Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (5)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (5)
Schlagworte
- Distribution <Linguistik> (5) (entfernen)
French suffixations in -age, -ion and -ment are considered roughly equivalent, yet some differences have been pointed out regarding the semantics of the resulting nominalizations. In this study, we confirm the existence of a semantic distinction between them on the basis of a large scale distributional analysis. We show that the distinction is partially determined by the degree of technicality of the denoted action: -age nominals tend to be more technical than -ion ones. We examine this hypothesis through the statistical modeling of technicality. To this end, we propose a linguistic definition of technicality, which we implement using empirical, quantitative criteria estimated in corpora and lexical resources. We show to what extent the differences with respect to these criteria adequately approximate technicality. Our study indicates that this definition of technicality, while amendable, provides new perspectives for the characterization of action nouns.
This paper addresses the syntax and semantics plurals, and then applies it to reciprocal expressions. In the course of this investigation, I address two problems for the conventional view that a reciprocal makes essentially the same semantic contribution to the sentence as other noun phrases, but has an interesting internal structure. I will show that both problems are properties of plurality in general, and can be successfully explained along these lines. As a result, the paper is more about plurality in general than reciprocals though the goal of the paper is to account for the two problems relating to reciprocals.
In at least three environments—de se binding, distributive binding, and focus quantification—some presuppositions exhibit unexpectedly weak projection behavior. This holds for the presuppositions of bound pronouns, but also several other cases of presupposition. In this paper, I first describe a general approach to capture the interaction of presuppositions with quantificational operators within a multi-tiered evaluation procedure. Secondly I discuss data from Condition A, in particular non-bound occurrences of reflexives, that motivate a presuppositional account of Condition A and confirm the general approach.
Der vorliegende Beitrag ist dem korpusbasierten Vergleich von vier Phrasemen des Deutschen mit der Bedeutung 'jemanden/etwas antreiben' gewidmet. Anhand einer maschinellen Auswertung von Belegen aus dem Deutschen Referenzkorpus (DeReKo) werden syntaktische, semantische und kombinatorische Eigenschaften dieser Phraseme beschrieben. Die semantischen Eigenschaften wurden mit der DeReKo-eigenen Kookkurrenzanalyse ermittelt, die morpho-syntaktischen Besonderheiten mit GATE. Verglichen wurden solche Merkmale wie Besetzung der Objektvalenz, Kombinierbarkeit mit Adverbien, Gebrauch mit Negation und Vorkommen unterschiedlicher Zeitformen des Verbs. Es wurden sowohl Gemeinsamkeiten als auch Unterschiede festgestellt.
This paper discusses a semantic analysis of three syntactic types of English each, namely, floated each, binominal each, and prenominal each. It is argued that floated each consists of two parts, a quantifier and an inaudible element which functions as its restrictor, which together form a tripartite quantificational structure when they compose with the predicate. Binominal each and an associated NP such as two topics (which is generally called the 'distributive share') are syntactically analyzed as forming a subject-predicate relation within a DP in which the NP undergoes so-called 'predicate inversion'. Semantically, binominal each is analyzed as having the same semantic value as floated each, while prenominal each is shown to have a different logical type from floated and binominal each. As can be seen from analogous constructions in some Romance languages, it does not lexically contain its restrictor.