event interpretation. The Case
position is given to the Object
The a-structure of the infinitive e-nominal is complete. The Agent is not
projected syntactically, but it is semantically active, and interpreted like a PRO
subject. (Cornilescu, 475, 1996)

3. THE NOUN + SUBJECT STRUCTURES

3.1. Syntactic properties of the NS structure

The infinite and the supine parallelism in the NO structure

contrast in the NS structure.

The Romanian data reveals the following aspect:

- The infinitive NS structure express result

Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

- The supine NS structure all the properties of e-nominals and no result

properties

1. In the infinitive NS the nominal control properties are lost (12)

(12) *descrierea minunat a lui Blcescu pentru a strni sentimente patriotice

Describe.INF+the wonderful AL the.GEN Blcescu to stir patriotic feelings

Blcescus wonderful description to stir patriotic feelings (Cornilescu,476, 1996)

In the supine NS control is allowed (13)

(13) cititul lui Ion la micul dejun pentru a-i enerva soacra

Read.SUP+the the.GEN Ion at breakfast to his mother-in-law irritate

Ions reading at breakfast to irritate his mother-in-law (Cornilescu, 476, 1996)

2. Aspectual modifiers such as constant and frequent not acceptable in infinitive NS (14)

licensed in supine NS (15)

(14) Introducerea frecvent a criticului la roman a plcut mult.

Introduction-the frequent AL this.GEN critic to novel pleased much

The frequent introduction to this novel by this critic was well liked. (Cornilescu, 477, 1996)

(15) Cititul lui cu glas tare zilnic i-a corectat

Read.SUP+the his in a loud voice daily him.DAT-has corrected

rostirea.

pronunciation+the

His constant reading in a loud voice has improved his pronunciation. (Cornilescu, 477, 1996)

3. Infinitive NS structures allow adjectival place/time adjuncts introduces by de, excluded

in e-nominals but allowed in r-nominals

The infinitive NS structure r-nominal (16)

(16) Interpretarea de la Paris a operei Oedip a dezamgit.

Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

Perform.INF+the DE in Paris Al opera+the.GEN Oedip has disappointed

The Paris performance of the opera Oedipus was disappointing. (Cornilescu, 477, 1996)

Supine NS structures dont allow these modifiers which may indicate the structure as
being an e-nominal

It has been observed that the infinitive NS structure has no event properties, the
Agent behaved like a modifier and the structure is entirely normal. (Cornilescu, 477,
1996)
The supine NS structure have no result properties taking into account that the supine
NS structure is an e-nominal
This contrast between the structures shows that the nominalization does not operate
on a-structure, the complete a-structure of the verb is inherited in the e-nominal.
The supine NS structure illustrates the case of a transitive-verb e-nominal which does
not express the Object contradict Grimshaws second claim.

4. VERBS THAT YIELD THE NS SUPINE NOMINAL

The verbs that allow the NS structure fall into two classes:

1) transitive verbs which accept prototypical objects and have unergative pairs

2) reflexive verbs

4.1. Prototypical Object verbs

The following verbs allow NS e-nominals:

Cnta - sing, scrie - write, picta - paint, decora- decorate, pescui - fish, ara - plough culege
pick, traversa cross, semna sow, fotografia photograph, cheltui spend, mtura
sweep, deretica clean/tidy up, mpleti knit, visa dream, fura steal, mini lie, nva
learn, mnca eat, bea drink, recita recite, fuma smoke, suge suck, tricota knit,
murmura murmur, asculta listen, traduce - translate etc. (Cornilescu, 478, 1996)

- The verbs that yield the NS supine structure have both transitive and intransitive uses
- They are transitive verbs that allow null prototypical objects
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

(17) Ion fotografiaza (monumentele Parisului)

Ion photographs (the monuments of Paris) (Cornilescu, 478, 1996)
(18) Fotografiatul lui Ion la Paris costa o avere.
Ions photographing in Paris costs a fortune. (Cornilescu, 479, 1996)

- These verbs have intransitive pairs The supine can be constructed on the
intransitive form.

There have been proposed 2 analyses for this situation.

1) the Object is saturated in the lexicon the verbs are projected as unergatives, rather than
transitives

The NS supine structure regarded as the nominalization of an unergative

The DO is not projected

The generalization that the Object is always lexically present in e-nominals of transitive verbs
is correct.

2) the DO a null argument , syntactically projected as an empty category, most likely pro.

The supine NS structure example of transitive verb event nominalization which does not
lexicalize the Object contrary to Grimshaws claim

4.2. Rizzis tests

Rizzi (1986) introduces the theory of pro in Object position, proposing several tests which
can show the distinction between the saturation of an argument in the lexicon and the
projection of a null argument in syntax.

