Taiwan Southern Min Denominal Verbs

International Journal of American Linguistics, 2008

This paper is a general and brief introduction to the phenomena explored in this issue-denominal verbs and allied constructions. We outline their morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties and contrast them with other similar phenomena such as noun incorporation and noun stripping. As seen in the papers herein, these properties may differ substantially from language to language, but the various constructions are profitably compared under a common rubric. Thus, these papers give a glimpse of the linguistic variety that is found in languages of North America, while contributing to our typological knowledge of denominal verb constructions, which heretofore have received little attention.

2008

This paper is a general and brief introduction to the phenomena explored in this issue—denominal verbs and allied constructions. We outline their morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties and contrast them with other similar phenomena such as noun incorporation and noun stripping. As seen in the papers herein, these properties may differ substantially from language to language, but the various constructions are profitably compared under a common rubric. Thus, these papers give a glimpse of the linguistic variety that is found in languages of North America, while contributing to our typological knowledge of denominal verb constructions, which heretofore have received little attention.

Language and Linguistics Compass, 2024

This article aims to fill a gap in the typological literature by discussing the typology of overt denominal verb formation strategies, i.e., morphosyntactic strategies other than conversion/zeroderivation that are used to derive a verb from a nominal base. We analyze the morphological, syntactic and semantic properties of these strategies in a variety sample of 222 languages. These properties include the morphological status, the productivity, and the semantic effects of the overt verbalizer, as well as the features of the nominal base and the polysemy patterns that characterize verbalizers across languages. The typological survey is complemented by a section on the diachronic typology of overt denominal verb formation strategies, in which we identify the most common diachronic sources of overt verbalizers and discuss the diachronic dynamics that involve them in relation to other denominal verb formation strategies such as conversion/zero-derivation.

Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, 2021

There are three major asymmetries recognized between Mandarin and English denominal verbs (hereafter DNV): typological, aspectual and quantitative. These asymmetries receive a plausible account on the assumption that Mandarin DNVs are derived under syntactic constraints while the derivation of English DNVs is syntax-free. The different derivational mechanisms for Mandarin and English DNVs correlate with the different functions of zero morphemes in the two languages. To spell out the correlation, we posit three parameters in word derivation: the Rule Parameter (i.e., word formation is governed either morphologically or syntactically), the Morpheme Parameter (i.e., a certain kind of word derivation utilizes, in addition to a base form, either a full morpheme or a zero morpheme) and the Zero Morpheme Parameter (i.e., zero morphemes are geared to either syntactic or morphological operations in a given language). These parameters are assumedly set in such a way that DNV derivation in Mandarin is assigned to syntax but that in English to morphology.

This paper examines in detail the two modal constructions ē-tit V and ē V-tit. Although the two expressions are composed of identical elements, they are different syntactically and semantically. When used as deontic modals, they can license non-specific subject and the licensing capacity is accounted based on the Extended Mapping Hypothesis (Tsai 2001, 2009). Theoretically, the vP-internal location of ē V-tit demonstrates an early stage of grammaticalization. According to the Structural Simplification Hypothesis (Roberts and Roussou 1999), the LF movement of deontic ē V-tit exhibits that, before a lexical item adopts overt movement to assume a new construal, it may have already become semantically amphibious by interpreting on its position at LF. Keywords: Modal, deontic modality, dynamic modality, Structural Simplification Hypothesis, Taiwanese

2007

This dissertation explores the factors that influence the creation and interpretation of novel denominal verbs in English. Of particular focus is the potential influence of one factor, termed here the Semantic Category Distribution Effect. The Semantic Category Distribution Effect involves the type frequency distribution of existing forms of a given denominal verb formation process (e.g. conversion, -ize, -ify, -ate) across semantic categories (e.g., ORNATIVE, RESULTATIVE, LOCATIVE, INSTRUMENTAL), and the impact of this distribution upon the probability of application of that process upon a novel verb. The central hypothesis of this dissertation is that native English speakers are sensitive to and make use of this kind of type frequency distribution information when creating or interpreting novel denominal verbs.

2005

Oceanic Linguistics, 2009

The aim of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, it gives a systematic description of adverbials in Tsou. On the other, it illustrates how adverbials are syntactically represented and derived in Tsou. Two types of adverbial constructions can be identified. In one type, adverbials are realized as adverbial verbs and situated between a temporal/modal auxiliary and a lexical verb, and they take the prefixes a-/i'-. In the other type, adverbials occur as bound roots and combine with an event-denoting lexical prefix, yielding an adverbial compound. It is argued that adverbial verbs are generated as functional heads above Voice/vP, whereas adverbial compounds are generated as lexical heads under Voice/vP. This analysis accounts for a number of otherwise puzzling asymmetries, including the following: (i) an adverbial compound can stand alone and take nominal arguments but an adverbial verb cannot; (ii) an adverbial compound can be marked for Locative Voice and Referential Voice but an adverbial verb cannot; (iii) the root of an adverbial compound is restricted to event adverbials, but the root of an adverbial verb is free from this restriction; (iv) the prefix of an adverbial compound can be voice-marked, but the prefix of an adverbial verb is invariant; and (v) adverbial verbs must precede adverbial compounds, not the other way around.

2005