A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English by Liesbet Heyvaert

By Liesbet Heyvaert

The most goal of the booklet is to provide a scientific account of the constructional mechanisms that underlie deverbal nominalization. Such an account strongly demands a practical instead of basically structural process simply because nominalizations are primarily practical re-classifications of verbal predicates into nominal buildings. The argument is fortyfied by way of a close dialogue of a couple of nominalization platforms (i.e. deverbal -er nominalizations, gerundive nominals and that-nominalizations). This booklet is of curiosity to all researchers in cognitive and practical linguistics.

Show description

Read or Download A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English PDF

Similar grammar books

A Lao grammar for language learners

Lao Grammar for Language inexperienced persons, A

Split possession : an areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe

This ebook is a functional-typological examine of ownership splits in ecu languages. It indicates that genetically and structurally varied languages resembling Icelandic, Welsh, and Maltese exhibit possessive platforms that are delicate to semantically established differences comparable to the alienability correlation.

Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction

Greater than eighty years have handed considering Bauer and Leander s ancient grammar of Biblical Hebrew used to be released, and lots of advances in comparative ancient grammar were made throughout the meantime. Joshua Blau, who has for far of his existence been linked to the Academy of the Hebrew Language in Jerusalem, has in the past part century studied, amassed information, and written usually on quite a few facets of the Hebrew language.

Perspectives on Historical Syntax

This quantity discusses themes of historic syntax from varied theoretical views, starting from Indo-European stories to generative grammar, functionalism, and typology. It examines mechanisms of syntactic swap akin to reanalysis, analogy, grammaticalization, self sufficient glide, and language touch, in addition to systems of syntactic reconstruction.

Extra resources for A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English

Sample text

Agnation "is based on the pervading patterns of the language", and it is, therefore, "always a recurrent thing, involving large numbers of sentences" (Gleason 1965: 202). As the examples in (5) and (6) make clear, the identification of groups of agnates (linked up by means of <=>) always presupposes the identification of enate constructions (indicated by I I I ) (based on Gleason 1965: 202): 36 Theoretical (5) He saw it. <=> It was seen by him. He heard it. <=> It was heard by him. He felt it. « It was felt by him.

The horse galloped. Ill The soldiers marched. Ill The dog walked. It is only because the clauses He heard it and He felt it, which are enates of He saw it display a relation of agnation with It was heard by him and It was felt by him, which are enates of It was seen by him, that the relationship between He saw it and It was seen by him in (5) can be analyzed as being one of agnation. Likewise, relations cannot be identified as enate if they do not have identical sets of agnates. Constructions such as The man saw a stranger and The man seemed a stranger, for instance, are not enate because they belong to different agnation networks: A stranger was seen by the man is possible, while A stranger was seemed by the man is not.

As shown in (10), the construction John hit the ball does not belong to that same paradigm: (10) a. John hit the ball. b. *John made the ball hit. c. *The ball hit. d. *What the ball did was hit. e. *What John did to the ball was hit. The categories in the ideational network in Figure 3, in short, represent non-enate constructions, identified on the basis of the distinct agnation paradigms 'behind' them. Importantly, these agnation paradigms also serve "as a heuristic to interpret the semantic difference" between John hit the ball and John marched the prisoners (Davidse 1998a: 293): the agnates of John hit the ball show that the ball is the 'undergoer' or Goal of the process, whereas those of John marched the prisoners reveal that the prisoners is Actor.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.78 of 5 – based on 39 votes