Eventive Nouns and Light Verb Constructions: An In-depth Analysis, Appunti di Lingua Inglese

Scarica Eventive Nouns and Light Verb Constructions: An In-depth Analysis e più Appunti in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity! ELT Il 31-03 Eventive nouns inherit the same verbal features of the predicated they come from. Eventive nouns can also enter more complex syntactic constructions. In this case, they perform a double function: - As nouns, they can represent either the Subject or the Object of a clause - As deverbal items, they combine two events together in the same clause. EX: Mary arrived in town. - 2 arguments - 2 thematic roles Maîy= T which is the subj. in town= D which is a locative prepositional phrase Mary= Ag. In town= goal or location EX: Mary's arrival in town - the analysis is exactly the same even if l'm using a noun and not verb to represent an event. Mary=T in town= D Mary= Ag. in town= Loc./Goal EX: Mary's arrival in town made me happy - first of all | have to consider that eventive noun as a double nature: - Asa noun > in this case is the subject of my causative verb > Mary's arrival in town - As a deverbal item > it doesn't have an argument structure anymore because the main predicate is made (not arrival) but it can be analyse in terms of thematic role. So, we would have 2 different types of thematic roles > one connected with the real predicate - one connected with the predicate which is concealed inside my eventive noun. Mary's arrivalin town=T Me=T Mary’ arrival in town= th./sourc. [Mary's (ag.) arrival in town(goal/loc)] Me= Exp N.B. [] What is inside my square brackets are the thematic roles that depend on arrival and not on made. EX: John's promotion made me proud. John's promotion= T me=T John's promotion= th./sourc. [John(ben./exp.)'s promotion(th./sourc)] me=Exp. The city’s destruction made me sad. The city's destruction= T Me=T The city's destruction= Th. [The city(pat.)'s destruction] Me= Exp. I hate Sheila’s furnishing of the house. =T Sheila's furnishing of the house = T l= Exp. Sheila's furnishing of the house= th. [Sheila(ag.)'s furnishing of the house (pat.)] I approved the school’s ban on uniforms. =T the school's ban on uniforms= T l= Ag. the school's ban on uniforms= th. [The school(ag.)'s ban on uniforms(th.) They are constructions in which you use a full verb/lexical verb with a light sense in combination with eventive nouns. So, the lexical verb undergoes a metaphorical shift which makes it lose its meaning. EX: To breed (=nutrire e far crescere) > used with animals To breed resentment > there is a metaphorical meaning = to make resentment go. EX: To nourish > used with human beings. To nourish envy Complex predicates > are a concept which belong to German linguistics like Miriam Butt (2003). She said that LVC are not only represented by general verb + a noun, but they may consider other types of construction in which the general verb is light in combination with prepositional phrases. They are a subcategory of LVC. EX: To take into account To fall in love Light nouns > this concept goes back to 2014 and was advanced by Raffaele Simone e Francesca Masini. They said that the concept of lightness is not applicable only to predicates but there are verbs used likely in some specific context. EX: Attack/ stream An attack of anxiety > an attack represents an aspectual shade of the second noun = it means to start to be anxious. So, attack has an inchoative function. Stream of information > a stream represents a great quantity of information/continues information. So, it has the same aspectual function of continuatives verbs. In Italian they are called VERBI SUPPORTO; in Spanish VERBOS DE APOYO; in French VERBES SUPPORTES. Semantic peculiarities - the element that conveys the meaning of the construction is the noun (and not the verb), whose meaning is usually represented also in a full lexical verb. - This is why LVC are modified only through adjectives (having scope of the N) and not through adverbs. EX: To take a walk > the meaning is > to walk. To give advice > the meaning is > to advice. EX: To take a long walk > NOT to take a walk longly. To give good advice > NOT to give advice well. To run quickly > to take a quick run. To speak longly > to give a long speech. N.B. > as far as aspect is concerned LVCs add telicity to atelic activities. = as for aspect in LVC you adda telos which is not implicit in the predicate which is concealed inside your eventive noun. To walk for 20 minutes cont/sem To quarrel with Mark for one hour. cont/sem To have a 20-minute walk res/phr To have a two-hour quarrel with Mark res/phr Syntactic peculiarities - the verb represents the grammar of the construction. = the verb is semantically bleached because in specific context in combination with eventinve nouns, they loose most of their meaning. They undergo a semantic bleaching. EX: to take doesn't mean “to take” anymore. To have doesn't mean “to possess”. To give doesn't mean “to offer”. To make doesn't mean “to create”. - They take the inflection by tense, mood and person. EX: She is having a long walk. I took a hard decision. l'Il be giving a speech tomorrow. LVC are recognizable on the basis of a number of syntactic operations, = five parameters used by linguist to understand if a LVC is such or not: 1. Nominalization of the verb. 2. Passivization. > the possibility of making the construction passive. 3. Deleting/cancelling of the verb. 4. Clefting > a specific syntactic construction that consists in splitting into one clause. 5. Auxiliation. Since the verb loses most of its power (it is turned into an instrument of grammar- this is why it's called light) “have” can no longer perform the function of auxiliary in questions, negatives and tags. Even if “have” in English is normally used as an auxiliary and you cannot use anymore as an auxiliary when your use is a light use. You have to use “do”. EX: Do you have breakfast? *Have you got breakfast? You have breakfast, don't you? *You have breakfast, haven't you? You had breakfast, didn't you? *You had breakfast, hadn't you? No, | didn't have breakfast. *No, | hadn't breakfast. » No, l had no breakfast. > in this case the negative particle “no” has scope on breakfast and it is not connected with the verb/ not attached to the verb.