{"title":"属性概念根的词汇语义变化:来自w<s:1>⋅šiw的证据。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Variation in the lexical semantics of property concept roots: Evidence from Wá⋅šiw.
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.
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