![]() ![]() Results show that (a) a homogeneous approach to SCs is not sufficient to account for observations in corpus data and (b) there are different types of SCs reflecting different constructional types. ![]() By combining a corpus-based analysis with a qualitative synchronic and diachronic investigation of seven compound families – namely X-breaker, X-holder, X-killer, X-maker, X-manager, X-producer, and X-provider – the article provides a fine-grained semantic categorization of their subfamilies. Second, it emphasizes the importance of compound families and subfamilies in SCs’ formation and interpretation. First, it argues that SCs have an ambiguous nature, hovering between (a) morphological suffixation of a verb/word group and (b) morphological derivation and subsequent compounding. Unlike previous approaches ranging from a purely syntactic treatment of SCs to a more lexical treatment, this study aims at providing a novel explanation for these complex formations. ![]() For this purpose, four formal families of English non-Latinate synthetic compounds sharing their second base and three Latinate families have been investigated. This article studies the role of synthetic-compound families, both formal families and their semantic (or rather conceptual) subfamilies, in the analysis of synthetic compounds (SCs). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |