Binominal Noun Phrases in English

Aarts, Bas

doi:10.1111/1467-968x.00025

Cited by 34 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12 In addition to concord patterns, substitution of the SN-expression by a (monomorphemic) canonical quantifier such as many/much is a test both for formal constituency and functional unity. Selectional restrictions on the choice of verb or other elements in the co(n)text are likewise taken into account, as well as constituency tests such as preposing of the of-phrase (see Aarts 1998;; Langacker forthcoming a, b). N2-collocates were categorized semantically as either concrete or abstract nouns, and generalizations were made over semantic subsets of collocates within those more general sets.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: lexical and grammaticalized uses

Brems¹

2010

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basing myself on synchronic and diachronic data analysis, I argue in this article that size nouns (SNs) such as bunch/load(s)/heap(s) of within binominal NPs display synchronic variation which can be hypothesized to be the result of grammaticalization processes. Synchronically, I propose that SNs have two major non-head uses, a quantifier use, e.g. a bunch of people walked in, and a valuing(-quantifying) use, in which the referent is evaluated rather than quantified. The latter is restricted mainly to bunch/load of, e.g. What a bunch of gobbledygook. The semantic and syntactic reanalysis of SNs as quantifiers has recently been acknowledged (e.g. Traugott forthcoming), but the valuing use of SNs remains largely unrecognized (see Brems 2007). On a theoretical level, it will be argued that head, quantifier and valuing(-quantifier) SN-uses synchronically have to be studied as COLLOCATIONALLY CONSTRAINED CONSTRUCTIONS in that the semantico-syntactic parsing of each SN-use links up with specific collocational patterns (Sinclair 1991). Head uses are restricted to sets of (un)count concrete nouns, whereas quantifier uses team up with all sorts of (un)count concrete as well as abstract nouns. Valuing uses show restrictions to concrete animate and abstract nouns, which they typically evaluate negatively, and have negative semantic prosody patterns, in which the SNs themselves come to predict negative collocates (see Louw 1993;Stubbs 1995;Bublitz 1996). The grammaticalization of SNs will be hypothesized to involve not only processes of semantic generalization and collocational extension, but also collocational reclusterings characterized by particular semantic prosody constraints. The latter are not traditionally associated with processes of grammaticalization and hence offer new insights into the semantic changes that may accompany grammaticalization.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: lexical and grammaticalized uses

Brems¹

2010

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…un montón de años). Este reanálisis invita a varios autores (Aarts 1998, Keizer 2007, Traugott 2008, Vos 2002 ) a asociar el regente de la concordancia verbal con el núcleo de sintagmas binominales.…”

Section: Propuesta De Análisisunclassified

“…Primero, varios estudios actuales (Aarts 1998, Keizer 2007, Traugott 2008y Vos 2002 se basan entre otros parámetros en la concordancia verbal para determinar el núcleo de la construcción. En este artículo hemos mostrado que este criterio no siempre se cumple.…”

Section: Conclusiónunclassified

“…Además, el sintagma binominal no siempre ocurre en posición de sujeto, con lo cual la mayoría de ejemplos requiere otras pruebas para determinar el uso del verbo (véase Verveckken 2012 para una descripción más detallada de las pruebas). Además, si bien la función cuantificadora de la construcción binominal española se observa a menudo, creemos que la gramaticalización todavía no ha avanzado hasta un punto extremo, como parece ser el caso para el inglés (Aarts 1998, Keizer 2007. Hemos demostrado que la persistencia léxica caracteriza este grado de gramaticalización, la concordancia con N1 en lecturas cuantitativas siendo el indicio más claro.…”

Section: Conclusiónunclassified

“…Por un lado, la concordancia verbal suele utilizarse como prueba para determinar el núcleo de sintagmas binominales (Aarts 1998;Keizer 2007). Por otro lado, la influencia que pueden tener los rasgos semánticos originales de N1 en la concordancia verbal de lecturas cuantitativas de N1, nos obliga a considerar el fenómeno de la persistencia léxica no sólo como mero índice de cambios gramaticales en marcha (Hopper 1991: 22), sino también como motivación subyacente a variaciones morfosintácticas.…”

unclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Un análisis cognitivo-funcional de la concordancia verbal con construcciones (pseudo)partitivas del tipo [N1 + de + N2]

Verveckken¹,

Cornillie²

2012

RRO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present a corpus-based, cognitive-linguistic account of the singular/plural agreement alternation with binominal constructions belonging to the [N1 singular + de + N2 plural ]-type. From a syntagmatic point of view, plural agreement reflects a shift from N1 as the head of the Noun Phrase towards N1 being a quantifier to N2. This view is in line with grammaticalization theory and holds for many examples, yet there are important counterexamples where we find a singular verb despite N1 being used as a quantifier. The Hispanic linguistic literature mentions several factors that would favor plural agreement with N2 such as an indefinite article, the distance between the verb and the subject, the position of the subject and pseudopartitive rather than partitive use. The corpus analysis will show that these factors are not conclusive. Our alternative account has recourse to the concept of lexical persistence and shows to what extent the quantifier use of N1 retains semantic features associated with the head use of N1. We argue that verbal agreement phenomena can be motivated by the interaction between lexical persistence and the morpho-syntactic and semantic criteria listed in literature. Lexical persistence is thus not a side effect of the grammaticalization process, but a crucial dimension of binominal constructions in that it allows us to explain quantifier uses of N1 with a singular verb.

show abstract

The explicative genitive and close apposition

Sæbø

2018

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The genitive in languages like Czech, German, Japanese or Latin is notoriously multiply ambiguous. Some senses (partitive, possessive, relational, objective) are more or less well-studied, but one, in particular, is understudied: the explicative genitive (also called the genitive of apposition or of definition). I discuss this genitive across several languages and argue that it encodes the inverse of the function that the definite article is standardly taken to encode. Like the definite article, the explicative genitive (also: the EG) is polymorphic, taking arguments of a wide range of logical types. I further argue that many cases of apposition involve the EG meaning, more specifically, that so-called close apposition should be modeled in terms of a covert EG.

show abstract

Binominal Noun Phrases in English

Cited by 34 publications

References 7 publications

Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: lexical and grammaticalized uses

Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: lexical and grammaticalized uses

Un análisis cognitivo-funcional de la concordancia verbal con construcciones (pseudo)partitivas del tipo [N1 + de + N2]

The explicative genitive and close apposition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About