seminaire =?iso-8859-1?Q?=E0_?=Paris8 le 26/11: Hagit Borer

[elenasoleil]

L'UMR 7023 a le plaisir de vous inviter, dans le cadre de son
séminaire

http://www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/-Seminaire-de-l-UMR-7023,50-.html
<http://www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/-Seminaire-de-l-UMR-7023,50-.html>

à un exposé de





Hagit Borer

(Queen Mary University of London)



Titre :

The Domain of Content



Date : le 26 novembre 2012

Heure : 10h00

Lieu :  Université de Paris 8 Vincennes – Saint Denis, salle D328

Plan d'accès:

http://www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/Plans-d-acces,672.html
<http://www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/Plans-d-acces,672.html>



Abstract

An investigation of the properties of derived nominals (Complex Event
Nominals in the sense of Grimshaw, 1990) reveals a number of rather
surprising facts.

First, derived nominals with non-compositional Content (or Sense) cannot
be Argument Structure nominals (Complex Event Nominals in the sense of
Grimshaw, 1990), contrasting, as such, with identical
morpho-phonological forms which do happen to have compositional Content
(e.g. transformation in its technical linguistic sense vs.
transformation as transparently composed from transform).

Second, Argument Structure nominals, but not necessarily others, must
embed a constituent that is otherwise a possible independent verb,
thereby making e.g. aviation, fiction and petulance perfectly licit
derived nominals, but not with an embedded event structure.

The contrasts, as it turns out, cannot be accounted for by a lexicalist
theory of word formation, nor can they be explained by appealing to any
model in which roots are allowed to select arguments.

The contrasts, however, can be derived within a wholly syntactic
approach to argument structure and to the formation of complex words, in
which the domain of non-compositional Content (atomic Content) is
defined on the basis of structurally delimited, phonologically realized,
syntactic constituents, and is crucially accessible by phase.

The argumentation and the conclusions will thus point towards a system
of complex word construction which must be syntactic. It will further
points towards the need to revise at least some aspects of our
understanding concerning the interaction between sound, and specifically
phonological realization, and meaning, the latter specifically as in
Content.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/parislinguists/attachments/20121119/5a58b438/attachment.htm>