2002
DOI: 10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.313
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Alternate Construals, Iconicity, and Grounding: The Case of Nominals with the Noun Part

Abstract: In the earlier studies of nominals with the noun part, the choice between the construction with the indefinite article and the construction wherein pari appears without any determiner or modifier, i.e. äs a simple "bare" noun remains unexplained. On the basis of the LOB-corpus analysis, it becomes evident that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, the usage of the construction with the "bare" noun pari is by no means sporadic, but, on the contrary, constitutes the most frequent case. On the other hand, when t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 7 publications
0
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For even this perceptually based, relatively simple lexical field, we have seen a number of what seem to be arbitrary examples of con straints upon and motivation for compositionality. Although the findings do not discredit the work of Górska (2001Górska ( , 2002 and Tabakowska (2003), who find motivated explanations for similar phenomena for the same language, they show that even if an ico nic basis of partes orationis is viable, it certainly cannot explain a great deal the complexity involved in compositionality. The find ings presented here more consistently demonstrate the tendencies seen in Glynn (2006, P r e -P r i n t D r a f t forthcoming).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 50%
“…For even this perceptually based, relatively simple lexical field, we have seen a number of what seem to be arbitrary examples of con straints upon and motivation for compositionality. Although the findings do not discredit the work of Górska (2001Górska ( , 2002 and Tabakowska (2003), who find motivated explanations for similar phenomena for the same language, they show that even if an ico nic basis of partes orationis is viable, it certainly cannot explain a great deal the complexity involved in compositionality. The find ings presented here more consistently demonstrate the tendencies seen in Glynn (2006, P r e -P r i n t D r a f t forthcoming).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 50%