Skip to main content

Transpositions and argument structure

  • Chapter
Yearbook of Morphology 1998

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Morphology ((YOMO))

Abstract

Considerable attention has been devoted in the recent literature to the morphosyntax of deverbal action nominalizations (Comrie and Thompson 1985; Grimshaw 1990; Rozwadowska 1997; Zubizarreta 1987; see Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993 for a typological survey), especially those that give rise to so-called ‘mixed categories’ (Lefebvre and Muysken 1988), in which a nominalization shows some of the categorial properties of a noun and some of the properties of a verb. Rather less attention has been directed towards other types of morphological category which share some of the general features of nominalizations such as participles and relational adjectives. A participle is a verb form which shows the external syntax of an adjective, while a relational adjective can be thought of as a noun form showing the external syntax of an adjective. In a great many languages the only significant effect of the process is to shift the word from one syntactic category to another. Beard (1995), who has discussed these types of process in some detail, refers to this as ‘transposition’.

I am grateful to the Economic and Social Research Council for supporting some aspects of the research reported here, Project no. R000236115. I am grateful to Keith Brown for detailed discussion of a number of aspects of these ideas. Thanks also to Greg Stump and Steven Lapointe for helpful discussion, and to Marina Zaretskaya for discussion of some of the Russian examples, and to an anonymous referee for very detailed and thoughtful criticism. Versions of these ideas have been presented at the Workshop on Inflection, 8th Morphology Conference, Vienna, 6th February, 1996, and the Associação Portuguesa de Lingüística, University of Lisbon, 1 October 1997. The paper has benefited from the comments of participants in the Research Workshop in Argument Structure at the Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, participants at the Workshop on Inflection, 8th Morphology Conference, Vienna, 6th February, 1996, the audience at the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Spring 1997 meeting (8 April), University of Edinburgh, and the participants in the 18 April 1997 meeting of ‘Challenges for Inflection Description’, funded by the ESRC, particularly Roger Evans and Gerald Gazdar, and the Lexical Functional Grammar 97 meeting, University of California San Diego, especially Joan Bresnan, Phil LeSourd, Joan Mating and Nigel Vincent. I would particularly like to thank the organizers of the First Mediterranean Conference on Morphology for their invitation to present these ideas to that meeting. Default disclaimers apply.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ackerman, Farrell and Philip LeSourd. 1997. “Toward a Lexical Representation of Phrasal Predicates”. In Alsina et al. (eds), 67–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsina, Alex. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar. Evidence from Romance. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan and Peter Sells (eds). 1997. Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babby, Leonard H. 1993. “A Theta-theoretic Analysis of -EN Suffixation in Russian”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1, 3–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babby, Leonard H. 1997 “Nominalization, Passivization and Causativization. Evidence from Russian”. Die Welt der Slaven XLII, 201–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology. Stony Brook, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert. 1992. “Morphology, Semantics and Argument Structure”. In I. M. Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent and Carol Chapman. 1997. “Paradigms, Periphrases and Pronominal Inflection: a Feature-based Account”. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 155–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan. 1999. Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, Bernard and Sandra A. Thompson. 1985. “Lexical Nominalization”. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. III Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 349–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, Greville G. 1987. “The Morphology-Syntax Interface”. Language 63, 299–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donald. 1967. “Truth and Meaning”. Synthese 17, 304–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, Pamela. 1977. “On the Creation and Use of English Nominal Compounds”, Language 55, 810–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geenhoven, Veerle van. 1998. “On the Argument Structure of Some Noun Incorporating Verbs in West Greenlandic”. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 225–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Kenneth and S. Jay Keyser. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical

    Google Scholar 

  • Expression of Syntactic Relations“. In Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser (eds), The View From Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. “Word-class-changing Inflection and Morphological Theory”. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 43–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, James. 1985. “On Semantics”, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–621. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. “Remarks on Denominai Verbs”. In Alsina et al. (eds), 473–500. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe, Steven. 1993. “Dual Lexical Categories and the Syntax of Mixed Category Phrases”. In A. Kathol and M. Bernstein (eds), Proceedings of the East Coast States Conference on Linguistics 1993, 199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed Categories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovay. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanan, Tara. 1995. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauh, Gisa. 1997. “Lokale Präpositionen und referentielle Argumente”. Linguistische Berichte 171, 415–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozwadowska, Bozena. 1997. Towards a Unified Theory of Nominalizations. External and Internal Eventualities. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, Louisa and Andrew Spencer. 1998. “Morphology and Argument Structure”. In A. Spencer and A. Zwicky (eds), Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 206–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1995. Participial Passive and Aspect in Russian. Utrecht: Onderzoeksinstituut voor Taal en Spraak.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “Incorporation in Chukchi”. Language 71, 439–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, Andrew. 1998. “The Redundancy of Lexical Categories”. In If you see what I mean. Essays on Language, Presented to Keith Brown on the Occasion of his Retirement in 1998. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, Special Issue, 14–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin. 1981. “Argument Structure and Morphology”. The Linguistic Review 1, 18–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunderlich, Dieter. 1996. “Lexical Categories”. Theoretical Linguistics 22, 1–48. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwarts, Joost. 1992. X’-Syntax - X’-Semantics: On the Interpretation of Functional and Lexical Heads. Utrecht: Onderzoeksinstituut voor Taal en Spraak.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Spencer, A. (1999). Transpositions and argument structure. In: Booij, G., van Marle, J. (eds) Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Yearbook of Morphology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3720-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3720-3_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5346-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3720-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics