Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Document Type
- Article (9)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Working Paper (2)
- Part of Periodical (1)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
Institute
- Extern (1)
Verbs, nouns and affixation
(2008)
What explains the rich patterns of deverbal nominalization? Why do some nouns have argument structure, while others do not? We seek a solution in which properties of deverbal nouns are composed from properties of verbs, properties of nouns, and properties of the morphemes that relate them. The theory of each plus the theory of howthey combine, should give the explanation. In exploring this, we investigate properties of two theories of nominalization. In one, the verb-like properties of deverbal nouns result from verbal syntactic structure (a “structural model”). See, for example, van Hout & Roeper 1998, Fu, Roeper and Borer 1993, 2001, to appear, Alexiadou 2001, to appear). According to the structural hypothesis, some nouns contain VPs and/or verbal functional layers. In the other theory, the verbal properties of deverbal nouns result from the event structure and argument structure of the DPs that they head. By “event structure” we mean a representation of the elements and structure of a linguistic event, not a representation of the world. We refer to this view as the “event model”. According to the event model hypothesis, all derived nouns are represented with the same syntactic structure, the difference lying in argument structure – which in turn is critically related to event structure, in the way sketched in Grimshaw (1990), Siloni (1997) among others. In pursuing these lines of analysis, and at least to some extent disentangling their properties, we reach the conclusion that, with respect to a core set of phenomena, the two theories are remarkably similar – specifically, they achieve success with the same problems, and must resort to the same stipulations to address the remaining issues that we discuss (although the stipulations are couched in different forms).
The main tenet of the present paper is the thesis that nominalization – like other cases of derivational morphology – is an essentially lexical phenomenon with well defined syntactic (and semantic) conditions and consequences. More specifically, it will be argued that the relation between a verb and the noun derived from it is subject to both systematic and idiosyncratic conditions with respect to lexical as well as syntactic aspects.
In the typology of West African languages, tone has been noted to play crucial grammatical and lexical roles, but its function in word formation has been less systematically explored and remains to be fully understood. Against this backdrop, the present study seeks to examine the form and function of tonal morphology in the formation of action nominals in four Kwa languages spoken in Ghana, namely Akan, Gã, Lεtε, and Esahie, a relatively unexplored language of the Central Tano subgroup. Relying on data from both secondary and primary sources, we argue that tone raising is an important component of Kwa action nominalization, as it is found across different languages and derivational strategies. Specifically, while across the Kwa languages considered, tone raising tends to be an epiphenomenon of phonological conditioning, sometimes tone is the sole component of the nominalization operation or, as in Esahie, it concurs with the affix to the derivation, hence playing a morphological function.
This study explores four German nominalization patterns (-ung; -erei; Ge- -X-e; nominalized infinitives) using corpus and web data. We conclude that they can be considered a word formation paradigm, as some functions depend on paradigmatic oppositions. Our case study supports gradual differences between inflectional and word formation paradigmaticity.
This paper presents an overview on deverbal nominalizations from Ktunaxa, a language isolate spoken in eastern British Columbia, Canada. Deverbal nominalizations are formed uniformly with a left-peripheral nominalizing particle k (Morgan 1991). However, they do not form a single homogenous class with respect to various syntactic properties. These properties are illustrated with novel data, showing that deverbal nominalizations fall into at least two classes, which are analyzed here as nominalization taking place at either vP or VP, where vP-nominalizations include the external argument and VP-nominalizations do not. Evidence for this division comes from how possession is expressed, the interpretation of the passive (and passive-like constructions), and the licensing of verbal modifiers. As both classes of deverbal nominalizations are constructed uniformly with the nominalizing particle, these properties are derived syntactically from the size of the verbal constituent being nominalized.
In seinen Schriften zur Typologie des Relativsatzes behandelt Lehmann auch das Baskische […] Die Diskussion um den baskischen Relativsatz geht jedoch schon auf De Rijk (1972) zurück und wird von Oyharqabal (1985) fortgesetzt. In diesen Werken geht es um allgemeine Themen der Typologie des Relativsatzes (vor allem um das Problem der Zugänglichkeit), wobei allerdings wichtige Fragen unberücksichtigt bleiben: Warum gibt es im Baskischen mehrere unterschiedliche Relativsatzkonstruktionen? Worin unterscheiden sie sich? Wie lassen sie sich voneinander und gegen andere Verfahren der Nominalisierung abgrenzen, mit anderen Worten: welche Konstruktion gehört noch zu den Relativsatzbildungen, welche nicht mehr? Ich will hier die verschiedenen Verfahren der Relativsatzbildung (Relativierung) vorstellen und versuchen, mit Hilfe von Lehmanns (1984) Kontinuum der Nominalisierung Ordnung in die Phänomene , zu bringen, um schließlich Erklärungsansätze zu finden.
Nominalization has been at the forefront of linguistic research since the early days of generative grammar (Lees 1960, Vendler 1968, Lakoff 1970). The theoretical debate as to how a theory of grammar should be envisaged in order to capture the morphosyntactic and semantic complexity of nominalization, initiated by Chomsky's (1970) Remarks on nominalization, is just as lively today, after five decades during which both the empirical scope and the methodology of linguistic research have seen enormous progress. We are delighted to be able to mark this occasion through our collection, next to the anniversary volume Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky's Remarks, edited by Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, soon to appear with Oxford University Press.
One of the striking features in modern Newari noun phrases is the wide usage of a set of affixes found in combination with the various elements that may expand a noun into an endocentric construction. At first sight such affixation would appear as a linking device by which the subordinate constituents of a noun phrase are tied to their head noun. Closer investigation, however, reveals a more complex picture which I have attempted to outline in the following paragraphs. The results of this inspection lead to the conclusion that the pattern of affixation displayed in Newari mirrors the close interaction of two converse functional principles: both the syntagmatic function of nominal determination on the one hand and a paradigmatic function – the formation of certain types of lexicalized expressions in Newari – formally tie in with each other by the application of one common technique.