- Projected null argument pro syntactically active thus differing from a lexically
saturated implicit argument
- Null object pro is licenced because it is governed and Case-marked by the verb
- Rizzi the crucial licensing relation for pro is Case assignment by a designated head
- Rizzi is interested in English and Italian
- Italian verbs have the ability to licence an active null Object, unlike English verbs
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

- Romanian disallows a null pro in Accusative position, thus the sentences where the
DO is pro will be ungrammatical while the sentences where the DO is overtly
expressed will be grammatical

Romanian null Objects involve saturation of a position with an arbitrary index at the lexical
head. Italian shows pro as a projected, syntactically active Direct Object. (Cornilescu, 480,
1996)

Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) draws the conclusion that both in Romanian and French null
prototypical Objects are not syntactically projected.

4.3. Transitive reflexive verbs

- The following verbs allow the NS supine construction:

A (se) spla - wash (oneself), a (se) mbrca - dress (oneself), a (se) brbieri - shave
(oneself), a ( se) dichisi - spruce oneself, a (se) pieptna - comb (oneself), a (se) ncla -
shoe (oneself)/ put on shoes, a (se) aranja - arrange (oneself) a (se) pregti - prepare
(oneself) a (se) farad - make (oneself) up, a (se) indigna - feel indignant, a (se) mcina -
make (oneself) up etc (Cornilescu, 481, 1996)

- In the supine NS structures, the reflexive reading is the only one or the preferred one

(19) Ion se pregtete pentru spectacol.

Ion himself prepares for show

Ion is preparing himself for the show.

Pegtitul lui Ion pentru spectacol dureaz ore intregi

Prepare.SUP+the the.GEN Ion for the show lasts whole hours

Ions preparing himself for the show lasts whole hours.

Preparing Ion for the show lasts whole hours.

- There may be an ambiguity between the NO/NS reading

The Object is not projected in the supine NS structure thus eliminating the object pro.
The supine NS structure operates just on unergative verbs
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

Part II Frangu Cristina Alexandra

5. Aspect and Nominalization

5.1 Aspectual interpretation of the NO and NS structures

The aspectual properties of the nominalizing affixes are manifest in the aspectual contrast
between the NO structure, available to both nominalizations, and the NS structure, available
only to the supine. (Cornilescu, p. 484,1996)

5.1.1. Aspectual interpretation of the NO structure

-NO structure is based on transitive verbs because transitive non-stative verbs are most of the
time accomplishments or achievements;

-Accomplishments have a temporal structure, including a process followed by a change of

state , resulting a state;

-Parson 1990 defines an accomplishment as a complete event which consists of an activity

phase, followed by a culmination point , when the change of state takes place, leading to a
resulting state;

-The temporal structure of an accomplishment may be represented as follows:

(1) I- activity

II- culmination

III- resulting state

-For example, the English have perfect focalizes the resulting state (III) whereas an
accomplishment lexicalizes phase I and II ; achievements focalizes focalize phase II and
activities focalize phase I.
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

-An important distinction between telic and atelic is that the last one exclude culmination
point whereas the first one doesnt;

-In a complete event there are particularities which are identified by a particular argument
such as: the Agent identifies the activity, the Theme measures out the event and identifies
the change of state;

-The Theme(Object) identifies phase II and points out the differences between
accomplishments, achievements and activities => Theme needs to be overtly expressed in
telic predications;

-Infinitives and the supine NO structures pass all the tests identifying accomplishments:

1. The NO structures accept in modifiers:

(37) (a) construirea podului in doua luni (infinitive)

the building of the bridge in two months (Cornilescu, 485, 1996)

(b) cititul ziarelor de dimineata intr-o ora (supine)

reading of the morning newspapers in an hour (Cornilescu, 485, 1996)

2. The NO structures appear in the phrase a trebui X-timp pentru Y => take X much time
to Y:

(38) (a) I-au trebuit numai doua luni pentru scrierea romanului. (infinitive)

He took only two months for the writing of the novel. (Cornilescu, 485, 1996)

(b) Le-au trebuit doua luni pentru taierea lemnelor. (supine)

They took two months for the cutting of the wood. (Cornilescu, 485, 1996)

3. The NO phrases may occur as complemets of the verbs a termina/a ispravi (finish):

(39) (a) Au terminat deja construirea podului.(infinitive)

They have already finished the building of the bridge. (Cornilescu, 486, 1996)
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

(b) El a terminat deja cititul presei de dimineata.(supine)

He has already finished the reading of the morning press. (Cornilescu, 486, 1996)

5.1.2. Aspectual interpretation of the supine NS structure

-The supine NS structure is always an activity => its Object doesnt need to be lexicalized;

-The NS supine structure is always interpretable as an activity being compatible with for-
phrases and incompatible with in-phrases.

