Aspectual features and categorial shift: deverbal nominals in German and English

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. 50-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike Demske
Keyword(s):  
Deverbal Nominals

scholarly journals The relationship between (in)alienable possession and the (three potential) forms of possessed nouns in Hungarian

Linguistica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judit Farkas ◽  
Gábor Alberti
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Deverbal Nominals ◽  
Point Of Departure ◽  
Insight Into

The paper gives a thorough insight into the system of possible forms of (in)alienably possessed nouns in Hungarian. Its point of departure is the group of [Nominative + -j- +A] possessive forms the stem of which has an alternative (morphologically “shorter”) possessive form; such longer possessive forms are claimed to express alienable possession (see den Dikken 2015). We point out that Hungarian deverbal nominals― and especially the groups of T-nouns―play an interesting role in this system via the thematic character of their possessors (given the obvious connection between alienable possession and external argumenthood, on the one hand, and inalienable possession and internal argumenthood, on the other).

Simple Event nominals with Argument Structure? – Evidence from Irish deverbal nominalizations1

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-163
Author(s):  
Maria Bloch-Trojnar
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
External Argument ◽  
Synthetic Compounds ◽  
Internal Argument ◽  
Light Verb Constructions ◽  
Light Verb ◽  
Simple Event ◽  
Verb Constructions ◽  
Irish Data ◽  
Deverbal Nominals

Abstract Deverbal nominals in Irish support Grimshaw’s (1990) tripartite division into complex event (CE-), simple event (SE-) and result nominals (R-nominals). Irish nominals are ambiguous only between the SE- and R-status. There are no CE-nominals containing the AspP layer in their structure. SE-nominals (also found in Light Verb Constructions) are number-neutral and incapable of pluralizing and are represented as [nP[vP[Root]]]. R-nominals are devoid of the vP layer and behave like ordinary nouns. The Irish data point to v as the layer introducing event implications and the vP or PPs as the functional heads introducing the internal argument (Alexiadou and Schäfer 2011). Event denoting nominals in Irish can license the internal argument but aspectual modification and external argument licensing are not possible (cf. synthetic compounds in Greek (Alexiadou 2017)), which means that, counter to Borer (2013), the licensing of Argument Structure need not follow from the presence of the AspP layer.

scholarly journals Deverbal Nominals in Toba Batak Language: A Generative Transformational Study

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esron Ambarita
Keyword(s):  
Word Formation ◽  
New Words ◽  
Observation Methods ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Morphological Processes ◽  
Toba Batak ◽  
Complex Words ◽  
Deverbal Nominals ◽  
Modified Theory ◽  
Phonological Rules

This paper aims at exploring deverbal nominals in Toba Batak language from the view point of generative transformational study. The theory of generative morphology has predictive power to generate new words. Considering the particular rules of word formation in Toba Batak language, Halle’s theory is modified to be adjusted to Toba Batak morphological system. Two new integrated components, Orthographic and Phonological Rules are added between Halle’s Filter and Dictionary. Therefore, there are six components of sets of generative transformational rules as modified theory in this study, i.e. List of Morphemes, Word Formation Rules, Filter, Orthographic Rules, Phonological Rules, and Dictionary. Data analyses were done using modified theory but they refer to Halle’s model as the main theory. This research applied descriptive qualitative method. The data were obtained by using observation methods and their techniques and interlocution method and its techniques. The collected data are voice-recordings and writings. The research findings comprise that deverbal nominals in Toba Batak language are done by attaching: (1) prefix [par-], (2) prefix [paN-], (3) confix [ha-an], (4) confix [paN-an], (5) confix [paN -on], (6) confix [par-an], (7) affix combination [paηin-], and (8) affix combination [paηun-]. The processes of attaching those affixes generate complex words which have different grammatical and lexical meanings. Morphological processes found in the word formation are phoneme deletion, phoneme assimilation, and phoneme addition. The processes of attaching those affixes bring about semantic and phonological idiosyncrasies, therefore, such words must be processed in filter to generate acceptable words in Toba Batak language.

scholarly journals The processing of process and result deverbal nominals in Serbian and English

Psihologija ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 31-31
Author(s):  
Isidora Gataric ◽  
Sanja Srdanovic ◽  
Anja Kovac
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Mixed Models ◽  
Word Level ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Generalized Additive Mixed Models ◽  
Additive Mixed Models ◽  
Deverbal Nominals

Process and result deverbal nominals are two types of nouns derived from related verbs. These two types of deverbal nominals exhibit different behavior in a number of aspects. The aim of this study was to test the differences of process and result deverbal nominals, in both Serbian and English, with respect to their cognitive processing. Two self-paced reading experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 was conducted in Serbian, with target constructions, process and result deverbal nominals (e.g., drhtaj/drhtanje [EN trembling]), embedded in the sentence contexts, whereas Experiment 2 dealt with the equivalent constructions in English. Data were analyzed with the Generalized Additive Mixed Models - GAMMs (Wood, 2006, 2011) measuring reading times (RTs) at the word level (deverbal nouns) and the sentence level (the whole sentence, including the deverbal nominal) in both languages. The final results in general suggested that result deverbal nominals were processed faster than process deverbal nominals. It was assumed that these differences were obtained because process deverbal nominals are syntactically more complex than result deverbal nominals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document