|
The Domain of Content| old_uid | 11869 |
|---|
| title | The Domain of Content |
|---|
| start_date | 2012/11/26 |
|---|
| schedule | 10h-12h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| location_info | salle D 328 |
|---|
| summary | An investigation of the properties of derived nominals (Complex Event Nominals in the sense of
Grimshaw, 1990) reveals a number of rather surprising facts.
First, derived nominals with non-compositional Content (or Sense) cannot be Argument Structure
nominals (Complex Event Nominals in the sense of Grimshaw, 1990), contrasting, as such, with
identical morpho-phonological forms which do happen to have compositional Content (e.g.
transformation in its technical linguistic sense vs. transformation as transparently composed from
transform).
Second, Argument Structure nominals, but not necessarily others, must embed a constituent that is
otherwise a possible independent verb, thereby making e.g. aviation, fiction and petulance perfectly
licit derived nominals, but not with an embedded event structure.
The contrasts, as it turns out, cannot be accounted for by a lexicalist theory of word formation, nor
can they be explained by appealing to any model in which roots are allowed to select arguments.
The contrasts, however, can be derived within a wholly syntactic approach to argument structure
and to the formation of complex words, in which the domain of non-compositional Content (atomic
Content) is defined on the basis of structurally delimited, phonologically realized, syntactic
constituents, and is crucially accessible by phase.
The argumentation and the conclusions will thus point towards a system of complex word
construction which must be syntactic. It will further points towards the need to revise at least some
aspects of our understanding concerning the interaction between sound, and specifically
phonological realization, and meaning, the latter specifically as in Content. |
|---|
| responsibles | Soare, Ferret |
|---|
| |
|