Advances in Role and Reference Grammar

ARGUMENT LINKING IN DERIVED NOMINALS 389

but a sufficiently representative number of nominals derived from each
verb class to make the testing of RRG predictions viable. That vN direct-
core-argument linking can be predicted in terms of the linking hierarchy
given in (8) is the crucial claim investigated in the subsections of 2.3.2. In
order to address the effectiveness of that hierarchy, however, it is first
necessary to distinguish the direct-argument of marker from other of mar­
kers used in the NP. This is the concern in 2.3.1. Post-vN arguments not
linked to the direct argument position are investigated in 2.3.3, and in 2.3.4
and its subsections, the nominal's LDP NP is analyzed at length.

2.3.1 OF s in the noun phrase: some distinctions

It goes without saying, of course, that if the vN has only one direct core

argument, the marking of more than one argument as direct should result in

ungrammaticality. Such is the case with the following constructions:

(14) a. *the gift of Sally of a car

b. *the giving of the instructor of the exam

 *the presentation of Jeff of the award

d. *the supply (ing) of the rebels of weapons.

In RRG terms, this ungrammaticality is the result of both the locative and

the theme arguments having been marked as direct arguments.

What, then, of the grammatical construction the draining of the pool of

its water, where both poolloc and waterth are arguments of the vN head and

both are marked by of! The crucial difference, here, is that the of marking

the theme is not the vNP's direct-argument marker, but an indirect-argu­

ment marker made available by the clause. Specifically, it is the case-mark­

ing of used with a particular class of verbs (removal verbs, which have a

"source" orientation) to mark a non-U theme: John drained the pool U.loc of

its watery (FVV 1984:83-84).

That vN arguments have access to the prepositional markers used with

indirect core arguments in the clause is exemplified further in clausal and

nominal correlates like the following.

(15) a. The emcee presented JeffO. loc with the awardth.

b. the (emcee's) presentation of Jeff^, loc with the awardth

 The emcee presented the awardO. th to Jeffloc.

d. the (emcee's) presentation of the awardU. th to Jeffloc