Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T20:48:12.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modern Greek deverbal nominals: an LMT approach1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stella Markantonatou
Stella Markantonatou
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper argues that there are Modern Greek (MG) deverbal nominal predicates which take syntactic arguments. A mechanism for the derivation of these nominals requiring the existence of an ‘internal’ ([ — r]) argument is proposed which has broader coverage than the mechanism proposed in Grimshaw (1990). A small set of simple, unification-based operations is employed to model the relation between the argument structure of verb predicates and that of the corresponding deverbal nominals with an ‘ eventive’ reading. The Lexical Mapping Theory of LFG (LMT) is the theoretical framework of the present discussion.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , September 1995 , pp. 267 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, F. (1992). Complex predicates and morpholexical relatedness: locative alternation in Hungarian. In Sag, I. & Szabolcsi, A. (eds.) Lexical Matters. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 55–84.Google Scholar
Alsina, A. (1990). Where's the Mirror Principle. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Alsina, A. (1992). On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 517–555.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 297–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and complementation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 282–390.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Moshi, L. (1990). Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 147–185.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Zaenen, A. (1990). Deep unaccusativity in LFG. In Dziwirek, K., Farrell, P. & Bikandi, E. M. (eds.) Grammatical relations: a cross-theoretical perspective. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 45–58.Google Scholar
Campos, H. (1987). Passives in Modern Greek. Lingua 73. 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheila-Markopoulou, D. (1986). Ta Sigkritika tis Elinikis [The comparatives of Greek language]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Athens.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C. (1989). The Middle: where semantics and morphology meet. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics II. 16–30.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar (Synthese Language Library 7.) Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1986). Unaccusatives – an overview. In McDonough, J. & Plunckett, B. (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 17.1. CLSA, Department of Linguistics, South College, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 244–259.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Horrocks, G. (1991). Non-configurationality. Lecture handout University of Essex, 24 Oct. 1991.Google Scholar
Horrocks, G. & Stavrou, M. (1986). Bounding theory and Greek syntax: evidence for wh-movement in NP. Journal of Linguistics 23. 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 171–281.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1986). The interpretation of derived nominals. In Farley, A. M., Farley, P. T. & Cullough, K.-E. (eds.) Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 22. 231–247.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport, M. (1988). Nonevent -er nominals: a probe into argument structure. Linguistics 26. 1067–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markantonatou, S. (1992). The syntax of MG NPs with a deverbal nominal Head. Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A. P. D. (1981). Events, processes, and states. In Tedeschi, P. & Zaenen, A. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 14: Tense and aspect. New York: Academic Press. 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J. (1988). Inheritance. In Wilkins, W. (ed.) Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations. New York: Academic Press. 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, M. (1983). On the nature of derived nominals. In Levin, L., Rappaport, M. & Zaenen, A. (eds.) Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 113–142.Google Scholar
Rigler, E. (1989). Aktionsart and the argument structure of deverbal nouns. Working Papers in Language Processing 12. University of Essex.Google Scholar
Sanfilipo, A. (1991). Thematic and aspectual information in verb semantics. Ms., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (1985). Patient vs. non-patient orientation of the action and the voice distinction in MG. Glossologia 2–3. 75–90.Google Scholar
Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (1988). Wh-movement in CNPC in MGK. In Studies in Greek Linguistics (Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, 1988.) 337–354.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (1989). On the properties of the passive affix in Modern Greek. Working Papers in Linguistics I. University College London. 235–261Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1987). English as an ergative language: the theta structure of derived nouns. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23.1. 366–375.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A. (1993). Unaccusativity in Dutch: integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In Pustejovsky, J. (ed.) Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1987). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar