Constructions and lexical units: An analysis of Dutch numerals (original) (raw)
Related papers
Form and meaning in morphology: the case of Dutch ‘agent nouns’
1986
Some morphologists have proposed the separation of form and meaning in morphology because of the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between them. In this paper it is shown that this position is ill-advised since it impedes a deeper insight into the systematics of the interpretation of complex words. This is demonstrated by a detailed study of one affix, the déverbal suffix -er in Dutch, which creates subject names. The apparent polysemy of this suffix appears to follow from independent, nonlinguistic principles.
FORM AND MEANING IN MORPHOLOGY. Linguistics 24 (1986), 503-518
1986
Some morphologists have proposed the separation of form and meaning in morphology because of the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between them. In this paper it is shown that this position is ill-advised since it impedes a deeper insight into the systematics of the interpretation of complex words. This is demonstrated by a detailed study of one affix, the déverbal suffix -er in Dutch, which creates subject names. The apparent polysemy of this suffix appears to follow from independent, nonlinguistic principles.
An Introduction to English Morphology Wo
I would like to thank Heinz Giegerich for inviting me to write this book, and him and Laurie Bauer for useful comments on a draft version. I must admit that, when I set out to write what is intended as an introductory text on an extremely well-described language, I did not expect to learn anything new myself; but I have enjoyed discovering and rediscovering both new and old questions that arise from the study of morphology and its interaction with syntax and the lexicon, even if I cannot claim to have provided any conclusive new answers. The Library of the University of Canterbury has, as always, been efficient in supplying research material. I would also like to thank my partner Jeremy Carstairs-McCarthy for constant support and help. viii At the end of each chapter are recommendations for reading relating to the subject-matter of the chapter. Here I offer some comments on general works dealing with English or morphology or both. Of the available books on English morphology in particular, Bauer (1983) delves deepest into issues of linguistic theory (although a now somewhat dated version of it), and offers useful discussion and casestudies of fashions in derivational morphology. Marchand (1969) is factually encyclopedic. Adams (1973) concentrates on compounding (the subject-matter of our Chapter 6) and conversion (discussed here in Chapter 5), but says relatively little about derivation (covered here in Chapter 5). There is no book that deals adequately with morphology in general linguistic terms and that also takes into account fully up-to-date versions of syntactic and phonological theory. Bauer (1988) is a clear introductory text. The main strength of Matthews (1991) is its terminological precision. Carstairs-McCarthy (1992) is aimed at readers whose knowledge of linguistics is at advanced undergraduate level or beyond. Spencer (1991) covers much ground, and may be said to bridge the gap between Bauer and Carstairs-McCarthy.
A Linguistic Analysis Of The Inconsistencies In The Meaning Of Some -Er Suffix Morphemes
2015
English like any other language is rich by means of arbitrary, conventional, symbols which lend it to lot of inconsistencies in spelling, phonology, syntax, and morphology. The research examines the irregularities prevalent in the structure and meaning of some 'er' lexical items in English and its implication to vocabulary acquisition. It centers its investigation on the derivational suffix 'er', which changes the grammatical category of word. English language poses many challenges to Second Language Learners because of its irregularities, exceptions, and rules. One of the meaning of –er derivational suffix is someone or somebody who does something. This rule often confuses the learners when they meet with the exceptions in normal discourse. The need to investigate instances of such inconsistencies in the formation of –er words and the meanings given to such words by the students motivated this study. For this purpose, some senior secondary two (SS2) students in six ...
Morphological theory and English
This paper presents a review of a number of recent issues in the field of generative morphology, with their implications for the description of English. After an introduction to the field two types of question are considered. First, 1 examine the nature of word structure and illustrate two competing approaches, one of which assurnes that words have a constituent structure (much like the phrase structure of syntax) and the other of which rejects this assumption. Then we look at the way morphologicai structure interacts with syntax. We examine the extent to which syntactic principles can account for the behaviour of certain types of compounds and aiso the expression of syntactic arguments in nominaiizations.
The external syntax of derived words: evidence from Dutch
1987
Geert Booij and Ton van Haaften I. INTRODUCTION Traditionally, morphology is conceived of as that subdiscipline of linguistics that deals with the internal structure of words. This view of morphology can also be found in the first publications on generative morphology written within the theoretical framework of lexicalist morphology, the position that a generative grammar contains a relatively autonomous morphological component. However, we should not lose sight of another essential part of morphological research, the effects of morphological processes on the syntactic valency of complex words. We will refer to this area of research as 'the external syntax of complex words'. In this paper, we will focus on the effects of derivational processes on verbs. The syntactic valency ofverbs is encoded in their lexical representations. We assume that each verb has zeÍo ot more aiguments. For each argument it is indicated which thematic role (0-role) it carries, e.g. Agent or Theme. In addition, it is also necessary to provide a restricted kind of syntactic information in the sense that we have to specify the structural relations between the arguments of a verb: an argument may be external (and hence appear in subject position), direct internal (and thus surface as direct object), or indirect internal. In the latter case, the argument will either be realized syntactically, as a PP with a specific preposition, or as an NP with a specific case (for instance, dative). The following examples illustrate these rather elementary assumptions concerning the lexical representations of verbs:l (l) lopen 'to walk', V, Agens. eten 'to eat', V, Agens, Theme. zelten 'to put' V, Agens, Theme, Locationi geven 'to give' V, Agens, Theme, Goali.
This paper examines the formation of the Dutch deverbal nouns ending with -er, and the morphological productivity of the use of this suffix. Generally, derivational affixes change the word category and thus the meaning of a word. Verbs can undergo several derivational changes through different affixes. One of them is the suffix -er (-ər), in both Dutch and English; by adding the -er to the stem of a verb, it will change its word category from a verb to a deverbal noun. The verb contains the type of action, and the noun represents the person who performs that action, the performer. For example, occupations, or players of sports will be amongst these performers. In general, they are called agent nouns because usually they represent the agent role of a verb. While most of the verbs will have a derived agent noun, in various cases this is blocked. Although many agent nouns do not exist, there is not always a clear reason why a specific agent noun is not formed. In this paper, I will first describe the aspect of Morphological Blocking, and I will then show how this applies to the formation of the Dutch deverbal noun -er. This paper is structured as follows. In section 2 I will describe the aspect of Morphological Blocking through the definitions given in the literature. Section 3 examines the formation of deverbal nouns in Dutch with the focus on the verbal base, and in section 4 I will discuss the phenomenon of blocking within the formation of deverbal nouns in Dutch. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions.