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).
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.
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.