I composti attributivi e appositivi
literal meaning metaphorical extension fiume river long bomba bomb sensational lampo lightning quick chiave key crucial mosca fly small principe prince principal fantasma ghost evident, but not seen ombra shade parallel, alternative [[X]N fiume]n X = riunione, interrogatorio, processo, discorso, discussione, [[X]N bomba]n X = notizia, intervista, rivelazione [[X]N lampo]n X = processo, guerra, viaggio, operazione, recupero [[X]N chiave]n X = parola, ruolo, concetto, elemento, posizione [[X]N ombra]n X = governo, ministro
Dardano (1978: 184) : Quando si formano delle intere serie con lo stesso Dnte, quest ultimo tende a perdere ulteriormente la sua specificità semantica e a comportarsi quasi come un elemento suffissale Bauer (2005: 98) : The histories of many of the familiar and well-studied European languages give us a number of cases of compounds at one period of history becoming derivatives at a later period. [ ]. We find a particular word being used more and more frequently as a compound-element, perhaps to the extent that its use as a compound element is more frequent than its use as an independent word. In some of these cases the meaning which is observed in the compound instances is also distinct from the meaning which pertains when the word is used independently. I have two sets of examples of this stage, one from French, one from English. The French example set is the use of particular words in compounds, especially in journalistic styles. Specific instances are idée idea used as head element and choc shock or clef key used as modifying element [ ]: prix-choc shock price, idée cuisine cooking idea, mot clef key word.
Arcodia (2008: 46) la proprietà che una parola / morfema, o un accezione di una parola / morfema, deve avere per essere considerate di natura affissale sono, oltre alla rigidità posizionale, un significato più generico (o perlomeno non più specifico) di suoi eventuali usi liberi, che deve ripetersi stabile nelle sue diverse istanze It. ingegnere capo head engineer vs. capoufficio head clerk filosofo philosopher vs. bibliofilo bibliophile antropofilo anthropophilic vs. filantropo philanthropist
Heine, Claudi, Hünnemeyer (1991: 43) Both generalizing and isolating abstraction also appear to be present when grammaticalization is analyzed in terms of bleaching [ ]: lexemes become more abstract by losing their semantic specificities and by being increasingly reduced to their respective core meaning (generalizing abstraction) or to one particular part of their meaning (isolating abstraction). Abstraction of both types implies that its output is necessarily part of its input; that is, what happens in the course of grammaticalization is that concepts are merely reduced in their intensional content while their extension is increased
Alcune vitamine svolgono ruoli molto chiave nell equilibrio ormonale I Magic hanno pagato molta inesperienza, mi aspettavo un ruolo più chiave di Dwight Howard Un processo più fiume di ogni precedente, data la mole dei documenti e la massa che mobilita di figuranti e comparse Hai fatto una riunione talmente lampo che hai fatto tutto da solo! (da Internet)
Dopo una operazione lampo ed un recupero lampissimo, Baresi torna in campo per la partita più importante. Notizia bombissima! Priest Holmes si ritira? (da Internet) Quello che vede impegnato Van Nistelrooy è uno dei duelli chiavi della partita (La Repubblica) Quante parole chiavi usano gli utenti nelle ricerche? Ci sono sempre in mezzo i giochi politici, le ''notizie bombe'' Crollano Parigi, Londra, Berlino, Milano, Wall Street, sospese le quotazioni delle maggiori aziende, riunioni fiumi di governi e consigli di amministrazione (from Internet)
pesce spada > pesci spada / *pesci spade Ho sottolineato in tre colori (giallo punti esegetici importanti, arancio parole chiavissime, rosa le opere) tutte le 16 pagine che l'abbagnano-fornero, vecchia edizione, dedica a Galilei Telefonata fiume fiumissima... ah, sapeste!! (da internet)
Number agreement with the head noun Gender agreement with the head noun Comparative form Superlative form Adverb formation with -mente Occurrence in prenominal position Thornton (2004) They can agree in number with the head noun They can agree in gender with the head noun They can occur in comparative form They can occur in superlative form They occupy the syntactic slot usually assigned to adjectives They do not have a referential, but a descriptive function.
Croft, W. (1991), Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information, Chicago, Chicago University Press. Croft, W. (2000), Parts of speech as language universals and as languageparticular categories, in Vogel, P. / Comrie, B. (eds.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes, Berlin New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 65-102. Visione tradizionale - Noun, verb and adjective are categories of particular languages. - But noun, verb and adjective are NOT language universals that is, there are NOT found in some languages. Croft (2000: 65) - Noun, verb and adjective are not categories of particular languages. - But noun, verb and adjective are language universals that is, there are typological prototypes [ ] which should be called noun, verb and adjective.
A proper theory of parts of speech that applies to all languages must satisfy the following three conditions in order to be successful. First, there must be a criterion for distinguishing parts of speech from other morphosyntactically defined subclasses. Second, there must be a cross-linguistically valid and uniform set of formal grammatical criteria for evaluating the universality of the parts-of-speech distinctions. Third there must be a clear distinction between language universals and particular language facts.
Syntactic categories, including those commonly labelled as parts of speech, are derivative from constructions that define them (Croft 2000: 85) Actual constructions are the primitive elements of syntactic representation and categories are derived from them: it is a sample of different constructions with a common function that defines the boundaries of a category or of a part of speech. Typological comparison will sketch a pattern of variation and every single language will fit somewhere in this pattern of variation
Croft (1991: 67) Reference Modification Predication Objects unmarked nouns genitive, adjectivalisations, PPs on nouns predicate nominals, copulas Properties deadjectival nouns unmarked adjectives Predicate adjectives, copulas Actions action nominals, complements, infinitives, gerunds participles, relative clauses unmarked verbs
The universal-typological theory of parts of speech embraces constructions with and without function-indicating morphosyntax. Function-indicating morphosyntax overtly encodes the functions of reference, predication and modification for various classes of lexical items. As such, function-indicating morphosyntax falls under the structural coding criterion of the theory of typological markedness. The theory of typological markedness [ ] is a general theory of the relationship between form and meaning across languages
The theory defines universal prototypes for the three major parts of speech, but does not define boundaries for these categories. Boundaries are aspects of language-particular grammatical categories, determined by distributional analysis The typological universals do not predict the exact behaviour of individual languages; rather, they predict that a language will fit somewhere in the pattern of variation allowed by typological marking theory The behavioural potential criterion specifies that the unmarked member displays at least as wide a range of grammatical behaviour as the marked member. The behavioural potential criterion is again formulated as an implicational universal. It allows for the possibility of marked members [ ] to have the same inflectional possibilities as unmarked members [ ] in some language. It excludes the possibility of marked members having more inflectional possibilities than unmarked members. The behavioural potential criterion also allows for the limited or defective behaviour of the marked member of a category [ ] without having to commit to the marked member being in or not in the category in a universaltypological sense.
Moreover, the terms verb and adjective do not describe language-particular grammatical categories anyway. They describe cross-linguistic patterns of variation. In particular they describe a prototype. A prototype describes the core of a category; it does not say anything about the boundary of a category [ ]. In fact, the universal typological theory of parts of speech defines only prototypes for the parts of speech; it does not define boundaries. Boundaries are features of language-particular categories. Noun > reference to an object Adjective > modification by a property Verb > predication of an action