No abstract

No abstract

This article deals with two theoretical aspects of lexical derivation, productivity and graduality. After a discussion of transparency and opaqueness in Old English word-formation, it focuses on lexical productivity and puts forward a typology of recursive phenomena. On the basis of this typology, the morphological template of the Layered Structure of the Word is revised. The main conclusion is that a more diachronically oriented analysis is likely to opt for a decompositional template, whereas a more synchronically directed study which seeks typological validity will probably favour the template with one functional slot. If the focus is on diachronic linguistics, a template based on minimal constituent analysis can guarantee a detailed description of the derivational steps of the word, including non-affixal derivation and semantically opaque affixes.

<p>This article aims at proposing a lexical representation for a set of English verbs of action. The analysis is carried out on the grounds of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) and includes aspects like <em>Aktionsart </em>type, macrorole and syntactic function assignment, linking, as well as nexus and juncture. Against this background, the meaning components of the verbs in question are analysed, in such a way that a logical structure based on a lexical representation is defined for each verbal class. Conclusions fall on both the descriptive and the theoretical side. From the descriptive point of view, <em>Fail </em>and <em>Try </em>verbs constitute a unified verbal class as regards their meaning components and grammatical behaviour and, thus, they are represented by means of a unified logical structure. Conversely, <em>Prevent </em>verbs and <em>Forbid </em>verbs require different logical structures that account for their divergent grammatical behaviour, corresponding to the Causative Activity and Causative Achievement <em>Aktionsart </em>types respectively. On the theoretical side, the logical structures of <em>End </em>verbs, <em>Fail </em>verbs, <em>Try </em>verbs and <em>Prevent </em>verbs stick to the canonical representations of RRG, while those of <em>Hinder </em>verbs and <em>Refrain </em>verbs require complex predicates and complex logical structures which allow to incorporate extra meaning components and to combine different <em>Aktionsart </em>types.</p>

No abstract