 There is no agreement, at this point, as to the ontological content of syntactic category distinctions. This is a difficult issue also because there is a lot of cross-linguistic variation as to what syntactic categories natural languages display (Gil 2000). Moreover, there are theoretical developments in syntax that put familiar syntactic category distinctions into question and require at least a recasting of the issue. For example, in distributive morphology (Halle &amp; Marantz 1993; Borer 2005), lexical elements (roots) are not associated with syntactic categories in the lexicon. Only when they are inserted in a syntactic structure will they be associated with syntactic categories, which means that they cannot owe any ontologically relevant lexical content to a syntactic category. Another example is the theory of radical lexical decomposition (Hale &amp; Kayser 2002), according to which a range of full verbs are derived from combinations of a light verb and a noun, e.g., walk from take a walk (take being the light verb and walk the noun). This view gives up a close connection between events and the category of verbs, but posits a much greater range of nouns instead that underlie full verbs.