Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Jeffrey Punske
2016 Canadian Journal of Linguistics  
In this paper, I show that Embick's (2010) cyclic head approach to regular morphology alone cannot account for the freely available variations in the realization of nominalizers in English nominalizations involving overt verbalizers. Instead, I offer an account of the regularity effects using the technology of Local Dislocation (Embick and Noyer 2001, Embick and Marantz 2008, Embick 2007a, 2007b). Using this analysis, I derive both the variable nominalization patterns and the restrictions on
more » ... restrictions on particles and results in derived nominals from Sichel (2010). By treating regularity as the by-product of extant morphosyntatic operations, we can better explain the distribution of regular and irregular nominalizers and account for particle/result restrictions in English derived nominals.
doi:10.1017/cnj.2016.3 fatcat:qgcdhisgkbc6zfb6t4kzokx2yq