Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (11)
- Part of a Book (9)
- Preprint (3)
- Working Paper (3)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (27)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (27)
Keywords
Institute
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.
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.
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 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.
On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes : the case of (Greek) derived nominals
(2008)
The paper is structured as follows. In section 2, I briefly summarize the facts on English and Greek nominalizations. In section 3, I discuss English nominal derivation in some detail. In section 4, I turn to the question of licensing of AS in nominals. In section 5, I turn to the issue of the optionality of licensing of AS in the nominal system.