1887
Volume 160, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In A Corpus-Based Study of Nominalizations Predicated by English Deverbal Nouns in -tion, Michal Szawerna presents the results of his PhD research on -tion nominalizations. Szawerna’s approach is couched in the Cognitive Grammar framework as developed primarily by Langacker (1987 and 1991) and fits in with the traditional approach to nominalization in that it is essentially word-based (i.e. it focuses on the word level rather than on the nominalized NP as a whole or the discourse context in which it functions). As in most traditional analyses of nominalization, Szawerna takes the lexical-descriptive and aspectual properties of the base verb as starting point (described in cognitive terms) and then attempts to capture the distinct ‘profiles’ of the derivations in -tion in a schematic network of interrelated meanings. Since there are relatively few publications that have nominalizations as their sole focus (other monographs on nominalization are Marchand 1969; Heyvaert 2003; Nordrum 2007) and even fewer that consider derived nouns in -ion, Szawerna’s book is a welcome addition to the literature. Unfortunately, the carefulness with which the author tackles the issue is obscured by the book’s heavy-going style, long-winded explanations, repetitions and extensive use of abbreviations and cognitive terminology. The overall structure of the book, with only three chapters, two of which take up more than 100 pages, moreover makes for hard reading. Those willing to work their way through it, however, will find a rich overview of subtypes of -ion nominalizations and a serious attempt to map out the semantic intricacies of the -ion nominalization system.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.160.07hey
2010-01-01
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barker, C.
    (1998) Episodic -ee in English: a thematic role constraint on new word formation. Language74(4), 695–727. doi:  10.2307/417000
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417000 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bengtsson, E.
    (1927) Passive nouns with a concrete sense in English. Lund: Häkan Ohlsson.
  3. Booij, G. and R. Lieber
    (2004) On the paradigmatic nature of affixal semantics in English and Dutch. Linguistics42(2), 327–357. doi:  10.1515/ling.2004.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brinton, L.
    (1998) Aspectuality and countability: a cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics2(1), 37–63. doi:  10.1017/S136067430000068X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067430000068X [Google Scholar]
  5. Flowerdew, J.
    (2006) Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics11, 345–345. doi:  10.1075/ijcl.11.3.07flo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.3.07flo [Google Scholar]
  6. Heyvaert, L.
    (2003) A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110903706
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110903706
  7. Langacker, R.W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  8. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  9. Lees, R.B.
    (1960) The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics, publication 12.
  10. Levin, B. & M. Rappaport
    (1988) Nonevent -er nominals: a probe into argument structure. Linguistics26, 1067–1083. doi:  10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1067
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1067 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lieber, R.
    (2004) Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511486296
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486296
  12. Marchand, H.
    (1969) The categories and types of Present-day English Wordformation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. 2nd edition. München: C.H. Beck’she Verlagsbuchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Nordrum, L.
    (2007) English lexical nominalizations in a Norwegian-Swedish contrastive perspective. PhD dissertation, English Department, Göteborg University.
  14. Ryder, M.E.
    (1991) Mixers, mufflers and mousers: the extending of the -er suffix as a case of prototype reanalysis. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society17, 299–311. doi:  10.3765/bls.v17i0.1616
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v17i0.1616 [Google Scholar]
  15. Schmid, H.J.
    (2000) English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704
  16. Szawerna, M.
    (2007) A Corpus-Based Study of Nominalizations Predicated by English Deverbal Nouns in -tion. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  17. Taylor, J.R.
    (1994) ‘Subjective’ and ‘objective’ readings of possessor nominals. Cognitive Linguistics5, 201–242. doi:  10.1515/cogl.1994.5.3.201
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.3.201 [Google Scholar]
  18. (1996) Possessives in English. An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.160.07hey
Loading
  • Article Type: Book Review
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error