Book contents
- Complex Words
- Complex Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Advances in Morphology
- Part I Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
- 1 Formal Semantics and the Problem of Nominalizations
- 2 Semantically Subtractive Morphology
- 3 -less and -free
- 4 Instrument Nouns in -one in Latin and Romance
- 5 Prominence in Noun-to-Verb Conversion
- 6 On Spanish Dvandva and Its Restrictions
- Part II Structure of Complex Words
- Part III Corpus-Based Case Studies
- Index
- References
5 - Prominence in Noun-to-Verb Conversion
from Part I - Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
Book contents
- Complex Words
- Complex Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Advances in Morphology
- Part I Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
- 1 Formal Semantics and the Problem of Nominalizations
- 2 Semantically Subtractive Morphology
- 3 -less and -free
- 4 Instrument Nouns in -one in Latin and Romance
- 5 Prominence in Noun-to-Verb Conversion
- 6 On Spanish Dvandva and Its Restrictions
- Part II Structure of Complex Words
- Part III Corpus-Based Case Studies
- Index
- References
Summary
While conversion is assumed to be a word-formation process, at least in lexicalist theories, Dirven (1999) describes it as event-schema metonymy in a cognitive framework. Successive works suggest that this approach, which was initiated by Kövecses & Radden (1998), has not been further pursued beyond cognitive grammar. Only recently, Bauer (2018) resumed Dirven’s line of reasoning and provided convincing arguments in favour of a metonymic description of noun-to-verb conversion. The aim of the present article is to elucidate the asymmetry involved in event-schema metonymy. Since the salient participant is selected from a set of equals (i.e. from a set of participants competing to be selected as the metonymic vehicle), the question arises of what makes this participant – which contrary to the principle of anthropocentrism is not typically the Agent – stand out against its competitors. Based on selected denominal verbs especially from English, but also from Mandarin Chinese, it will be shown that this asymmetry is optimally accounted for by the abstract principle of ‘prominence’ in the sense of Himmelmann and Primus (2015) and Jasinskaja et al. (2015).
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Complex WordsAdvances in Morphology, pp. 82 - 99Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(4), 737–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeskow, H. (2006). Reflections on noun-to-verb conversion in English. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 25, 205–237. https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFS.2006.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeskow, H. (2019). Denominal verbs in morphology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.502.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-Formation, reprinted 1993, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blank, A. (2001). Einführung in die lexikalische Semantik für Romanisten, Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (2014). The category of roots. In Alexiadou, A., Borer, H. and Schäfer, F., eds., The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 112–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006Google Scholar
Burgschmidt, E. (1975). System, Norm und Produktivität in der Wortbildung, Erlangen: Seminar für englische Philologie.Google Scholar
Chan, M. K. M. and Tai, J. H.-Y. (1995). From nouns to verbs. Verbalization in Chinese dialects and East Asian languages. In Camacho, J. and Choueiri, L., eds., Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, NACCL-6, Los Angeles: Graduate Students in Linguistics (GSIL), USC. Volume II, pp. 49–74.Google Scholar
Cheng, J. and Lasnik, H. (2016). Parametric variations in English and Mandarin denominal verb derivation. Lingua, 180, 25–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.006.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G., eds., Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fabrizio, C. (2013). The meaning of a noun converted into a verb. A semantic exploration on Italian. Rivista di Linguistica, 25(2), 175–219.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2005). How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Erteschik-Shir, N. and Rapoport, T., eds., The Syntax of Aspect, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 42–64.Google Scholar
Heusinger, K. von (1997). Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. and Primus, B. (2015). Prominence beyond prosody. A first approximation. In De Dominicis, A., ed., pS-ProminenceS: Prominences in Linguistics. Proceedings of the pS-prominenceS International Conference, University of Tuscia, Viterbo: DISUCOM Press, pp. 38–58.Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, S., Chiriacescu, S., Donazzan, M., von Heusinger, K. and Hinterwimmer, S. (2015). Prominence in discourse. In De Dominicis, A., ed., pS-ProminenceS: Prominences in Linguistics. Proceedings of the pS-prominenceS International Conference, University of Tuscia, Viterbo: DISUCOM Press, pp. 134–153.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI: Morphology, Reprinted 1974, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Karius, I. (1985). Die Ableitung der denominalen Verben mit Nullsuffigierung im Englischen, Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1982). Wortbildung und Semantik, Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann-Bagel GmbH.Google Scholar
Kerremans, D. (2015). A Web of New Words. A Corpus-Based Study of the Conventionalization Process of English Neologisms, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alsina, A., Bresnan, J. and Sells, P., eds., Complex Predicates, Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 473–499.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. and Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistics view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (2005). Semantic prominence and argument realization II. The thematic hierarchy: A window into semantic prominence. Course 123, MIT. https://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/lsa05thier.pdf.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981). On the Organization of the Lexicon, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC).Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Oyón, A. L. (2013). Revisiting Goldberg’s constraints on the ‘way’ construction. RESLA, 26, 349–364.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rauh, G. (1988). Tiefenkasus, thematische Relationen, Thetarollen. Die Entwicklung einer Theorie von semantischen Relationen, Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rong, B. (2014). Denominal Verbs in English and Mandarin from a Cognitive Perspective. Dissertation Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/5679/1/BAI_RONG_TGC_110023.pdf.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2005). Zero-derivation – functional change – metonymy. In Bauer, L. and Valera, S., eds., Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation, Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2018). Friending someone into submission. Verbal cues for understanding. Word Structure, 11(2), 211–237.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1996). A Theory of Conversion in English, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2005). Meaning Predictability in Word Formation. Novel, Context-Free Naming Units, Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thomaßen, H. (2004). Lexikalische Semantik des Italienischen. Eine Einführung, Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ueding, G. and Steinbrink, B. (2011). Grundriß der Rhetorik. Geschichte - Technik - Methode, 5th ed., Stuttgart and Weimar: Verlag J.B. Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018–) The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/iWeb/.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. Available online at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018–) The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/iWeb/.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. Available online at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Electronic Sources
Davies, M. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018–) The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/iWeb/.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. Available online at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.