ARGUMENT LINKING IN DERIVED NOMINALS 407By way of the semantic macroroles and verb classes, then, and in terms
of the U > A linking hierarchy (cf. 8), RRG is able to predict which of a
verb's arguments is permitted to occur as the single direct argument of the
related vN. Exceptional linking, such as occurs with two-argument entry/
entrance, is rare and is explained in terms of the clause's accusative pattern
ing vs. the nominal's ergative patterning in English. The regular exceptions
in the case of activities are predictable — i.e. are nonarbitrarily explainable
in terms of the factors summarized in the preceding paragraph. Thus, via
the semantic macroroles, as they are linked by way of the Α-U Hierarchy to
specific arguments in the LS of a V/vN, and as they, in turn, link those
arguments to the syntactic GRs in the clause and to the syntactic direct
argument position in the vNP (all of the linkings being predictable), RRG
is able to articulate the correlation between the syntactic manifestations of a
particular argument as a direct argument in the vNP and as a specific GR in
the clause. Where vN direct-argument linking is not involved, other linguis
tic factors explain the correlation between the syntactic manifestations of
LS arguments in a clause and the related vNP.
2.3.3 Post-nominally occurring indirect arguments
Most of the factors explaining the post-vN occurrence of indirect arguments
have been mentioned in previous discussion. For example, the inability of
nonprepositionally-marked NPs to occur postnominally prevents some
arguments which occur post-verbally in the clause from occurring in certain
related vNP constructions. This was demonstrated most significantly with
dative constructions in the discussion of clausal case markers in 2.3.1. As
was exemplified there, indirect arguments of dative vNs have access only to
clausally-employed prepositions (i.e. no prepositions are idiosyncratically
provided by the lexicon for these NP constructions only). As a conse
quence, dative vNP constructions are free to pattern with the clause in the
marked shifting of arguments only where the clause prepositionally marks
the post-verbal argument which is not U.^26
Similarly, it is the prepositional marking of an argument associated
with a passive CL-A which explains the typical freedom of that argument to
occur postnominally in a related vNP.^27 In fact, only where the experiential-
state status of a vN (cf. 49 b,c and 51b) disallows the use of the clausal by-A
(and no other prepostion is clausally employed for such marking) are argu
ments linked to the A in a passive clause unable to occur postnominally in
a related vNP. Examples include the following.