The Argument Structure of -ion Nominalizations

These files contain three samples of English -ion nominalizations in context. Since the argument-taking behaviour of deverbal nouns has been discussed controversially for a long time, the data of the first two files are intended to show that deverbal nouns ending in –ion systematically follow their base verbs not only with respect to argument realization, but also with respect to the omissibility of complements in their prototypical event readings. The nouns examination, construction (File 1), installation, implementation, and evaluation (File 2) are derived from strictly transitive verbs. If the complement of these nouns is locally unexpressed, i.e. if it is not specified in the form of the canonical of-PP or an Obj-poss phrase, a referent for this argument must be retrievable from the preceding discourse context. Thus, these nouns tolerate Definite Null Instantiation in the sense of Fillmore (1986), whereas Indefinite Null Instantiation, which leaves the argument unexpressed (though conceptually implied), is precluded. By contrast, the nominals translation, discussion and exploration (File 2), which are derived from optionally transitive verbs, allow for Definite and Indefinite Null Instantiation. The behaviour of the eight nominalizations with respect to complement omission is evaluated as a strong indicator of (semantic) argument inheritance. File 3 contains a variety of contexts in which the -ion nominals display less central readings. In these readings, they show a higher degree of ‘reification’, which renders them less compatible or incompatible with event markers. Nevertheless, relics of the underlying verbal argument structure may be preserved. The data come from two large electronic corpora, namely the Concretely Annotated English Gigaword and the English Web 2021 (enTenTen21) provided by Sketch Engine.