Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (14)
- Part of a Book (9)
- Preprint (3)
- Working Paper (3)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (30)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (30)
Keywords
- Nominalisierung (30) (remove)
Institute
Tento článek tématicky navazuje na přìspěvek "Nominalizačnì tendence v jazyce ekonomiky" v časopise Studia Germanistica 3, přičemņ podává odpovědi na otázky spjaté s tehdy vznikajìcì disertačnì pracì s názvem "Grammatische Mittel der Informationskondensierung in Wirtschaftstexten". V článku je zmìněna souvislost mezi mìrou abstrakce a jazykovou kondenzacì a také pragmatické faktory, které ovlivņujì jejì výskyt v odborném textu. Ve druhé části jsou souhrnně uvedeny výsledky empirické analýzy v oblasti infinitivnìch konstrukcì. Pozornost je věnována zejména faktorům, které majì vliv na jejich uņitì v textu oproti konkurenčnìm vedlejńìm větám.
Im Folgenden wird der Begriff "Informationskondensierung" näher erörtert, der Sprachbereich der Wirtschaft im Sinne vertikaler Gliederung klassifiziert und zusammenhängende Arbeitshypothesen vorgestellt. Den letzten Teil bildet eine Analyse der Textstruktur und des Satzbaus auf einzelnen Ebenen hinsichtlich der vertikalen Gliederung des Sprachbereichs der Wirtschaft, wobei ein möglicher Zusammenhang zwischen der Satzstruktur und der Informationskondensierung angenommen wird.
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.
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 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.
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.
In this paper we compare the distribution of PPs introducing external arguments in nominalizations with PPs introducing external arguments in the verbal domain. We show that several mismatches exist between the behavior of PPs in nominalizations and PPs in the verbal domain. This leads us to suggest that while PPs in the verbal domain are licensed by functional structure alone, within the nominal domain, PPs can also be licensed via an interplay of the encyclopaedic meaning of the root involved and the properties of the preposition itself. This second mechanism kicks in in the absence of functional structure.