Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:44:34.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of semantic relations on grammatical alternation: an experimental study of proper name modifiers and determiner genitives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2019

TINE BREBAN ,
JULIA KOLKMANN  and
JOHN PAYNE
TINE BREBAN
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and English Language, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom, [email protected], [email protected]
JULIA KOLKMANN
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, York YO10 5DD, United [email protected]
JOHN PAYNE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and English Language, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom, [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we investigate the role of semantic relations in grammatical alternations. The specific alternation we look at is that between the proper name modifier construction, e.g. the Obama government, and the determiner genitive, e.g. Obama's government. Through the use of an experimental study in which participants were asked to rate the naturalness of the two constructions in 20 attested natural language contexts and provide paraphrases of the semantic relations in question, we tested when the two constructions alternate and whether either construction expresses semantic relations that block alternation. Our initial finding is that none of the relations we studied is categorically associated with only one of the constructions, but that certain relations – notably possession and name – are far more preferentially associated with determiner genitives and proper name modifiers respectively. Despite these ‘default’ associations, participants nevertheless identified a range of possible interpretations for many of the examples, meaning that our study simultaneously supports the opposing theoretical views of default relations and semantic underspecification. Further, our study validates the inclusion of semantic relations in genitive alternation studies as a major factor despite the notorious difficulties in their operationalisation. Animacy distinctions, although more straightforward to codify, appear to be of lesser importance. Methodologically, our study shows the value of an experimental approach as a corrective to researcher intuitions about the identification of semantic relations in context.

Keywords

genitive alternationproper namessemantic relationsdefault interpretationsexperimental study
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 23 , Special Issue 4: Different perspectives on proper noun modifiers , December 2019 , pp. 797 - 826
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions, as well as to the other authors in this special issue and colleagues at the University of Manchester. We'd like to thank Mareike Hamann, the research assistant who compiled the list of predicates. Tine Breban carried out this research as part of an AHRC Leadership Fellowship (AH/N002911/1).

References

Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2017. Compounds and compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.). Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2018. Proper names used as modifiers: A comprehensive functional analysis. English Language and Linguistics 22(3), 381–401.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine & De Smet, Hendrik. 2019. How do grammatical patterns emerge? The origins and development of the English proper noun modifier construction. English Language and Linguistics 23(4), 879–900.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1), 186–213.Google Scholar
Ehret, Katharina, Wolk, Christoph & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. Quirky quadratures: On rhythm and weight as constraints on genitive variation in an unconventional data set. English Language and Linguistics 18(2), 263–303.Google Scholar
Ford, Marilyn & Bresnan, Joan. 2013. Using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Krug, Manfred & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 295–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kolkmann, Julia. 2016. The pragmatics of possession: Issues in the interpretation of pre-nominal possessives in English. PhD dissertation, The University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2002. Adnominal possession in the European languages: Form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 55(2), 141–72.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2013. A Mozart sonata and the Palme murder: The structure and uses of proper-name compounds in Swedish. In Börjars, Denison & Scott, (eds.), 253–90.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics 2(2), 149–206.Google Scholar
Payne, John & Berlage, Eva. 2014. Genitive variation: The niche role of the oblique genitive. English Language and Linguistics 18(2), 331–60.Google Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 323–524. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Stanley & Westerståhl, Dag. 2013. The semantics of possessives. Language 89(4), 713–59.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81(3), 613–44.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2006. On the track of noun + noun constructions in Modern English. In Houswitschka, Christoph, Knappe, Gabriele & Müller, Anja (eds.), Anglistentag 2005 Bamberg: Proceedings of the conference of the German Association of University Teachers of English, 543–57. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2007. Emerging variation: Determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 11(1), 143–89.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2010. How synchronic gradience makes sense in the light of language change (and vice versa). In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 149–79. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2014. English genitive variation – The state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2), 215–62.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2019. On the (non-)equivalence of constructions with determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 23(4), 759–96.Google Scholar
Schlücker, Barbara. 2018. Genitives and proper name compounds in German. In Ackermann, Tanja, Simon, Horst & Zimmer, Christian (eds.), Germanic genitives, 275–99. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. Topics in English Linguistics 43, 413–44.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In Börjars, Denison & Scott (eds.), 59–88.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse & Franco, Karlien. 2016. Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change 28(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi & Korhonen, Minna (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 291–309. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Carl & Jensen, Per A.. 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive. Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2), 191–226.Google Scholar