Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2002 (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Part of a Book (7)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (15) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- Nominalisierung (7)
- Englisch (6)
- Semantik (5)
- Bedeutungswandel (2)
- Deutsch (2)
- Indogermanische Sprachen (2)
- Konnotation (2)
- Metapher (2)
- Bedeutung (1)
- Diskurs (1)
Institute
Within a minimalist framework of sound-meaning correlation, the present study concentrates on process nominalizations of Russian. It is shown how these constructions are built up syntactically and semantically and in which respects they differ from other types of nominalizations. The analysis follows a lexicalist conception of word formation and the differentiation of Semantic Form and Conceptual Structure.
The interface of lexical semantics and conceptual structure deverbal and denominal nominalizations
(2002)
Nominalizations can refer to events, instances of events or participants in an event. The particular reference is determined by the lexical semantics of the base and the suffix, and by the conceptual structure of the base. The comparison between deverbal and denominal nominalization in -ata in Italian reveals that the conceptual structure plays a crucial role in determining the reference of a nominalization. Italian nominalizations of -ata are productively derived from verbal and nominal bases. Derivations from verbal bases refer to a single event denoted by the base. Derivations from a nominal base N denote events or results corresponding to a limited number of pattems, such as a hit by N, a characteristic action of N, a period of N, a quantity that is contained in N, etc. The paper argues that the function of the suffix operates on the lexical meaning of the base, but the con~positiono f the lexical meaning of the base with the lexical meaning of the suffix is restricted by the conceptual properties of the base.
In this paper I investigate a change in the word order patterns of Greek nominalizations that took place from the Classical Greek (CG) period to the Modem Greek (MG) one. Specifically, in CG both the patterns in (A), with its two subtypes, and (B) were possible; the MG system, on the other hand, exhibits only the (B) pattern. The difference between the two systems is that agents can only be introduced in the form of prepositional phrase in MG nominals in a position following the head noun, while they could appear in a prenominal position bearing genitive case in CG. Moreover, the theme genitive, i.e. the objective genitive, could precede the head nominal in CG; this is no longer the case in MG, where the theme genitive follows the head noun obligatorily:
(A) i) Det-(Genagent)-Nprocess-Gentheme 1 ii) Det-Gentheme-Nprocess
(B)Det-Nprocess-Gentheme (Ppagent)
I argue that the unavailability of (A) in MG is linked to the nature and the properties associated with a nominal functional projection contained within process non~inals and to other related changes in the nominal system of Greek.