380 MARY L. NUNES
(6) Process vs. Result Tests^7 Process vNs Result vNs- Pluralize no yes
- Take the demonstrative that odd fine
- Take modifiers like constant frequent yes no
Care must be taken in applying these tests, as they are not in every case
reliable. For example, although only result (non-process) vNs are able to
pluralize (test 1), not all of them are able to do so. In The destruction was
widespread, destruction is a nonpluralizable result vN: vThe destructions
were widespread. Similarly, destruction does not easily take the demonstra
tive that (cf. test 2) in the same type of construction: ?That destruction was
widespread. Nonetheless, the tests can be useful, as is indicated by the fol
lowing examples from Grimshaw (1986: 14, 15, 18).
(7) Applications of Process vs. Result Tests (cf. fn. 7)
Test one: pluralize
a. result: The examinations /exams were long.
b. process: The examinations of the patients took a long time.
Test two: take that
a. result: That examination/exam was long.
b.? process: ?That examination of the patients took a long time.
Test three: take constant or frequent
a. result: The frequent examination is desirable.
b. process: The frequent examination of one's feelings is
desirable.
Although Grimshaw's tests are seldom referred to in the analysis which
follows, they help to clarify the process-vs.-result distinction which is
assumed in the literature and which is the equivalent of the process-vs.-non-
process distinction which will be assumed in the following analysis. Having
defined these terms, and having delimited the vNP parameters within which
they will be applied (cf. 1.1), the discussion now turns to an RRG-framed
analysis of syntactic relations within the English vNP.