Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Geert Booij. 1979. Semantic Regularities in word formation

Geert Booij. 1979. Semantic Regularities in word formation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 38|Likes:
Published by José Vargas Ponce

More info:

Published by: José Vargas Ponce on Aug 30, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
lflfGUf$f0$s?evotume7-r72z2s/22¡¡1
Inthisissue
D.A,CRUSEReverc¡vesRICHARDOATESBulkrngtmorpholex¡cajctGEERT.BOOIJSemanticegularitiesnwordormat¡onR.M, W.DIXONCorectionsndcommentsoncerningeath,slsDyir6alrgative?,MA-RTHAANLyandWtLL|AME.COOPERSentenceroductjonilosureersusnrt¡ationfconstituentsEIRLYS.DAVIESSomeestrictionsncondttronalmperativesShortnoteW.L.MAGNUSSONChronostructuralfientationn rool panernevelopmentReviewarticleBERNARDOMRIETheanguagesfN¡icrones¡aBookrev¡ewsDESMOND.DERBYSHIRECaib-_speak¡ngndans.Culturc,SocietyndL¿ngudge,ditedbyE. B.BassoTH.R.VONSTOCKERTAphasie,by G.peuserSZABOZOLTANStstk,byB.SandigResearchproject'100310179671039'10551057
109310731071076
lThesyntax,emént¡csnd pragmaticslthecomparativeonstruction10glPublicat¡onseceivedAuthorindextoL¡ngu¡sticsalumef7(197g)ISSN@24-39¡K)
moutonpubl¡shersthehague.pads.newyork
1085
 
ftir
I
Semanticregular¡tiesinwordformation
GEERT.BOOIJAbslraclThispaper discussesheproblem howto accountJbrregularitiesintheinterjritationofcomplexwords.Itwill beshownth(ltin somecasesheínteipretatíonofa complexwordis notcompletelydetetminedbyitsmor)hologícalstructure,bú is;heresuh ofan ínteract¡onetween¡nguisticstructureandnon-ltnguisticnformation.Theconsequencesf this'prog-matic'approachto the semanticsfwotdformatíonprocessesforhe theoryofmorphologywill be discussed.l. IntroductionOne ofthesalientfeaturesof natu¡allanguagesis thattheyshowstructuralparallelismsbetweenorm andmeaningontwolevels,heleveloftheword andthe levelofthcsentence.herefore,anadequategrammarofalanguagemustspecifyhowand howfar(i)thesyntacticstructureof asentencedeterminestheinterpretationofthat sentence,and(ii) themorphologicalstructureofa complexword determineshcinterpr€tationofthat complexwo¡d.I will calla representationofthe structu¡allydeterminedsemanticaspectsofa linguisticexpression(asentence,aphraseora word)thelogicalormof thatexpression.rThestructuresofcomplexwords arespecifiedbyWordFormationRutesWFRs,cf.Aronoff,1976) hatcreatecomplexwordsfromexistingorpossiblewords(cflBooij,1977; RoeperandSiegel,1978)'zFor€xample,hefollowingtwo WFRscan beassumedor Dutch:(1)[xh'[be*[xh]v(2)[x]a--+[x]"+iteitl'where x standsor asequencefphonological segmentsnd boundaries'Theseulescreate e.g.bedíjk'loprovidewith adike' lromdijk'dike'andabsurdíteít'absurdity'¡om aá¡a¡d'absurd'.
0024-3949/79l@17985$2.00@MoutonPublish€rs,he HagueLinguistics71979),851001.
 
