2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_14
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting the Semantics of English Nominalizations: A Frame-Based Analysis of -ment Suffixation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
14
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It has long been known that derivational affixes can be highly polysemous, exhibiting a range of different, often related, meanings. To account for this problem, it is commonly assumed that polysemy arises through the interaction of affix semantics with the meaning of the base [18]. Our study supports an approach in which the semantics of a derivational process is conceptualized as its potential to induce particular metaphoric shifts in the semantic representation of its bases.…”
Section: A Demonyms or Persons' Names According To The Place Of Resisupporting
confidence: 62%
“…It has long been known that derivational affixes can be highly polysemous, exhibiting a range of different, often related, meanings. To account for this problem, it is commonly assumed that polysemy arises through the interaction of affix semantics with the meaning of the base [18]. Our study supports an approach in which the semantics of a derivational process is conceptualized as its potential to induce particular metaphoric shifts in the semantic representation of its bases.…”
Section: A Demonyms or Persons' Names According To The Place Of Resisupporting
confidence: 62%
“…The suffix -ment derives event nominalizations with a wide range of possible readings, depending on the base and the context (see e.g. Kawaletz & Plag, 2015).…”
Section: -Mentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that although we assume that a change of state always comes with a PRESTATE, this PRESTATE is not part of the event structure encoded by an eventive noun such as Explosion. This is evident if one looks at the referents of event nouns which are subject to polysemy but never include a PREREGION as a potential referent (see Kawaletz and Plag 2015 for a frame account of the polysemy of event nominalizations). Likewise, although a spatial object has some (possibly variable) PREREGION, this region is not a part of it.…”
Section: Literal Stehen Versus Lvc Stehen + Vor + Npmentioning
confidence: 99%