Variation in the lexical semantics of property concept roots: Evidence from Wá⋅šiw.

IF 1.1 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-08 DOI:10.1007/s11049-025-09671-7
Emily A Hanink, Andrew Koontz-Garboden
{"title":"Variation in the lexical semantics of property concept roots: Evidence from Wá⋅šiw.","authors":"Emily A Hanink, Andrew Koontz-Garboden","doi":"10.1007/s11049-025-09671-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whether the lexical semantics of property concepts (words canonically expressed as adjectives in languages with that category; Dixon 1982, Thompson 1989) show variation is a matter of recent debate. At one end of the analytical spectrum, Francez & Koontz-Garboden (2017) contend that their meanings may vary in a way revealed by superficial morphosyntactic behavior. At the other end, Menon & Pancheva (2014) argue that they are universally built on abstract mass-denoting roots, a commonality that can be obscured by (covert) morphosyntax introducing possessive meaning. On the basis of differing strategies for property concept verb formation in Wá⋅šiw (isolate/Hokan, USA), we argue in this paper that there is evidence for variation in the lexical semantics of property concept roots, with some denoting predicates of individuals and others having abstract mass-type meanings, contrary to universalist assumptions. Crucially, the behavior of property concept verb formation in Wá⋅šiw lends itself to an analysis in which possessive semantics is implicated only when it is morphologically observable. By drawing an analogy to canonical possession in the language, we argue moreover that this extra morphology in property concept verbs is best understood as a light verb that both directly categorizes property concept roots and introduces a possessive semantics. These observations provide evidence for the claim that at least some variation in this domain is underpinned by variation in lexical semantics, and more generally for the idea that variation in the lexical semantics of open-class elements drives at least some variation in morphosyntax.</p>","PeriodicalId":18975,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","volume":"43 4","pages":"2727-2769"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12460532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-025-09671-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Whether the lexical semantics of property concepts (words canonically expressed as adjectives in languages with that category; Dixon 1982, Thompson 1989) show variation is a matter of recent debate. At one end of the analytical spectrum, Francez & Koontz-Garboden (2017) contend that their meanings may vary in a way revealed by superficial morphosyntactic behavior. At the other end, Menon & Pancheva (2014) argue that they are universally built on abstract mass-denoting roots, a commonality that can be obscured by (covert) morphosyntax introducing possessive meaning. On the basis of differing strategies for property concept verb formation in Wá⋅šiw (isolate/Hokan, USA), we argue in this paper that there is evidence for variation in the lexical semantics of property concept roots, with some denoting predicates of individuals and others having abstract mass-type meanings, contrary to universalist assumptions. Crucially, the behavior of property concept verb formation in Wá⋅šiw lends itself to an analysis in which possessive semantics is implicated only when it is morphologically observable. By drawing an analogy to canonical possession in the language, we argue moreover that this extra morphology in property concept verbs is best understood as a light verb that both directly categorizes property concept roots and introduces a possessive semantics. These observations provide evidence for the claim that at least some variation in this domain is underpinned by variation in lexical semantics, and more generally for the idea that variation in the lexical semantics of open-class elements drives at least some variation in morphosyntax.

属性概念根的词汇语义变化:来自w⋅šiw的证据。
属性概念(在该类别的语言中通常表示为形容词的词;Dixon 1982, Thompson 1989)的词汇语义是否表现出变化是最近争论的一个问题。在分析光谱的一端,Francez & Koontz-Garboden(2017)认为,它们的意义可能在某种程度上因表面形态句法行为而有所不同。另一方面,Menon & Pancheva(2014)认为它们普遍建立在抽象的质量表示根上,这种共性可能被引入所有格意义的(隐蔽的)形态句法所掩盖。基于w⋅šiw (isolate/Hokan, USA)中财产概念动词形成的不同策略,我们在本文中认为,有证据表明财产概念词根的词汇语义存在变化,其中一些表示个人谓词,另一些具有抽象的质量类型含义,这与普遍主义的假设相反。至关重要的是,在w⋅šiw中,属性概念动词形成的行为有助于分析所有格语义,只有当它在形态学上可观察到时,才会涉及到它。通过类比语言中的规范占有,我们进一步认为,财产概念动词中的这种额外形态最好被理解为一个轻动词,它既直接分类财产概念根,又引入了所有格语义。这些观察结果为以下观点提供了证据:该领域至少有一些变化是由词汇语义的变化所支撑的,更一般地说,开放类元素的词汇语义的变化至少驱动了形态语法的一些变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical research that pays close attention to natural language data, offering a channel of communication between researchers of a variety of points of view. The journal actively seeks to bridge the gap between descriptive work and work of a highly theoretical, less empirically oriented nature. In attempting to strike this balance, the journal presents work that makes complex language data accessible to those unfamiliar with the language area being studied and work that makes complex theoretical positions more accessible to those working outside the theoretical framework under review. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory features: generative studies on the syntax, semantics, phonology, morphology, and other aspects of natural language; surveys of recent theoretical developments that facilitate accessibility for a graduate student readership; reactions/replies to recent papers book reviews of important linguistics titles; special topic issues.         Springer fully understands that access to your work is important to you and to the sponsors of your research. We are listed as a green publisher in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, as we allow self-archiving, but most importantly we are fully transparent about your rights. Read more about author''s rights on: http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信