No abstract

No abstract

1 I would like to thank Piet Verhoeff cordially for his translation of my text into English. AbstractCognitive linguistics (CL) is often regarded as a continuation of Saussurean structuralism. This paper explores the relationship between the two paradigms, focussing on the connection between semantics and views on the language-thought relationship. As it turns out, the similarity in this respect is, in fact, only partial. Saussure explicitly rejects linguistic relativism (LR); his purely differential view of meaning actually allows for only a weak variety of LR. Stronger varieties of LR are defended in CL, in agreement with a very "rich" conception of meaning, which can be shown to build on 19 th century Humboldtian views rather than Saussurean structuralism. It is argued that this return to earlier approaches can be regarded as both positive (e.g. in its sensitivity to culture-related aspects of meanings) and negative (e.g. in its naïve appeal to etymology).

Het voltooid deelwoord in het Nederlands. Beperkingen op het attributief gebruikElffers, E.H.C.; de Haan, S.; Schermer, I. General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. AbstractAccording to current insights, attributive past participles (APPs) are impossible only with immutative intransitive verbs. Yet there appear to be APP restrictions with transitive and mutative intransitive verbs, but these restrictions are less absolute. In APP constructions, the attributive relationship implies that a PP, which presents the verbal meaning as a patient situation, forms a category together with a noun. In contrast with immutative intransitives, PPs of transitive and mutative intransitive verbs always embody a patient situation. The problem, then, is why some patient situations seem to be unsuitable to form a category with a noun. Below, we argue that, in these cases, the patient situation is insufficiently transparent or insufficiently relevant. The explanation of APP restrictions with mutatively used movement verbs lies in the agent role of the subject referent, which causes the immutative counterpart of these verbs to come into play.