Types of Lexical Complexity in English: Syntactic Categories and the Lexicon

• Authors: John Anderson
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This study focuses on minimal (non-compound, non-phrasal) signs that are nevertheless internally complex in their syntactic categorization. Sometimes this is signalled by morphology - affixation or internal modification. But there are also conversions. In terms of categorial structure, we can distinguish between absorptions, where the source of the base is associated with a distinct category, and incorporation, where the base is categorially constant. Incorporation is thus typically reflected in inflectional morphology. Absorption may be associated with morphological change or conversion - with retention of the base in a different categorization. But categorial complexity may be nonderived, covert: the categorial complexity of an item is evident only in its syntax and semantics.

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Studia Anglica Posnaniensia
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 47
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 3-51

Dates

published

2012-12-01

online

2013-03-27

Contributors

author

John Anderson

• Methoni, Greece

References

• Anderson, John M. 1970 “’Ablaut’ in the synchronic phonology of the Old English strong verb”, IndogermanischeForschungen 75: 166-97. 1984 Case grammar and the lexicon. University of Ulster: Occasional Papers on Linguisticsand Language Learning, 10. 1997 A notional theory of syntactic categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998 “A core morphology for Old English verbs”, English Language and Linguistics 2: 199-222. 2005 “The argument structure of morphological causatives”, Poznań Studies in ContemporaryLinguistics 40: 27-89. 2006 Modern grammars of case: A retrospective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007 The grammar of names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011a The substance of language, 1: The domain of syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011b The substance of language, 2: Morphology, paradigms, and periphrases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011c “Referentiality and the noun”, Hermes 47: 13-29.
• Anderson, Stephen R. 1992 A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Colman, Fran 1996 “Morphology: Old and Middle English derivational and inflectional”, in: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 3-28. nd. The Old English onomasticon: Names and the grammar. MS
• Colman, Fran - John M. Anderson 2004 “On metonymy as word-formation: With special reference to Old English”, EnglishStudies 85: 547-65.
• Dalton-Puffer, Christiane 1992 “A view on Middle English derivation: verbs”, VIEWS 1: 3-15. 1993 “How distinct are inflection and derivation? Reply to Lass and Ritt”, VIEWS 2: 40-44.
• Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1996 Middle English miscellany: From vocabulary to linguistic variation. Poznań: Motivex.
• Giegerich, Heinz J. - Geoffrey K. Pullum 2010 Foreword to Koshiishi (2010), xiii-xiv.
• Kastovsky, Dieter 1993 “Inflection, derivation and zero - or: what makes OE and German derived denominal verbs verbs?”, VIEWS 2: 71-81.
• Koshiishi, Tetsuya 2010 Collateral adjectives and related issues. Bern: Peter Lang.
• Lass, Roger 1993a “Old English -ian: Inflectional or derivational?”, VIEWS 2: 26-34. 1993b “Old English class II: More views”, VIEWS 2: 104-10.
• Malicka-Kleparska, Anna 1988 Rules and lexicalisations. Selected English nominals. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL.
• Matthews, Peter 1974 Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001 A short history of structural linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pyles, Thomas - John Algeo 1970 English: An introduction to language. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
• Ritt, Nikolaus 1993 “What exactly is it that makes OE -ian derivational? Reply to Lass”, VIEWS 2: 35-9.
• Saussure, Ferdinand de 1916 Cours de linguistique générale, (ed. by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger. Lausanne & Paris: Payot.) (2nd ed., Paris: Payot, 1922; 3rd and last corrected ed., 1931.)

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10121-012-0010-z