{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.042789223454833596, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009508716323296355, 'mean_word_length': 5.723404255319149, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Three ways of unifying participles and nominalizations

Chomsky’s (1970) Remarks on nominalizations deals with the syntax of different types of nominalizations in English, placing the theoretical focus on how syntax and the lexicon interact. In this paper we discuss the so-called participle-nominalization polysemy, that is, cases in which the suffix involved in (deverbal) nominalizations is form-identical to the suffix employed in non-finite (typically prenominal) participial relative clauses (henceforth ‘relatives’ or RCs). This scenario is schematized in (1) (with the nominalization of (1a) occupying the object position).