No abstract

A b s tra c tComplex common names such as Indian elephant or green tea denote a certain type o f entity, viz. kinds. Moreover, those kinds are always subkinds o f the kind denoted by their head noun. Establishing such subkinds is essentially the task o f classifying modifiers that are a defining trait of endocentrically structured complex common names. Examining complex common names of different lexico-syntactic types (N N compounds, N + N syntagmas, N P /P P syntagmas, A + N syntagmas) and from different languages (particularly English, G erm an and French) it can be shown that complex common names are subject to language-independent formal and semantic constraints. In particular, complex common names qualify as name-like expressions in that they tend to be deficient in term s of formal complexity and semantic compositionality.

This paper analyses the variation we find in the realization of finite clausal complements in the position of prepositional objects in a set of Germanic languages. The Germanic languages differ with respect to whether prepositions can directly select a clause (North Germanic) or not and instead need a prepositional proform (Continental West Germanic). Within the Continental West Germanic languages, we find further differences with respect to the constituent structures. We propose that German strong vs. weak prepositional proforms (e.g. drauf vs. darauf) differ with respect to their syntax, while this is not the case for the Dutch forms (ervan vs. daarvan). What the Germanic languages under consideration share is that the prepositional element can be covert, except in English. English shows only limited evidence for the presence of P with finite clauses in the position of prepositional objects generally, but only with a selected set of verbs. This investigation is a first step towards a broader study of the nature of clauses in prepositional object positions and the implications for the syntax of clausal complementation.

Abstract:In English and French relational adjectives occurring in construction with deverbal nominalizations can be thematically associated with subject as well as object arguments. By contrast, in German object-related readings of relational adjectives seem to be inadmissible. The greater flexibility of English and French in terms of the thematic interpretability of relational adjectives also shows up with respect to 'circumstantial' thematic roles like directionals, locatives and instrumentals. It is arguably due to the common Latin heritage of English and French, since in Latin relational adjectives representing subject or object arguments of nominalizations are widely attested. However, even in English and French object-related readings are confined to result nominalizations, a restriction we suggest to account for in terms of the more 'noun-like' character of result nominalizations in contrast to process nominalizations. Moreover, since argumentrelated interpretations of relational adjectives can always be overridden by appropriate agentive/patientive phrases, relational adjectives cannot be analyzed as occupying an argument position, but rather as modifying the semantic role associated with it.

No abstract