This article considers what different semantic theories have to offer to the analysis of the semantics of derivational morphology, more specifically to the semantics of deverbal nominalizations. I concentrate on three different kinds of semantic theories: Model Theoretic or Formal Semantics (MT), Conceptual Semantics (CS), and Distributional Semantics (DS). I first trace their origins in philosophical semantics, concentrating on the concepts of reference, sense, and use. I then look in detail at a number of analyses of deverbal nominalizations and show how their roots as theories of reference, sense, or use shape what they can and cannot contribute to our understanding of the semantics of deverbal nominalizations.

This article, resorting to “Dynamic Theories of Language,” throws light on a Syntactic Reanalysis having transpired in participial constructions, whose central meaning is sameness of time or simultaneity inherent in the present participle verb, but some of which deviate from this core sense, resulting in asserting a temporal lapse between two expressed events. Such deviating examples are explained in developmental or extensional terms on which the above-mentioned theories rest—more specifically because of the Syntactic Reanalysis to coordination under the condition “Syntactico-Semantic Discrepancy” plus temporal non-simultaneity. This article also unveils, from a cognitive perspective, constraints on events that can be coordinated.

The EPP, though empirically well-motivated, has been ill-understood and has remained a stipulation in the study of generative grammar. This paper considers the EPP in the minimalist setting. I argue that labeling is not the answer to the EPP and claim, instead, that the EPP is reducible to externalization at the Sensory-Motor level. I show that the proposal can explain both problematic and unproblematic examples of the EPP under a labeling approach and has theoretically and empirically favorable implications. This paper endorses the language design hypothesized in the Minimalist Program, which assumes that language consists of Merge (the simplest computational operation) and other systems interacting with it.

This paper explores a theoretical implementation of default case, arguing that default case is a realization of an unvalued Case feature. Furthermore, we propose two types of nominal licensing conditions: a moved NP is licensed if and only if its unvalued feature is valued, whereas an in-situ NP is licensed irrespective of whether its unvalued feature is valued. The proposed nominal licensing conditions account for the distribution of a logical subject and the (un)availability of Quantifier Raising in the existential there-construction. We show that (il)licit scrambling in Turkish is also explained by the proposed conditions. Finally, the proposed analyses are extended to the licensing of subjects in Mad Magazine Sentences and the proper conditions for scrambling in Japanese.

In terms of Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) labeling theory, wh-subjects in English cannot move to Spec-CP since English T is too weak to label, which vindicates the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis (henceforth, VMH). However, theoretical and empirical problems arise with the VMH vindicated by the notion of weak T. Theoretically, the weakness of T constitutes a contradiction with labeling in English infinitival clauses. Empirically, numerous studies have presented various evidence that wh-subjects move to Spec-CP in English. Nevertheless, the movement of wh-subjects to Spec-CP poses serious problems with Affix Hopping and nominative Case-valuation. Thus, we propose that the derivation of wh-subject questions in English involves T-to-C raising by Internal Pair-Merge, which allows wh-subjects to move to Spec-CP, overcoming these problems. Furthermore, the present proposal can be extended to various syntactic phenomena showing subject-object asymmetry.

This paper addresses the research question of whether moved CPs behave like DPs in Mongolian, so that they can license genitive subjects in the language. It will be shown that the answer to this question is positive based on the fact that Mongolian actually allows genitive subjects when complement clauses undergo leftward movement, and move across their subjects by scrambling, and also when complement clauses are placed at the right edge and separated from their subjects by a clause boundary.