BORERs proposal (2013)

She begins by building on Grimshaw (1990), who notices that zero- deverbal nominals are
largely excluded from AS (Argument Structure) nominals. There are a few instances where
they can be used as such, some of them being the ones in (1).
(1) Change, release, use, murder, discharge, endeavor
The large majority of zero-deverbal nouns, on the other hand, cannot be used as AS nominal.
An indicative list follows in (2), and in (3) there are the criteria with respect to which the
nominals are considered non-AS.
(2) Admit, arrest, bite, cause, chase, ride, scream, whisper
(3) *the walk of the dog for three hours
*the dance of the fairy for a whole evening
*the (gradual) fall of the trees for two hours/in two minutes
*the salute of the officers by the subordinates
*the frown of the director for seven minutes
*the raid of the town in order to retrieve the prisoners
The phrases in (3) are not grammatical with the modifying phrases attached to them. Once
the above words undergo nominal affixation, they instantly operate as AS-nominals.
(4) the walking of the dog for three hours
the dancing of the fairy for a whole evening
the (gradual) falling of the trees for two hours (multiple events)
the saluting of the officers by the subordinates
the viewing of the results by the visiting committee

She argues that the properties of AS nominal derive from the fact that an event complex is
embedded under some C
N[V]
, which most probably has to correspond to an overt
phonological instantiation. She argues for the possibility of zero categorizers being excluded
in English, as the the systematic exclusion of the zero-derived morphology nouns as AS-
nominals becomes impossible.
After criticizing Kiparskys and Chomskys positions, she proceeds to propose a contextual
categorization system, coupled with the claim that English doesn t have zero categorizers.
Nominals in (2) are roots in a nominalizing context, with no additional structural complexity.
They are, thus, truly mono-morphemic, and the relationship they may have with their verbal
counterparts is via a common root, and not derivation.
this way, the verbal constituent can appear only in V-equivalent contexts. Since zero
derivation is not allowed, the V-equivalent must be overtly nominalized in order to emerge,
and this is why the zero forms cannot be AS nominals.
Both in Borer and in DM, roots may merge with potentially affixal category labels, which she
calls C (categorical)- functors.