Argument Structure and Morphology

Williams, Edwin

doi:10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.81

Cited by 568 publications

(231 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

194

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Possessive DPs can express a variety of relations: ownership, kinship, part-whole relationship, attribute, orientation or location, or some vague association (Williams 1981 Explicit discussion of these data is somewhat rare (though see Chisarik and Payne 2003 for a few remarks), and considerably more investigation of descriptive possessives is needed before we can fully understand the nature of the contrast between (92) and (93). We can, however, even in our current state of knowledge, use the pattern in (92) and (93) will.be This is important for us because it cannot be accommodated within the Poss head or the pro analysis of -é but it is compatible with the Genitive analysis.…”

Section: Evidence From Descriptive Possessivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian

Dékány

2015

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Starting with the seminal work of Szabolcsi, morphologically unmarked and Dative-marked possessors in Hungarian have been the subject of rich investigation. Anaphoric possessive constructions, however, have remained poorly researched. In these possessives the possessor bears the mysterious -é suffix and the covert possessum is interpreted under identity with an antecedent. This paper presents new evidence in favour of Bartos' (2001) analysis of anaphoric possessives, which holds that -é is the Genitive case. I further argue that anaphoric possessives in Hungarian involve a pro-form rather than deletion of a lexical noun, and this accounts for the restricted modification of the possessum.

show abstract

Section: Evidence From Descriptive Possessivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian

Dékány

2015

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted in Williams (1981Williams ( , 2007, even the English nouns whose root can appear as a verb (unlike those in 2) do not behave like AS-nominals if they are not turned into nouns through an overt nominalizer. (3) shows a number of examples of zero nominals and shows that none of them is able to take argument structure or aspectual modifiers in the sense that overtly derived nominals do.…”

Section: Morphological Marking and Argument Structure: Correlationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Argument structure and morphologically underived nouns in Spanish and English

Fábregas

2014

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the main topics on the study of the relationship between argument structure and lexical categories is the proposal that nouns (and adjectives) structurally do not introduce arguments. This proposal is matched by some morphological facts, such as the one that observes that AS-nominals have to carry overt nominalizers. In this paper, we address some previously unexplained counterexamples to this generalization involving cases of morphological conversion relating nouns to verbs. We argue that these cases of conversion have to be divided in two groups, and that there is one class that carries verbal structure, even though the morphological make up does not reflect this directly. We argue that these cases have to be dealt with by using portmanteau exponents that synthetically lexicalize verbal projections and a syntactic nominalizer. In doing so, this article provides evidence in favour of the hypothesis that single exponents can lexicalize series of heads.

show abstract

“…32. In the stage of (44a), the result of the merger of p V and p A is still a root, and hence, the right-hand head rule (RHHR) of Williams (1981) does not apply to this construction. And adjunction of this complex root to v 0 conforms to the RHHR because v 0 occurs to the right of the root complex.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diachronic Demorphologization and Constructionalization of Compounds from the Perspective of Distributed Morphology and Cartography

Ogawa

2014

IIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As for the morphosyntactic size of a compound, it has occasionally been suggested that some of the N-N compounds can be larger than derived words but are smaller than phrases (Allen (1978), Giegerich (2005)) or that some of the V-V compound are words, while others are phrases (Kageyama (1993(Kageyama ( , 2001, Nishiyama (1998)). However, exactly how large each compound is remains controversial, partly because their nature is synchronically variable in terms of phonology, morphology, syntax, and/or semantics. In relation to this problem, there has been a long-standing issue of which of morphology and syntax should deal with the internal structure of these two types of compound and others. Here arises a set of reciprocative discussions between the lexicalists and anti-lexicalists over the data that belong to morphosyntax, and yet no settlement has been reached so far, because both types of approach have as much defects as merits. With these problems recalcitrant to a synchronic analysis in mind, I will shed a diachronic perspective on them. More specifically, this article launches a simple hypothesis that the morphosyntactic size of a compound tends to be diachronically enlarged from the domain of morphology to that of syntax, as is known by the names such as demorphologization and/or constructionalization. I will collect relevant data from the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) and the literature on the traditional Japanese linguistics. Then, I will provide a morphosyntactic analysis of the diachronic generalization, in terms of two outstanding syntactic theories: Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz (1993), Marantz (1997)) and Cartography (Cinque (2003). Three kinds of data presented in support of the above hypothesis are: (i) the demorphologization of many combining forms including -phobia, -holic, psycho-, techno-, their reanalysis as independent words, and their development as N-N compounds, (ii) the emergence of the resultative construction from the corresponding V-A form in English, and (iii) the development of the syntactic V-V compounds from the lexical V-V compounds such as kami-kiru 'bite-cut' and yomi-kiru 'read-cut' in the history of Japanese (Aoki (2010)). I will argue that these three types of diachronic changes are the instances of what I call ''syntactic constructionalization'' at the so-called ''word'' level, the VP/vP-level, and the AspectP-level, respectively.

show abstract

Argument Structure and Morphology

Cited by 568 publications

References 0 publications

The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian

The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian

Argument structure and morphologically underived nouns in Spanish and English

Diachronic Demorphologization and Constructionalization of Compounds from the Perspective of Distributed Morphology and Cartography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About