Advances in Role and Reference Grammar

(^392) MARY L. NUNES
e. the reflections of colored lights
f. the arrangements of flowers.
Ambiguity between a compositional and a direct-argument reading seems
to occur only in constructions headed by vNs capable of heading either pro­
cess nominals or result nominals, and — with them — only where no con­
text is provided. For example, the professor's expression of disappointment
may be used either as a result nominal in which disappointment describes
the composition of the physical expression on the professor's face, or as a
process nominal in which expression refers to the act of expressing some­
thing, and disappointment is the vN argument which names the "some­
thing" being expressed. In actual discourse, such ambiguity is contextually
resolved. For example, a compositional interpretation is rendered by the
context in (21a); a direct-argument interpretation is rendered by the con­
text in (21b):
(21) a. The lighting in the photo accentuated the professor's expres­
sion of disappointment.
b. The professor's expression of disappointment with the exam
scores surprised the young student.
The last of which will be mentioned here is what might be called a "de­
limiting of." It needs to be mentioned only in passing, as the NPs which it
marks cannot be construed as nominalized-verb arguments. Rather, the
NPs marked by this of can only be interpreted as information delimiting the
unique reference of the modified N/vN. As the examples given in (22a,b)
reflect, the delimiting of is freqently used in emphatic phrases, whether
headed by Ns or result vNs:
(22) a. the chance of a lifetime
b. the performance of the decade
 the book of the month
d. the king of kings.
The of s which have been identified here are not the only ones found in
the NP. However, because they either may directly follow a vN (e.g. the
source of in John's death of malaria) or may mark a vN argument (e.g. the
clausal case-marking of marking the non-U theme, water, in the draining of
the pool of its water), they are the ones which need to be distinguished from
the direct-argument marker in the ensuing discussion.