On the (non-)equivalence of constructions with determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English

Rosenbach, Anette

doi:10.1017/s1360674319000273

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, we find that all seven semantic relations are in principle expressible by both constructions, with none constituting a categorical context for either construction in the sense of Rosenbach (2002: 28). Our data thus concur with Rosenbach's (2019) observations that even the possessor relation is also expressible by the PNM, e.g. for the Subway sandwich shop and the Interflora website 13 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…the Obama administration (henceforth PNM ‘proper name modifier’). Rosenbach (2006, 2007, 2010, 2019) observes that, in many cases, the two constructions are interchangeable, e.g. Obama's administration :: the Obama administration ‘the US administration under president Obama’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The explanation now takes us into the realm of constructional semantics: Rosenbach (2007: 151–3) states that the range of semantic relations expressible by PNGs is smaller than that expressible by PNMs. On the other hand, Rosenbach (2019) identifies a number of corpus examples suggesting that the choice space is larger than previously assumed: these are PNM examples illustrating possession ( the Gerardi residence ) and kinship ( the Obama daughter ), two semantic relations prototypically associated with the determiner genitive. Nevertheless, semantic relations such as the ‘named after’ relation (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The impact of semantic relations on grammatical alternation: an experimental study of proper name modifiers and determiner genitives

Breban¹,

Kolkmann²,

Payne³

2019

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we investigate the role of semantic relations in grammatical alternations.The specific alternation we look at is that between the proper name modifier construction, e.g. the Obama government, and the determiner genitive, e.g. Obama's government. Through the use of an experimental study in which participants were asked to rate the naturalness of the two constructions in 20 attested natural language contexts and provide paraphrases of the semantic relations in question, we tested when the two constructions alternate and whether either construction expresses semantic relations that block alternation. Our initial finding is that none of the relations we studied is categorically associated with only one of the constructions, but that certain relationsnotably possession and nameare far more preferentially associated with determiner genitives and proper name modifiers respectively. Despite these 'default' associations, participants nevertheless identified a range of possible interpretations for many of the examples, meaning that our study simultaneously supports the opposing theoretical views of default relations and semantic underspecification. Further, our study validates the inclusion of semantic relations in genitive alternation studies as a major factor despite the notorious difficulties in their operationalization. Animacy distinctions, although more straightforward to codify, appear to be of lesser importance.Methodologically, our study shows the value of an experimental approach as a corrective to researcher intuitions about the identification of semantic relations in context. 3

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of semantic relations on grammatical alternation: an experimental study of proper name modifiers and determiner genitives

Breban¹,

Kolkmann²,

Payne³

2019

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rosenbach (2007: 181, see also Rosenbach 2019) points out a different, special set of examples with potential human PNMs, which consist of a saint's name and an HN denoting a place or a day, e.g. Saint Paules Church , saynt Marke day .…”

Section: The Origin Of Proper Noun Modifiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 5 See Rosenbach (2019) for a very helpful discussion on the objectives of gradience and variation studies, as opposed to ‘theoretical linguistic’ studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How do grammatical patterns emerge? The origins and development of the English proper noun modifier construction

Breban¹,

Smet

2019

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article studies the emergence of a grammatical pattern, the proper noun modifier construction shown inthe Obama administration,an Edinburgh restaurant. The only dedicated historical corpus study, by Rosenbach (2007, 2010), is limited in terms of time depth and data included, and suggests that only proper noun modifiers denoting places such asEdinburghare found in the early seventeenth century. Using corpus data that span the full history of English, we trace the construction back to two Old English precursors, genitival modifiers without inflectional marking, e.g.Jericho feldes‘the fields of Jericho’, and compounds, e.g.Easter æfen‘Easter eve’. We combine macro-level visualisations of distributions and qualitative micro-analyses to show how these source constructions developed into the present-day English construction. The development defies simplistic views on grammatical change, but illustrates that grammatical patterns develop out of multiple sources under the influence of a multiplicity of factors. New patterns only emerge gradually and exploit existing ambiguities in the language.

show abstract

Cognitive classification of the names of building materials in Russian and English languages

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representation of cognitive area and revealing terminological characteristics of the Russian and English names of building materials (NBMs) determine the topicality of the research and the article’s problematic. The authors of the article analyze the Russian and English NBMs and reveal their main stages with the comparative description, and chооse the definition of the names, in which the basic word-identifier of the leading cognitive features have been highlighted. These features have become the basics for the formation of the thematic groups. The classification of the names of building materials is formed from five groups: organic materials / orgonicheskie materialy; inorganic materials / neorgonicheskie materialy; metals and metal products / metaly i izdelija iz nih; other building materials / prochie stroitel’nye materialy; properties of building materials / svojstva stroitel’nyh materialov. Properties of building materials is subdivided into models according to their structural characteristics: physical properties / fizicheskie svoystva; mechanical properties / mehanicheskie svojstva; defects / defekty.

show abstract

On the (non-)equivalence of constructions with determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English

Cited by 6 publications

References 70 publications

The impact of semantic relations on grammatical alternation: an experimental study of proper name modifiers and determiner genitives

The impact of semantic relations on grammatical alternation: an experimental study of proper name modifiers and determiner genitives

How do grammatical patterns emerge? The origins and development of the English proper noun modifier construction

Cognitive classification of the names of building materials in Russian and English languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About