Alienability Splits in action nominal constructions

Adnominal alienability splits typically involve a coding asymmetry: inalienable possessive constructions are shorter (or zero-coded) and/or more bound than alienable possessive constructions. This has been explained using one of two functional principles: iconicity (possessive constructions reflect differential conceptual distance) or economy (possessive constructions are the result of differential usage frequency). Alienability splits may also affect the coding of arguments in action nominal constructions. For this phenomenon only the iconicity explanation has been invoked, using the semantic notion of control. In the present paper, we investigate the merits of the alternative economy explanation for the cross-linguistic distribution of (in)alienable possessive coding of arguments in such nominalizations. Based on typological and corpus data, we conclude that the economy explanation covers the widest variety of typological generalizations concerning split possessive coding, in both underived NPs and derived action nominals.