1887
image of On the encoding of negation by Source prefixes and the satellite-/verb-framed distinction
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper deals with typological distinction between satellite- and verb-framed systems by comparing the expression of negative meaning through Source prefixes in Latin and Spanish complex verbs. In particular, the claim is made that the different scope relations established between the Source prefixes and the verb root in each language are the reflection of their different typological nature. The core proposal is that Latin Source prefixes lexicalize a Path head that defines a phase, whereas the Path head lexicalized by the Spanish Source prefix is not phase-defining. This has consequences on the timing of Spell-Out as well as on the position in which roots are merged, which naturally accounts for the distinct lexicalization patterns shown by these prefixed constructions in both languages. The negative meaning of Source prefixes, in turn, is derived from the context in which they are embedded.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00037.gib
2020-09-24
2020-11-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acedo-Matellán, Víctor
    2006 Prefixes in Latin and Romance and the satellite-/verb-framed distinction. InActes del VII Congrés de Lingüística General (CD-ROM). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000295 (March 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2010 Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona dissertation. hdl.handle.net/2445/42060 (March 2018).
  3. 2016The morphosyntax of transitions. A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2018 Exoskeletal Versus Endoskeletal Approaches in Morphology. InMark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Online Publication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.585
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.585 [Google Scholar]
  5. Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Jaume Mateu
    2013 Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach. Probus25. 227–265. doi:  10.1515/probus‑2013‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0008 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2014 From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation. InArtemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 14–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Aristotle. Works
    Aristotle. Works 1961–1966 Including Categories, De Interpretatione, Prior and Posterior Analytics. Translated under the editorship ofW. D. Ross. London: Oxford University Press.
  8. Bach, Emmon
    1986 The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy9. 5–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bartra, Anna & Jaume Mateu
    2005 Aspecte i prefixació verbal en català antic. Caplletra39. 85–108. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Caplletra/article/view/281057 (March 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Battaner, María Paz
    1996 Características léxico-semánticas de los verbos prefijados con <des-> en DRAE 1992. Boletín de la Real Academia EspañolaLXXVI. 309–370.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berro, Ane
    2015 Breaking verbs: from event structure to syntactic categories in Basque. University of the Basque Country dissertation. hdl.handle.net/10810/16077 (March 2018).
  12. Borer, Hagit
    2005The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brea, Mercedes
    1976 Prefijos formadores de antónimos negativos en español medieval. Verba3. 319–341. hdl.handle.net/10347/3096 (August 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1994 A propósito del prefijo des-. InB. Pallares, P. Piera & J. Sánchez Lobato (eds.), Homenaje a María Josefa Canellada, 111–124. Madrid: Editorial Complutense.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Caha, Pavel
    2009 The Nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation. hdl.handle.net/10037/2203 (March 2018).
  16. Chomsky, Noam
    1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2001 Derivation by phase. InMichael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Clark, Eve V. & Herbert H. Clark
    1979 When nouns surface as verbs. Language55. 767–811. https://www.jstor.org/stable/412745 (August 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. [CORPES XXI] Real Academina Española
    [CORPES XXI] Real Academina Española. Corpus del Español del Siglo XXI. www.rae.es (April 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  20. [CREA] Real Academia Española
    [CREA] Real Academia Española. Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. www.rae.es (March 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria
    1997 Prefixed verbs and adjunct-identification. InAnna-Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Projections and interface conditions. Essays on modularity, 52–74. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dowty, David R.
    1979Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fábregas, Antonio
    2016Las nominalizaciones. Madrid: Visor Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fábregas, Antonio & Rafael Marín
    2012 Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs. LSRL 42. Cedar City, UT: Southern Utah University.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017 On non-dynamic eventive verbs in Spanish. Linguistics55(3). 451–488. doi:  10.1515/ling‑2017‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. García Hernández, Benjamín
    1980Semántica estructural y lexemática del verbo. Tarragona: Avesta.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gehrke, Berit
    2008 Ps in Motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events (LOT Dissertation Series 184). Utrecht: LOT Publications.
  28. Gibert-Sotelo, Elisabeth
    2017a Asymmetries between Goal and Source prefixes in Spanish: A structural account from a diachronic perspective. InSilvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.), Space in Diachrony, 241–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.188.09sot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.09sot [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017b Source and negative prefixes: On the syntax-lexicon interface and the encoding of spatial relations. Girona: Universitat de Girona dissertation. hdl.handle.net/10803/461414 (March 2018).
