The description of bare predicate nouns: a plea for Construction GrammarBare nominals in predicate position like artiest in Jan is artiest ‘lit. Jan is artist’ have a capacity meaning, the capacity in this case being a profession. These nominals differ from non-bare nominals (with the indefinite article een) like een artiest in Jan is een artiest ‘Jan is an artist’, which can receive two interpretations: a capacity interpretation and a more figurative one, meaning ‘Jan is an artistic person’. This difference can be accounted for by specifying the constructions in which the nominals appear. The capacity meaning is only available if the bare predicate nominal contains a count noun. There is nevertheless a relation with a corresponding non-count mass noun. While the capacity meaning is always objective, the figurative interpretation of non-bare nominals (with een) is subjective. For this interpretation the article een is a prerequisite. I argue that Construction Grammar offers the best means to describe these facts and is preferable to a generative approach which divides the nouns in the lexicon in capacity and kind nouns and uses type shifting rules and operators to derive the bare and non-bare nominals.
The word licht ’light’, meaning not heavy, can be used as an intensifier (adverb of degree). As such it is unique, because it can function both as a a downtoner and an amplifier. In the latter function it combines with (weak) modal expressions, in particular with modal infinitive constructions like te begrijpen ‘to understand’ and with adjectives with the suffix –baar, like ontvlambaar ‘inflammable’. In combination with other adjectives and verbal expressions it functions as a downtoner. These two possibilities are due to the polysemy of licht.
Het voltooid deelwoord in het Nederlands. Beperkingen op het attributief gebruikElffers, E.H.C.; de Haan, S.; Schermer, I. General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. AbstractAccording to current insights, attributive past participles (APPs) are impossible only with immutative intransitive verbs. Yet there appear to be APP restrictions with transitive and mutative intransitive verbs, but these restrictions are less absolute. In APP constructions, the attributive relationship implies that a PP, which presents the verbal meaning as a patient situation, forms a category together with a noun. In contrast with immutative intransitives, PPs of transitive and mutative intransitive verbs always embody a patient situation. The problem, then, is why some patient situations seem to be unsuitable to form a category with a noun. Below, we argue that, in these cases, the patient situation is insufficiently transparent or insufficiently relevant. The explanation of APP restrictions with mutatively used movement verbs lies in the agent role of the subject referent, which causes the immutative counterpart of these verbs to come into play.
In this paper I explain the difference between the notions possessive dative and possessive accusative as used by me and other linguists like Vandeweghe (e.g. 1986 and 1987) and the notions dative and accusative inalienable possessors as used in Broekhuis et al. (2015). It is not so much the difference in the descriptive system I want to focus on, but the difference in aim. Broekhuis et al. want to specify the syntactic encoding of ‘inalienable possession’ and come to the conclusion that the possessor of the inalienable possession is always the referent of an indirect object, be it on different syntactic levels. I want to explain why this is the case. This can be done by showing that the complex predicates in inalienable possession constructions are comparable to the dative verbs in constructions with a regular indirect object, due to the fact that they contain a constituent referring to inalienable possession. Our descriptions have much in common and if we see them as complementary, they can profit from each other.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.