5.2 Aspectual features of the two nominalizing affixes

-Nominalizing affixes have aspectual features acting like aspectual operators which focalize
different zones of the event;

-The infinitive e-nominal appears only in NO structure expressing transitions.Because the

culmination of a transition is identified by the Object (Theme), the Object is obligatory
lexicalized and Case-assigned in the infinitive nominalization.

-The supine suffix occurs in the NS e-nominal where the infinitive is excluded.

-Activities are identified by their Subjects (Agent) thus it is enough to lexicalize or identify
this participant => the event NS structure is possible with the supine.

-The infinitive -re suffic is [+telic] forming the perfective nominalizations whereas the
supine is [-telic] forming activity nominalizations.

-The supine nominal is informal, familiar and less productive; infinitive is more formal,
applicable and highly productive;

-Ergative verbs designate transitions (accomplisments and achievements), so, like transitive
verbs they should be compatible with both suffixes.

Ergative verbs:
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

Infinitives Supines

A veni (come) venirea venitul acasa

A pleca (Leave) plecarea plecatul

A debarca (debark) debarcarea debarcatul

The supine nominalizer which is [-Telic] should be compatible with unergative bases .

Unergative verbs:

Infinitives Supines

A rade (laugh) *raderea rasul

A plange (cry) *plangerea lui plansul lui

A respira (breathe) *respirarea lui respiratul lui

-The great majority of unergative verbs have only the supine form; with most unergative
verbs , the infinitive is not even used as a result nominal.

5.3. Aspect , case and the projection of DPs

-Constraint: the infinitive nominalization requires the projection of an Object while the
supine nominal is not subject to this restriction.

-The infinitive nominalization requires the projection of an Object => telicity identifier

-The supine nominal is not subject to such restriction

5.4. More on a-structure and event identification

At the level of IP the event structure and event identification revealed some generalizations:

(54) If an event is identified , all the participants count as such.

-Different types of eventualities require different identifiers:

Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

(55) (a) A telic predication based on a transitive or ergative verb, is identified if its Object is
identified.

(b) an activity is sufficiently identified if its Subject (Agent) or some adjunct identifies
it.

-The Agent of a transitive nominalization is always identified either because it is assigned

case itself (English) or because the Theme has been identified.

-In activity nominalizations, the event identifier is the Subject (Agent) because the Subject
gets Genitive case and checks the aspectual feature of the nominal.

Difference between infinitive and supine nominalization of the same verb when the Object is
not projected :

(61) (a) Fumatul/*fumarea nemancat ruineaza sanatatea.

Smoking (supine/ *infinitive) on an empty stomach ruins ones health.

In the supine nominal there is a Case-marked Agent pro in the GenCaseP, serving as an event
identifier. In the infinitive nominals, the Agent cannot be activated because the Object is
missing.

5.5 A consequence

Some verbs accept both CP and DP Objects:

(62) admite admit, afirma affirm, declara declare, imagina imagine, considera
consider, visa dream, citi read etc.

Even though the verbs accept DP and CP Objects, the infinitive nominal accepts only the DP
and the CP is excluded.

In conclusion, the nominal infinitive is [+Telic] and it is grammatical only if it checks the
features: [+D], [+Gen] and because a CP Object cannot check these features will not be
licensed in the infinitive. The supine is used with CP Objects only in contexts where an
activity interpretation becomes possible and the infinitive is excluded.
Dorobantu Alexandra
Frangu Cristina Alexandra
MLLE 1st year

(73) (a) Socotitul/*socotirea cat va costa excursia i-a luat multi timp

Reckoning (supine/*infinitive) how much the trip would cost took him much time.

6. Conclusions

-E-nominals and the corresponding verbs share an a-structure

-with both verbs and nouns projection is mediated by choice of aspect

-E-nominals may be [+Telic] or [-Telic] and this difference may be due to the semantic
properties of the nominalizing suffixes

-the aspectual properties of the affix determine the projection of the arguments: [+Telic]
suffix require a DP Object whereas in [-Telic] nominal the Subject may be the only lexical
DP

-the constrained behavior of transitive nominalizations follows from the fact that Aspect and
Case features are checked in the same Case projection

-the apectual type of a suffix determines which arguments are event identifiers and have to be
lexicalized

-the analysis stresses the importance of Aspect among the parameters of nominalization.