Dealing with sortal ambiguity of nominalizations by underspecification

Based on data from German -ung nominalizations, I argue that selection restriction tests are not suitable as linguistic tools for ontological disambiguation. Consequently, I question the significance of ontology as a starting point for linguistic theorizing. Instead, I argue for an underspecified account of the ontology of nominalizations, in which disambiguation looses its central role in the commerce with ambiguity. 1 Ontology and ambiguity in German -ung nominalizations 1.1 Sortal Ambiguity Consider the pair of sentences in (1a) and (1b). (1) a. Die The Polizei police sperrt cordons die the Botschaft embassy.ACC ab. off. b. Die The Absperrung cordon.UNG.NOM der of the Botschaft embassy.GEN (durch (by die the Polizei). police). Lees (1960); Vendler (1967b) proposed that (1a) and (1b) are closely related in that “[t]he nominals [. . . ] which we shall study herein are not themselves sentences but rather they are noun-like versions of sentences” (Lees, 1960, p. 54) and in that “the device of nominalization transforms a sentence into a noun phrase” (Vendler, 1967a, p. 125). Nominalizations can be embedded into other sentences as noun phrases as in (2). (2) Die The Absperrung cordon der of the Botschaft embassy.GEN (durch (by die the Polizei) police) ist has erfolgt. happened. But embedding of nominalizations into other sentences is restricted as in (3). (3) a. *Das The Absperren cordon.INF.NOM wird is bemalt. painted. b. Die The Absperrung cordon.UNG.NOM wird is bemalt. painted. Vendler set out to provide an explanation of these restrictions by asking the question for “[w]hat are the restrictions governing the insertion of a nominalized sentence into the host sentence”? Vendler (1967a)[p. 125]. Vendler proposed to identify the restrictions on Roßdeutscher, A. (ed(s).): Ontology and Argument Structure (SinSpec10) Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context, University of Stuttgart, 2013: 1 – 23