slides - corpora@parles.upf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary Morphosyntac,c defec,veness Lack of reference of the N / affix Intransi,ve predicates Restric,ons on incorpora,ng verbs V + N Le + V V/P + (D)N ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü HAVE-‐ predicates Event modifica,on ü N(θ(e)) ü Ac,vi,es and dynamic predicates ü Ac,on(e) ü Predicates that have associated a U func,on ü P(θ(e)) 28
Conclusions l BNs, le, and WDs in the three constructions discussed in this presentation: Ø are morphosyntactically defective, and Ø are not canonical arguments. l Their meaning is intersectively composed with the one corresponding to the V. Event modification. l Complex predicate formation by Pseudo Incorporation. 29
Page 1 and 2: Pseudo Incorporation in Romance at
Page 3 and 4: Pseudo Incorporation • • • l
Page 5 and 6: Pseudo Incorporation • • • l
Page 7 and 8: The data • • (3) MEXICAN SPANIS
Page 9 and 10: Hypotheses • • • l Morphosynt
Page 11 and 12: Hypotheses • • • l Clitics in
Page 13 and 14: Defective bare nominals in Romance
Page 15 and 16: Defective le in Mexican Spanish •
Page 17 and 18: Defective le in Mexican Spanish •
Page 19 and 20: Pseudo incorporation for lepredicat
Page 21 and 22: Weak definites Do they show morphos
Page 23 and 24: WD vs. Definite kinds Built on Num
Page 25 and 26: Semantic similarities between WD an
Page 27: Pseudo incorporation for WD l Rest

slides - corpora@parles.upf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?