Article published in:
Noun Valency
Edited by Olga Spevak
[Studies in Language Companion Series 158] 2014
► pp. 89–112

Chapter 4. Case assignment, aspect, and (non-)expression of patients

A study of the internal structure of Czech verbal nouns

| Rutgers University
After reviewing various surface realizations of agents, patients and goals in Czech nominalizations, I present a syntactic analysis which straightforwardly accounts for the case form of these arguments, based on the well-known idea in the literature that nouns can share with verbs a substantive part of the extended verbal projection. Moreover, both imperfective verbs and nouns can combine with null existentially interpreted patients while neither perfective verbs nor perfective nouns allow them. I explain this as the interaction of the properties of verbal Aspect/Quantity category and the missing number projection of implicit patients. Finally, I show that only nominals (regardless of their aspectual value) but not verbs can combine with null patients referring to an entity from the previous discourse.
Published online: 19 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.158.04dvo
References

References

Abney, Steven P.
1987 The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis
2001 Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel G.
2010 Temporal Interpretation in Narrative Discourse and Event Internal Reference. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark
1997 Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 73–117. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, Elena
1997 The Syntax and Semantics of Non-canonical NP Positions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amherst.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana
2006 Implicit arguments. In Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 2, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 558–588. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit
1999 The form, the forming, and the formation of nominals. Ms, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
2005a Structuring Sense: An Exo-skeletal Trilogy, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005b Structuring Sense: An Exo-skeletal trilogy, Vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986 Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1970 Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn & Company.Google Scholar
1980 On binging. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, John Martin, David Michaels & Jane Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–53. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daneš, František
1971 Větné členy obligatorní, potenciální a fakultativní (Obligatory, potential, and facultative sentential constituents). In Miscellanea Linguistica, Miroslav Komárek (ed.), 131–138. Ostrava: Profil.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly & Jelinek, Eloise
1995 Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3(2): 123–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dočekal, Mojmír & Kučerová, Ivona
2010 Aspectual presuppositions in Slavic and Romance. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Ithaca Meeting 2009, 125–139. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dvořák, Věra
2010 On the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Czech. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Ithaca Meeting 2009, 161–177. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
2011 Inherent case and locality requirement: Evidence from ditransitives and their nominalizations. In U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 17(1): Proceedings of PLC 34, 95–104. Philadelphia PA: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
2013 When silent ‘something’ and silent ‘someone’ behave like mass nouns. Talk presented at RULing VIII, Rutgers University. <http://​vera​.indus3​.net​/docs​/RULingVIII​.pdf>
Filip, Hana
2003 Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1): 55–101.Google Scholar
Fu, Jingqui, Roeper, Thomas & Borer, Hagit
2001 The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do – so . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gehrke, Berit
2008 Goals and sources are aspectually equal: Evidence from Czech and Russian prefixes. Lingua 118: 1664–1689. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991 Extended projection. Ms, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J.
1993 On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvian Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jablońska, Patrycja
2007 Radical Decomposition and Argument Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Karlík, Petr
2000 Valence substantiv v modifikované valenční teorii (Valency of nouns in a modified valency theory). In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 2, Zdena Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 181–192. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.Google Scholar
2002 Ještě jednou k českým deverbálním substantivům (Once more on Czech deverbal nouns). In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 4, Zdena Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 13–23. Praha: Lidové noviny.Google Scholar
Kolářová, Veronika
2010 Valence deverbativních substantiv v češtině (na materiálu substantiv s dativní valencí) (Valency of deverbal nouns in Czech, with a special regard to nouns with dative valency). Praha: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan
2010 The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3): 357–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1993 Implications of asymmetries in double object construction. In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, Sam Mchombo (ed.), 113–150. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): Proceedings of PLC 21 , Alexis Dimitriadis (ed.), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: Penn Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
2007 Phases and Words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, Sook-Hee Choe (ed.), 196–222. Seoul: Dong In.
McFadden, Thomas
2004 The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax–Morphology Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Novotný, Jiří
1980 Valence dějových substantiv v češtině (Valency of event nouns in Czech) [Sborník pedagogické fakulty v Ústí nad Labem]. Prague: SPN.Google Scholar
Panevová, Jarmila
1974 On verbal frames in Functional Generative Description. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 22, 3–40.Google Scholar
2000 Poznámky k valenci podstatných jmen (Notes on the valency of nouns). In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 2, Zdena Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 173–180. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.Google Scholar
Piťha, Petr
1992 Posesívní vztah v češtině (Possessive Relation in Czech). Prague: Aved.Google Scholar
Procházková, Věra
2006 Argument Structure of Czech Event Nominals. M.Phil. thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina
2002 Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2004 Time and the event: The semantics of Russian prefixes. Nordlyd. Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 32(2): 323–361.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas & van Hout, Angeliek
1999 The impact of nominalization on passive, -able and middle: Burzio’s generalization and feature-movement in the lexicon. In MITWPL 35: Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon, Liina Pylkkänen, Angeliek van Hout & Heidi Harley (eds), 185–211. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Romanova, Eugenia
2004 Superlexical versus lexical prefixes. Nordlyd. Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 32(2): 255–278.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S.
1991 The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2004 Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd. Tromsø University Working papers on Language and Linguistics 32(2): 205–253.Google Scholar
Veselovská, Ludmila
2001 K analýze českých deverbálních substantiv (On the analysis of Czech deverbal nouns). In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 3, Zdena Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 11–27. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.Google Scholar
Zucchi, Alessandro
1989 The Language of Propositions and Events: Issues in the Syntax and Semantics of Nominalization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amherst.Google Scholar