ld,{
,i).,
986ceertE.BooijWFRsaresomeimescalled
oe77),b;;;J;;ñi,"ff;;","T?;:#?i";i:i,ñ,%li*li,?l
thatthisdoesn01necessarilvr
rheu¡:sand;:::la;'Ji;ji1:Hl*,':*"T[','.?il:1:t;
nerrows.re arrfherrucruresention.aorr"igi,iiini)...*r.Tli:]nttformularionftheWFRsembodieshewell_knownypothesis
;'#t"i'EiJ'T::Í"1,1""Ífi:"1::.:'-'':l*.-*l;";;"',i;,*.a,."'',,r",*á...-il;.,'J,:11""#ii;i.il,",iiij,i1iT,,L,Jl1[,,,.;i
ssoclatedwitha boundarvsvt
uouoau,v+';cr.oolj'fé't;i;1:"*,J",?;i.::.lli,H#¿{",,,;'"::
wo.typesfboundariesymeansfdataiomDutch.Thestructuralarallelismrwordsmplieshatth"-.uninn.jll*fo¡mand.meaningofcomplexacompositionalun"tionor-tilTomplexwords'-ateastn principle,
meaningontributi;;;ü"ilfffi*il::::,:,i[,#:ffi*l;
an-beclrcumsc¡ibedas,toprovrdewith¡,where¡isthemeaningof.the
aseword.NoteharheclaimnatW¡.nscontriúr,"i"irr^#""""i.r,-r::1":::.0,correctlymplieshartheboundmorpheme¿_asno1:o:O^:1-o*,meaning:necannotsayanythingab..,,f*_."ni*,fa"
[1"'ifr'1,-l],iiiillfssrhewordtructurenwhichto""i,,1"r,"l"";:ll#i"#:iX|l,t3iltt""emeaningorrerate.ómeFRs
sutnxesror1, menrand,¡ ru!,'"ooutby^ackendoffortheEnglish
wrn,r'""""niy.;;;r##;:':i:1,].ntt:650).Moreover,ome
:it;'.':,T.1*s,i:l,J*."':'**:*"$i".#i::il,.#J.i:f,l:i:
section3,I*l¿1t""*r"a"¡@lngcor¡elateca',beaccountedfor'In
andhempricario-ns-;;;i:'";;;5::'i:,"i#rJl?,"j,nj,.i'sorrera,es.
2.Thes€manticcorrel¿t€oftheagentivesuffix_er3.*::":ilty"q*lmaritisoftenassumedh¿tthemeaningofasentencasthe p¡oductoftheint€¡actior
.;.nl.:Í,r,.,.un ,i;'""i,iJJ#'Jl:lTJ::fi:",[l:
l?l'..:-t-nrt'4).hishyporhesissworked,*¡y¡r"rranióiai]r,h"
i,#i:i,ljishessumesharu".bu"h,,É¡1,l;;;,i"ii"*,
(3)hít,v,t_NplNplHrTNp,
Semantic egulaitiesin wordormation987'NPlHIT NPr' is thelexical functional structure of tohit.It specilies herelationbetwten syntacticand logical form.NPt indicates hegrammati-calfunction of subject, andNPr indicates thegrammaticalfunction ofobject.Thegrammaticalfunction ofa constituent is definedconfigu-rationally,i.e. by itspositionin syntactic structure. Fo¡instance, he NPthatis dominateddi¡ectly by thenode S has thefunction of subject,andthe NP thatis dominated directly by theVP node, has the functionofobject.The syntactic context inwhich a verb can occur,is indicated by asubcategoYizationeature, in the caseof lril the feature[-NP] thatmeans hat theverb ¿i1 can occur before asister-NP. Bresnan(19?8:21)remarksthat'thesyntacticcontexts appearto be redundant-thatis,predictablef¡om thefunctional structures'.However, she doesnotformulatesuch redundancyrules.Furthermore,Bresnanproposeshat(optionally)transitiveverbs suchas to eat have two specificationsn thelexicon:(4)ear,Y(Dl-NPINP, EAT NP,(ii)t-](3Y)NP' EATYThat is, the Iogical objectvariable of ro eal canbe bound by an existentialquantifier.Consequently, he semanticrepresentation ofa sentencewithto eatwlll be well formed, although thereis no specified directobject,because here areno free variables.Variables always need to bein-terpreted n ordertogetwell-formed expressionsTarski,1964:77). Thiscan be done by(i)assigning he value ofa constantto that variable, or(ii)binding thevariable by means of aquantifier,or(iii)binding thevariableby means ofa sentential unction.Th€ interpretation of a sentencesuch as Jol¡zhíts Mary with thestructure[pohn]¡p[[hits]v [Maryhp]vplssnow de¡ived as ollows:first, weapply the configurationaldefinitions of thegrammaticalfunctionsto theNPs in this sentence: ohn:sublect,Mary: object, and assignndices otheseNPs. Secondly, we substitutethese indices intotheapproprlateargumentpositionsin thelexical functional structureof the verb:(5)a. NP, HIT NP,NP,: JohniNPr; Mary: jb. John i, Mary:jiHITJ(5ii)is the interpretation of the sentence ohn hits Mary.a).The lexical functionalstructure of the verb ¡o hit car'6e seen as anabbreviation for:

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->