A Cognitive Study Of Verbal Nominalization In English

Nominalization is a pervasive phenomenon in many languages, and English is no exception. As an important type of nominalization, verbal nominalization has long been a hot topic in the linguistic field. Though linguists from different linguistic schools have done numerous researches on it, some puzzles are still not well explained, such as the cognitive motivation of nominalization, and the cognitive mechanism involved in it. Furthermore, as verbal nominalized words fall into different types, their differences in semantic features and how to distinguish and choose them in practical use are confusing to many language learners. This thesis is a study of verbal nominalization in English under the framework of the prominence principle, the frame theory, and the conceptual metonymy theory.By applying the theoretical foundation of the prominence principle, the frame theory, and the conceptual metonymy theory, this thesis has investigated the cognitive motivation and mechanism of verbal nominalization, based on which the semantic features of different types of verbal nominalized words are looked into. By giving plenty of language facts in the discussion, this thesis has offered some hints for the selections between different types of verbal nominalized words in practical use. The study has obtained the following findings:(1) Verbal nominalization in English is not arbitrary; it is motivated by the profiling of the participants in the event frame activated by a verb, which agrees with language users’cognition and construal. In accordance with the different profiled participants, the cognitive motivation of verbal nominalization, i.e. the profiling of the participants, include the following forms:profiling the reified act, profiling the agent, profiling the patient, profiling the result, profiling the instrument, profiling the place, profiling the time, and profiling the manner, etc. As a verb is nominalized, the concept expressed is transferred from an action to a thing, which is realized by way of a metonymic mapping. Therefore, the cognitive mechanism involved in verbal nominalization in English is the metonymic mapping through which a thing concept can stand for an action concept, totally or partially. The THING FOR ACTION metonymic mapping, specifically, may be reflected as the following forms:REIFIED ACT FOR ACTION mapping, AGENT FOR ACTION mapping, PATIENT FOR ACTION mapping, RESULT FOR ACTION mapping, INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION mapping, PLACE FOR ACTION mapping, TIME FOR ACTION mapping and MANNER FOR ACTION mapping, etc.(2) Verbal nominalized words in English are generally classified into two types, namely, deverbal nouns and verbal nouns, and they have different semantic features. Whereas deverbal nouns are able to designate the reified act as well as the other participants in the event frame activated by a verb, verbal nouns can only designate the reified act. The semantic differences between deverbal nouns and verbal nouns mainly lie in three aspects, namely, polysemy verses monosemy; boundedness verses unboundedness; and complete nominalization verses ad hoc nominalization. With these differences in semantic features and a reference to the contexts in which the nominalized words are used, it is easy for language users to select between deverbal nouns and verbal nouns. Verbal nouns can be further divided into action nominals and gerundive nominals, according to their different degrees of nominalization. Action nominals are generally more nominalized than gerundive nominals. Although sharing the same form, action nominals and gerundive nominals are used differently because of their different semantic features. For action nominals, in the processes of nominalization, the thing concepts totally stand for the action concepts. As a result, action nominals possess almost only noun features. However, gerundive nominals possess some semantic features of verbs as well as some semantic features of nouns, because in their processes of nominalization, the thing concepts stand for the action concepts only partially. This difference in semantic features can account for the different uses of the two types of verbal nouns.The study made in this thesis has enlarged the scope of application of the prominence principle, the frame theory, and the conceptual metonymy theory, and it is of reference value to language learners in understanding the phenomenon of verbal nominalization and distinguishing between different types of verbal nominalized words in practical use.