Regularity and idiosyncracy in the formation of nominals

Eynde, Frank Van

doi:10.1017/s0022226718000129

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples are the Big Mess Construction (so big a/*any/*some mess) and the Binominal Noun Phrase Construction (her nitwit of a/*any/*some husband). Modeling those requires the possibility to refer to a specifically (Kim & Sells 2014;Van Eynde 2018).…”

Section: The Determiner As a Head-selecting Functormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pseudo-partitives in English: an HPSG analysis

Eynde¹,

Kim²

2022

English Language and Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pseudo-partitives are strings of the form [N1 – of – N2] in which N1 denotes a quantity or amount of whatever it is that N2 denotes and in which N2 is a bare nominal. Such strings come in two types, depending on whether the combination shares the number value of N1 or N2. The first type can be analyzed along familiar lines, but the second one is a hard nut to crack. The article presents existing treatments, showing that they all involve departures from independently motivated principles. As an alternative we propose an analysis that is cast in the Typed Feature Structure notation of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. It handles both types of pseudo-partitives, arguing that N1 and the preposition of are complement-selecting heads if the number value is shared with N1, while N1 and the preposition are head-selecting functors if the number value is shared with N2. The switch from head to functor status is characteristic of grammaticalization and is shown to affect pseudo-partitives with a quantifier noun or a collection noun as N1, but not pseudo-partitives with a measure noun or collection noun. Examples and quantitative data are extracted from COCA.

show abstract

Section: The Determiner As a Head-selecting Functormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It concerns the use of the preposition in these kind/sort/type of problems, as used in (46). Others are treated inVan Eynde (2018). They concern the use of of in the Binominal Noun Phrase Construction, as in (47), and in the of variant of the Big Mess Construction, as in (48)(Kim & Sells 2011;Van Eynde 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pseudo-partitives in English: an HPSG analysis

Eynde¹,

Kim²

2022

English Language and Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The combination of zij with the participial VP is, hence, not an instance of head-subject-ph. Instead, we treat it as an instance of the phrase type head-indep(endent)-ph, as defined in Van Eynde (2018). It is a subtype of head-nonarg(ument)-ph, which implies that the head daughter does not select its nonhead sister, and its defining property is that the nonhead daughter does not select its head sister either.…”

Section: Corrected Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

What participles are a mixture of

Eynde

2021

Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly assumed that participles show a mixture of verbal and adjectival properties, but the issue of how this mixed nature can best be captured is anything but settled. Analyses range from the purely adjectival to the purely verbal with various shades in between. This lack of consensus is at least partly due to the fact that participles are used in a variety of ways and that an analysis which fits one of them is not necessarily equally plausible for the other. In an effort to overcome the resulting fragmentation this paper proposes an analysis that covers all uses of the participles, from the adnominal over the predicative to the free adjunct uses, including also the nominalized ones. To keep it feasible we focus on one language, namely Dutch. With the help of a treebank we first identify the uses of the Dutch participles and describe their properties in informal terms. In a second step we provide an analysis in terms of the notation of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. A key property of the analysis is the differentiation between core uses and grammaticalized uses. The treatment of the latter is influenced by insights from Grammaticalization Theory.

show abstract

Agreement, disagreement and the NP vs. DP debate

Eynde

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of special relevance for the NP vs. DP debate are nominals in which the determiner has other values for number, gender, case and/or person than the noun, for depending on whether such nominals share these values with the noun or with the determiner they provide evidence in favor of either the NP or the DP approach. This paper discusses some nominals of this kind and shows that they share the relevant feature values with the noun. It then develops an NP analysis for these nominals which is cast in the notation of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. It also shows what a DP analysis would look like. A comparison reveals that the NP analyses are less complex, more uniform and less stipulative. Examples are taken from Dutch, English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish and Serbo-Croatian.

show abstract

Regularity and idiosyncracy in the formation of nominals

Cited by 3 publications

References 18 publications

Pseudo-partitives in English: an HPSG analysis

Pseudo-partitives in English: an HPSG analysis

What participles are a mixture of

Agreement, disagreement and the NP vs. DP debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About