Ogawa, Yoshiki (2001) A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections. Oxford University Press, 323pp, paperback ISBN 0-19-514388-4, $35.00, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax
Michael Moss, Ph.D., University of Gdansk, Department of General and Celtic Linguistics
SYNOPSIS The book attempts to consolidate NPs and clauses into parallel structures. Such an objective is beneficial to linguistic theory for several reasons: one structure is better than several; it allows us to integrate derived nominals into a clearer structure; it sheds light on the nature of C and null C. However, the solutions proposed to these problems are usually surrounded by controversy. In 1960, Lees proposed a transformational model for nominalizations, which was cast aside in the 70's. Chomsky's proposal to move morphology out of the syntax was also very controversial and is still contested today. Complementizers have also received many different analyses and have been central to syntactic studies since the late 60's. This book is no exception. The solutions proposed to unify NP and S structures are controversial. However, the evidence backing up the proposals is strong and quite convincing. It is an extensive book, which certainly adds to our understanding of NP and S structures.
The book is divided into five chapters: an introduction, a discussion of clause structure, a discussion of derived nominals, the introduction of Komplementizer and a brief conclusion. In these chapters, Ogawa first introduces the problem and gives an outline of the program presented in the remaining chapters. Chapter 2 presents the hypothesis that all finite clauses are CPs that all null Cs are affixes, and that only Control complements are IPs. In chapter 3, investigates the structure of derived nominal complements, and proposes that derived nominals are, in fact, Vs that have moved to a NzP position, which is equivalent to a vP, to receive a nominalization affix. In chapter 4, proposes that all NPs are dominated by a Komplementizer Phrase functional projection, which gives Nominal and Clausal phrases parallel lexical and functional projections. Finally chapter 5 summarizes the argumentation presented in the book and points out some further direction of research.
CRITICAL COMMENTS It seems that in a work like this, there are two main things to assess. There is the theoretical material being presented and there is also the method in which the information is presented. That is to say, a book can present new and controversial ideas, but such ideas must be accompanied by data to back them up to allow the reader to assess their strength. Ogawa's book does both very successfully. He presents ideas that are new and interesting and a wide range of evidence to back up his theses. Examples are drawn from a many different languages and language groups, and each topic is covered in great detail. The ideas are presented clearly and logically. The structural changes proposed have fundamental implications for linguistic structure and Ogawa gives them the support that they deserve.
First it is necessary to address the question of Complementizers. Ogawa proposes that all finite clauses as well as ECM and raising structures are CPs. This is quite different from the traditional Government and Binding (GB) approach, which divided clausal complements into CP IP and Small Clause structures. In order to make this system work, Ogawa introduces one main modification to the standard theory. He proposes that all null Cs are affixal. In so doing, Ogawa is able to reduce the restrictions on the occurrence of null C in finite nonfactive complements to the following condition on inflectional affixes:
(1) *[[X + Y] + Z], where X is any element, Y is an inflectional affix, whether overt or null, and Z is a derivational affix (Ogawa 2001:22).
This proposal is backed up by extensive linguistic evidence from many different languages and language groups, which gives it credence from both the intra- and cross-linguistic point of view. There is one remaining question: Why do control complements have a different structure? Ogawa proposes that the answer may lie in the difference between 'propositions' and 'events', where 'propositions' are canonically realized as CP and 'events' as IP. However, he leaves this possibility to further research.
The next problem to be overcome is that of nominalizations. Ogawa chooses to create a functional projection called the Nominalization Phrase (NzP), which occupies the same place in a verbal projection as vP, but has a different function. NzP accounts for the syntactic nominalization of verbs. Where T will select a vP complement in clausal projections, D will select a NzP complement in most derived nominal constructions. Like null complementizers, Nzs are also understood to be affixal. This conveniently aids in the distinction between verbal and nominal gerunds, where verbal gerunds are DPs with vP complements, and nominal gerunds are DPs with NzP complements. While this chapter is centrally about derived nominals, the following generalizations can be derived:
(2) If a CP cannot be headed by the null C, either (a) or (b) or (c) holds: a. The verb that selects it is overtly raised to a higher functional head that is a derivational suffix (v or Nz). b. The CP is in a noncomplement position either in overt syntax or at LF (e.g., topicalized CPs, CP complements to factive verbs, and CPs in apposition to nominals). c. The CP is underlyingly in an adjoined position (e.g., CPs associated with manner-of-speaking verbs and extraposed relative clauses) (Ogawa 2001:219).
This hypothesis is also very well supported with evidence from a variety of languages.
Finally, Ogawa argues that nominal projections have a functional projection called the Komplementizer Phrase, which corresponds to the clausal Complementizer. Furthermore, null Komplementizers are argued to be affixal as are their corresponding null complementizers. The argument is based on evidence Hungarian concerning NP-internal wh-movement in Hungarian, pronominal shift in a variety of languages, and Case particle positioning in languages that possess them. The argumentation is convincing and thorough.
In general, the book is well researched and argued. The technology used is innovative and insightful leading us to more compact and unified structures for linguistic description. I would recommend this book to people interested in Generative Grammar and in particular to those interested in the structural relations proposed in that school.
REFERENCE Lees R. B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Mouton.
|