CHAPTER TWO

2.0LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1Introduction

Nominalisation has long been a subject of significant interest in

linguistic theory because it lies at the interface of morphology,

syntax and semantics. It constitutes one of the most productive

means by which languages expand their nominal lexicon, and it also

provides important diagnostic evidence for the interaction between

word formation and argument structure. Scholars have studied

nominalisation from structural, typological and theoretical

perspectives, and their findings have shown that while the

phenomenon is universal, the specific processes by which it is

realised vary greatly across languages.

This chapter therefore situates the present study on Etulo

nominalisation within the wider scholarly discourse. The review first

discusses theoretical perspectives that have shaped our

understanding of nominalisation, followed by a detailed survey of

morphological and syntactic strategies found in the world’s

languages. It then narrows down to Niger–Congo languages, with

particular attention to Tiv and Akan, before considering what has

been documented about Etulo morphology.

The chapter further sets out the theoretical and conceptual

frameworks that inform this research, and finally presents an

1
empirical review that identifies gaps in previous studies which the

present research seeks to address.

2.2Theoretical Perspectives on Nominalisation

Early morphological traditions treated nominalisation simply as a

matter of derivational morphology, where bound morphemes are

attached to bases to derive new lexical categories (Katamba, 1993).

This view highlights the formal properties of nominalisation but

underplays its syntactic and semantic implications. Later work,

especially in typology, has moved beyond morphology to investigate

nominalisation as a grammatical strategy that allows verbal or

clausal material to function as nominal arguments. In this sense,

nominalisation is not just a lexical process but also a clause-

embedding strategy that has ramifications for syntax and discourse

(Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2002).

Generative linguistics has provided an even more fine-grained

analysis. Grimshaw (1990, 2011) distinguishes between complex

event nominals, which retain the argument structure of their verbal

base, and result nominals, which denote entities and do not project

arguments. This distinction has become influential because it

provides a principled way of explaining why some nominalisations

can take complements while others cannot. Distributed Morphology

has further reframed the issue by proposing that nominalisers are

functional heads inserted at the syntax-morphology interface. This

framework predicts that some nominalisers are semantically

2
contentful, licensing argument structure, while others are

semantically empty, serving only as morphological markers (Grimm,

2022).

The significance of these theoretical perspectives for the present

study lies in their diagnostic potential. They provide tests for

identifying whether Etulo nominalisations preserve argument

structure, how they distribute syntactically, and what morphological

devices they employ. Such frameworks allow Etulo data to be

situated within the broader theoretical debate on the interface

between morphology and syntax.

2.3Morphological and Syntactic Strategies

Languages around the world employ multiple strategies for

nominalisation, but certain processes recur with remarkable

regularity. Affixation is perhaps the most common strategy. In many

languages, affixes encode specific nominal categories such as

agents, instruments or abstract states. In Bantu, for instance,

nominal prefixes are tied to noun classes, while in Indo-European

languages, nominal suffixes are abundant and productive (Mous,

2004; Pozdniakova, 2024).

Reduplication is another strategy, often associated with habitual or

iterative semantics. In some Kwa languages, reduplicated verbs

function as action nominals denoting repeated or continuous activity

(Asante, 2020). Compounding also plays a role, especially where a

verb is combined with a noun to form complex nominals. Conversion

3
or zero derivation, where verbs are used as nouns without overt

morphology, is widely attested in Niger–Congo and elsewhere.

Clausal nominalisation extends these processes beyond the word

level. Here, entire clauses are reanalysed as noun phrases, either

through the use of particles or through morphological marking. Such

structures often function as complement clauses or subjects in

discourse (Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2002). The syntactic behaviour of

nominalisations is therefore critical. Tests such as their ability to

take determiners, undergo modification, or accept possessors

distinguish them from ordinary verbs and mark them as nouns in

distribution.

Productivity is another central issue. Typological studies stress the

need to measure not only the presence of nominalising strategies

but also their degree of productivity. This can be assessed by the

range of verbs they apply to, their acceptance in novel coinages,

and their frequency in natural discourse (Grimm, 2022). These

criteria are especially important in minority languages like Etulo,

where nominalisation may be restricted to particular semantic

domains.

2.4Nominalisation in Niger–Congo and Neighboring

Languages

4
The Niger–Congo family, to which Etulo belongs, exhibits a rich array

of nominalisation strategies. In Bantu languages, nominalisation is

tightly bound to the noun class system. For instance, specific

prefixes mark agentive and instrumental nominals, while others

encode locatives or abstract states. This linkage of nominalisation to

noun class morphology demonstrates how derivation and inflection

intersect in Bantu (Pozdniakova, 2024).

In Kwa languages, nominalisation often relies on particles or tonal

changes. Asante (2020) documents that in Akan, both affixation and

particles are used, with distinctions drawn between action nominals

that preserve verbal argument structure and result nominals that

denote entities. Esahie, another Kwa language, also exhibits

productive action nominalisation, though its morphological markers

differ.

Closer to Etulo, Tiv provides perhaps the most relevant comparison.

Tiv employs prefixation and tonal alternations as major

nominalisation strategies, with evidence of both morphological and

clausal nominalisation (Ajim, 2022). Given Tiv’s geographical and

genealogical proximity to Etulo, these findings are directly relevant.

They suggest that Etulo may also exhibit tonal alternations and

prefixal or suffixal nominalisers. However, the degree of productivity

and the syntactic distribution may differ.