  30. Gibert-Sotelo, Elisabeth & Isabel Pujol-Payet
    2015 Semantic approaches to the study of denominal parasynthetic verbs in Spanish. Morphology25(4). 439–472. doi:  10.1007/s11525‑015‑9267‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-015-9267-y [Google Scholar]
  31. Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser
    2002Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Harley, Heidi
    2013 External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua125. 34–57. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  33. Haverling, Gerd
    2000On sco-verbs, prefixes and semantic functions. A study in the development of prefixed and unprefixed verbs from Early to Late Latin. Gŏteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Horn, Laurence R.
    [1989] 2001A natural history of negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jackendoff, Ray
    1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kratzer, Angelika
    1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. InJohan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  37. Labelle, Marie
    2000 The semantic representation of denominal verbs. InPeter Coopmans, Martin B. H. Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 215–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cilt.197.11lab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.197.11lab [Google Scholar]
  38. Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau
    2005 Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition96. 1–33. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. Larson, Richard K.
    1988 On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry19. 335–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lehmann, Christian
    1983 Latin preverbs and cases. InHarm Pinkster (ed.), Latin linguistics and linguistic theory, 145–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.12.15leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.12.15leh [Google Scholar]
  41. Maienborn, Claudia
    2007 On Davidsonian and Kimian states. InIleana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 107–130. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6197‑4_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_4 [Google Scholar]
  42. Marantz, Alec
    1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC)21. 201–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2007 Phases and words. InSook-Hee Choe (ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar, 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Martín García, Josefa
    2007 Las palabras prefijadas con des-. Boletín de la Real Academia EspañolaLXXXVII (CCXCV). 5–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mateu, Jaume
    2001 Locative and locatum verbs revisited. Evidence from Romance. InYves D’Hulst, Johan Rooryck & Jan Schroten (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 1999, 223–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. [NGLE] Real Academia Española
    [NGLE] Real Academia Española 2009Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Pantcheva, Marina
    2010 The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals and Sources. Linguistics48: 1043–1082. doi:  10.1515/ling.2010.034 (March 2018).
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.034 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2011 Decomposing Path: The Nanosyntax of directional expressions. Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation. hdl.handle.net/10037/3631 (March 2018).
  49. [Perseus] Crane, Gregory R.
    (ed.) Perseus Digital Library. University of Tufts. www.perseus.tufts.edu (March 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ramchand, Gillian
    2008Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  51. Real Puigdollers, Cristina
    2013 Lexicalization by phase: The role of prepositions in argument structure and its cross-linguistic variation. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona dissertation. hdl.handle.net/10803/120181 (March 2018).
  52. Rodríguez Rosique, Susana
    2011 Morphology and pragmatics of affixal negation. Evidence from Spanish des-. InJosé Luis Cifuentes Honrubia & Susana Rodríguez Rosique (eds.), Spanish word formation and lexical creation, 145–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/ivitra.1.06ros
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.1.06ros [Google Scholar]
  53. Slobin, Dan I.
    2004 The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expres-sion of motion events. InSven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds), Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 219–257. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Starke, Michal
    2009 A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd36(1). 1–6. doi:  10.7557/12.213
    https://doi.org/10.7557/12.213 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2014 Towards elegant parameters: Language variation reduces to the size of lexically stored trees. InM. Carme Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the Minimalist Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  56. Svenonius, Peter
    (ed.) 2004Nordlyd 32 (2): Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/issue/view/8 (August 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2006 The emergence of Axial Parts. Nordlyd33(1). 49–77. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. doi:  10.7557/12.85
    https://doi.org/10.7557/12.85 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2010 Spatial P in English. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  59. Talmy, Leonard
    1991 Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Linguistic Society (BLS)17. 480–519. doi:  10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2000Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Thomas, Emma
    2001 On the expression of directional movement in English. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics4. 87–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2003 Manner-specificity as a factor in the acceptance of in and on in directional contexts. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics5. 117–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tungseth, Mai
    2006 Verbal prepositions in Norwegian: Paths, Places and Possession. Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation. hdl.handle.net/10037/248 (March 2018).
  64. Varela, Soledad & Josefa Martín García
    1999 La prefijación. InIgnacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (dirs.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 4993–5040. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00037.gib
Loading
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