In contrast, those who consider both denotations as senses of the same lexical unit maintain that nominalizations are underspecified lexical units (Pustejovsky 1995), units in which a disjunction of meaning is present (Alonso 2004), or simply lexical units with different senses (Badia 2002).
pustejovsky accounts for the event-result ambiguity in nominalizations by means of an underspecified lexical representation called dotobject, arguing that event-result nominalizations are cases of complementary polysemy: "both senses of a logically polysemous noun seem relevant for the interpretation of the noun in the context, but one sense seems 'focused' for purposes of a particular context" (pustejovsky 1995, page 31).