These patterns show that Niger–Congo languages vary considerably

in their nominalisation systems, even among neighbours. This

5
underscores the importance of conducting a language-specific study

of Etulo to identify both shared and unique strategies.

2.5Nominalisation in Etulo: Existing Descriptions

Etulo has recently received descriptive attention, most notably

through a comprehensive grammar (Ezenwafor-Afuecheta, 2024)

and a study on plural marking strategies (Ezenwafor-Afuecheta,

2023). These works show that Etulo has a rich morphological

system, including affixation, reduplication, compounding and tonal

alternations. The plural study, for instance, demonstrates that Etulo

uses multiple strategies, including suffixes, reduplication and vowel

alternations, thereby highlighting the flexibility of its word formation

processes.

However, nominalisation has not been treated as an independent

object of study. While derivational morphology is discussed, the

grammar does not isolate nominalisers, nor does it examine their

productivity or syntactic properties. Thus, we do not know whether

Etulo nominalisations preserve argument structure, how they

behave syntactically, or whether tone plays a systematic role in

their formation. This gap makes the present research necessary.

2.6Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework guiding this study is eclectic, drawing

from typology, generative syntax and Distributed Morphology. The

6
typological model of Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2002) provides

parameters for identifying and classifying nominalisations, such as

morphological versus syntactic nominalisation, or action versus

result nominals. Grimshaw’s (1990, 2011) theory distinguishes

complex event from result nominals and provides diagnostic tests

for argument retention, such as the ability to take complements or

be modified by adverbs. Distributed Morphology, as summarised by

Grimm (2022), provides a mechanism for understanding how

nominalisers function as functional heads and why some are

productive while others are limited.

This integrated framework allows the analysis to be both descriptive

and explanatory. It enables the researcher to account for surface

patterns in Etulo while also situating them within broader debates

about the nature of nominalisation.

2.7Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this study models nominalisation as a

process that moves from input to process to output. The input

consists of a verbal, adjectival or clausal base which provides the

semantic content. The process involves morphological or syntactic

operations such as affixation, reduplication, compounding,

conversion or clausal nominalisation. The output is a noun which

may denote an agent, instrument, event, result or abstract concept.

This framework allows for a systematic analysis of Etulo

nominalisation. By examining each nominalised form in terms of its

7
input, process and output, the study ensures that both form and

function are adequately captured. It also facilitates comparison with

other languages, since these three domains are widely applicable

cross-linguistically.

2.8Empirical Review

Several studies provide methodological and comparative insights

that inform the present research. In Etulo itself, Ezenwafor-

Afuecheta (2024) and Ezenwafor-Afuecheta (2023) describe

morphological processes but do not focus specifically on

nominalisation. This creates the empirical gap that the present

study seeks to fill. In Tiv, Ajim (2022) documents prefixal and tonal

nominalisation and shows how both morphological and clausal

strategies are employed. These findings provide methodological

lessons, such as the use of elicitation combined with natural speech

data. In Akan, Asante (2020) shows how action and result

nominalisations can be distinguished using semantic diagnostics.

These methods are particularly relevant for Etulo, where it is

necessary to determine whether nominalisations retain argument

structure.

Typological works such as Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2002) and Grimm

(2022) emphasise the need for productivity tests and syntactic

diagnostics. They recommend combining elicited and corpus-based

data, a recommendation that the present study follows. However,

many regional studies have failed to explore the role of tone

8
systematically, despite its known importance in Niger–Congo

morphophonology. The present study addresses this by including

tone as a central variable in the analysis of Etulo nominalisation.

2.9Summary

The literature reviewed shows that nominalisation is a universal

phenomenon but is realised differently across languages.

Theoretical studies provide clear tools for analysis, while typological

surveys establish parameters for comparison. Niger–Congo

languages display diverse strategies, with affixation, tone and

clausal structures playing important roles. For Etulo, however, no

dedicated study of nominalisation exists, despite evidence of a rich

morphological system. This study therefore fills a significant gap by

documenting and analysing nominalisation in Etulo, testing its

productivity, examining its syntactic distribution, and situating it

within the broader Niger–Congo context. In so doing, it not only

contributes to the description of Etulo but also offers insights into

general theories of nominalisation.

References

Ajim, A. T. (2022). Nominalisation strategies in Tiv. Journal of West

African Languages, 49(1), 23–42.

Asante, K. (2020). Action and result nominalisations in Akan: A

morpho-syntactic analysis. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 9(2),
45–68.

9
Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic
morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crystal, D. (2011). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.).

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ezenwafor-Afuecheta, V. O. (2023). Plural marking strategies in

Etulo. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 44(2), 201–
225.

Ezenwafor-Afuecheta, V. O. (2024). A grammar of Etulo. Leiden:

Brill.

Grimm, S. (2022). Nominalisation at the morphology-syntax

interface. Morphology, 32(4), 415–442.

Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Grimshaw, J. (2011). Nominalisation revisited: Event structure and

argument projection. Lingua, 121(11), 1849–1876.

Katamba, F. (1993). Morphology. London: Macmillan.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2002). Nominalisations. In N. Smirnova & L.

Stolz (Eds.), Nominalisations: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–
18). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mous, M. (2004). Nominalisation in Bantu languages. Studies in

African Linguistics, 33(1), 73–98.

Pozdniakova, A. (2024). Nominalisation in Bantu: Noun class

morphology and derivation. Linguistic Typology, 28(2), 223–249.

10