El genitivo agente como la interpretación semántica más prototípica del genitivo inglésun estudio de corpus

  1. Encarnación Almazán Ruiz 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Jaén
    info

    Universidad de Jaén

    Jaén, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0122p5f64

Revista:
Lingüística y Literatura

ISSN: 0120-5587

Año de publicación: 2021

Título del ejemplar: Vol. 42, 79 (2021):ENERO-JUNIO, 2021

Volumen: 42

Número: 79

Páginas: 112-131

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.17533/UDEA.LYL.N79A06 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Lingüística y Literatura

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

The English genitive construction [NP’s + N] can be semantically interpreted in several ways, considering not only lexical and semantic factors but also pragmatic ones. The main aim of this paper is to state that the agentive genitive (John’s claim) is more frequent than the possessive (John’s car), despite what has been claimed traditionally. The corpus-based study demonstrates this fact analysing examples of genitive taken from two corpora: The Brown and the Lobtag. In addition to relating the agentive genitive to the nominalization process, a plausible explanation of the frequency of this semantic interpretation is provided.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 1. Alexiadou, A., & Schäfer, F. (2006). Instrument Subjects Are Agents or Causers. In D. Baumer, D. Montero & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 25 (40-48). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • 2. Anthony, L. (2013). A Critical Look at Software Tools in Corpus Linguistics. Linguistic Research, 30(2), 141-161.
  • 3. Barker, C. (1995). Possessive Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • 4. Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on Nominalization. In A. Roderick & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 184-221). Waltham MA: Ginn.
  • 5. Christophersen, P. & Sandved, A. O. (1969). An Advanced English Grammar. London: MacMillan.
  • 6. Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistic and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • 7. Curme, G. O. (1935). Parts of Speech and Accidence. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company.
  • 8. Curme, G. O. (1947). English Grammar. The Principles and Practice of English Grammar Applied to Present-Day Usage. New York: Barnes & Noble, INC.
  • 9. Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics, London: Pinter Publishers.
  • 10. Hawkins, R. (1981). Towards an Account of the Possessive Constructions: NP’s N and the N of NP. Journal of Linguistics, 17, 247-269.
  • 11. Hogg, R. M. (1992). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • 12. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • 13. Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., & Goodluck, H. (1978). The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English (LOB Corpus). Department of English: Oslo UP.
  • 14. Kučera, H. & Francis, W. N. (1967). The Brown University Standard Corpus of Present-Day American English (Brown Corpus). Providence: Brown University.
  • 15. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, California: Stanford UP.
  • 16. Lyons, C. (1986). The Syntax of English Genitive Constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 22, 123-43.
  • 17. Mackenzie, J. L. (1996). English Nominalizations in the Layered Model of the Sentence. Complex Structures: A Functionalist Perspective, 325-353.
  • 18. McCawley, J. D. (1998). The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: U of Chicago Press.
  • 19. Moldovan, D., Badulescu, A., Tatu, M., Antohe, D., & Girju, R. (2004). Models for the Semantic Classification of Noun Phrases. In Proceedings of the Computational Lexical Semantics Workshop at HLT-NAACL 2004 (pp. 60-67).
  • 20. Nesfield, J. C. (1912). Modern English Grammar. London: MacMillan.
  • 21. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • 22. Sledd, J. H. (1959). A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co.
  • 23. Smit, N. (2007). Information Packaging in Functional Discourse Grammar. ALFA: Revista de Linguística, 51(2), 91-118.
  • 24. Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional Semantics as a Limit to Grammatical Alternation: The Two Genitives of English. Topics in English Linguistics, 43, 413-444.
  • 25. Taylor, J. R. (1994). «Subjective» and «Objective» Readings of Possessor Nominals. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 201-242.
  • 26. Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English. An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. New York: Clarendon Press.
  • 27. Vallduví, E. (1993). Information Packaging: A Survey. HCRC Publications, University of Edinburgh.
  • 28. Vikner, C., & Jensen, P. A. (2002). A Semantic Analysis of the English Genitive. Interaction of Lexical and Formal Semantics. Studia Linguistica, 56(2), 191-226.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet