Nominal juxtaposition in Australian languages: An LFG analysis

Sadler, Louisa; Nordlinger, Rachel

doi:10.1017/s002222670999020x

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[12]Extensive uses of nominal juxtaposition construction can be found in Australian languages. These languages exhibit a substantial amount of flexibility as to how nominal sequences are to be interpreted semantically (Dixon 2002, Sadler & Nordlinger 2010). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective

Kim

Sells

2014

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

English binominal NPs (BNPs) (e.g., a giant of a man, a skullcracker of a headache) are of empirical and theoretical interest due to their complex syntactic and semantic properties. In this paper, we review some basic properties of the BNP construction, focusing on its headedness, semantic relations, and the role of the preposition of. We argue that these properties suggest an account in the spirit of construction grammar. In particular, we argue that the English BNP is a nominal juxtaposition construction with particular special syntactic constraints, linked to a semantic interpretation reminiscent of the subject–predicate relation.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective

Kim

Sells

2014

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…31-35). Nordlinger and Sadler (2008) and Sadler and Nordlinger (2010) proposed applying sets to NP structure, in Australian languages. They do not use singleton sets, but do have problems with making distribution work; the undersharing mechanism proposed here could help.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sets, heads and spreading in LFG

Andrews

2018

JLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) uses abstract syntactic representation (f-structures) that tend to provide less hierarchical structure for certain constructions than those employed in other formal frameworks. This produces some good results, such as a very straightforward account of feature-sharing between phrases and their heads, but also certain difficulties, especially in cases where the semantic interpretation seems to be determined by the hierarchical c-structure rather than the flatter f-structure. These are unproblematic for all other major generative frameworks, but have been troublesome for standard versions of LFG.Here I will consider two such cases: scoping adjectival modification in noun phrases; and Romance `complex' (or `restructuring') predicates. Problems with the semantic interpretation of these constructions were first discussed by Andrews (1983) and Alsina (1997), respectively, and by others subsequently. Both constructions exhibit the problem of apparent concentricity, and a fully satisfactory and accepted LFG solution has not yet been found. My proposal is to use the hybrid objects and distribution convention of Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000), but with singleton rather than multi-member sets, along with a facility to stipulatively suppress distribution in individual constructions. This provides an analysis which explains scope-determination and helps with certain other problems, with far less change to the theory than in previous attempts such as Andrews and Manning (1993, 1999).

show abstract

“…(Keizer 2005: 461) Overall, these constructions seem to occupy a relatively small functional niche in English (see also Acuña-Fariña 2016). In comparison, it has been argued that close apposition in Australian languages seems to be more broadly used, involving more semantic types like generic-specific structures, as illustrated in ( 24), and partwhole structures (Sadler and Nordlinger 2010).…”

Section: Close Appositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Typologizing nominal expressions: the noun phrase and beyond

Louagie

Reinöhl

2021

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops foundations for a new typology of nominal expressions. Despite the significant diversity attested in languages around the world, a view traditionally and sometimes still found holds that languages either have ‘classic’, rigidly structured noun phrases (NPs) or lack them. A simple dichotomy, however, does not adequately represent the significant language-internal and crosslinguistic diversity of forms and functions of nominal expressions. While many linguists may not in fact think in such binary terms, a comprehensive typology is still wanting. This article offers foundations towards such a typology, with a particular emphasis on language-internal diversity. This diversity within languages has received little attention in previous studies, even while it reveals much about the actual complexity in the nominal domain. Besides surveying structural types and their motivating factors across as well as within languages from around the world, this article approaches nominal expressions also from a variety of other perspectives to enrich our understanding of them. This includes approaching nominal expressions from the perspective of word class systems as well as diachronically. We round off the article by looking at the impact of orality-literacy dimensions and communicative modes.

show abstract

Nominal juxtaposition in Australian languages: An LFG analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 35 publications

English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective

English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective

Sets, heads and spreading in LFG

Typologizing nominal expressions: the noun phrase and beyond

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About