{"title":"被动潜在词缀：句法还是词汇？","authors":"A. Lipták, I. Kenesei","doi":"10.1556/2062.2017.64.1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we will argue that contrary to the received view passive potential affixation in Hungarian primarily derives complex syntactic objects rather than adjectives. By means of a number of tests we show the differences between the two classes of items bearing the homophonous affix -hato/hető : one a nonfinite verb form, the other a lexicalized adjective. In addition to a syntactic analysis of this composite affix, a typology is provided for languages that have similar constructions.","PeriodicalId":54157,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hungarica","volume":"64 1","pages":"45-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/2062.2017.64.1.2","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Passive potential affixation: syntax or lexicon?\",\"authors\":\"A. Lipták, I. Kenesei\",\"doi\":\"10.1556/2062.2017.64.1.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper we will argue that contrary to the received view passive potential affixation in Hungarian primarily derives complex syntactic objects rather than adjectives. By means of a number of tests we show the differences between the two classes of items bearing the homophonous affix -hato/hető : one a nonfinite verb form, the other a lexicalized adjective. In addition to a syntactic analysis of this composite affix, a typology is provided for languages that have similar constructions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Linguistica Hungarica\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"45-77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/2062.2017.64.1.2\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Linguistica Hungarica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2017.64.1.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Linguistica Hungarica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2017.64.1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper we will argue that contrary to the received view passive potential affixation in Hungarian primarily derives complex syntactic objects rather than adjectives. By means of a number of tests we show the differences between the two classes of items bearing the homophonous affix -hato/hető : one a nonfinite verb form, the other a lexicalized adjective. In addition to a syntactic analysis of this composite affix, a typology is provided for languages that have similar constructions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
