| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,300,000)
Fiscal Year 2002: ¥600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000)
Fiscal Year 2001: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The aim of this research is to clarify the notion of 'lexicalization' by considering the distinctions between words and phrases. In order to do so, I deal with two constructions. One is the combination of an adjective and a noun (A-N expression) occurring within a compound. I point out that in English and Dutch, not only A-N compounds (e.g. [blackboard] eraser) but semantically non-lexicalized A-N expressions (e.g. [small car] driver) are possible as non-head elements, while in Japanese and Chinese, only semantically lexicalized A-N compounds are possible, as in [kokuban] kesi ('blackboard eraser'). It should be noted that semantically transparent A-N expressions like [small car] driver obey the Lexical Integrity Principle, as seen from the unacceptability of the compound *[very small car] driver. I suggest that the category Word Plus (W^+), proposed in Kageyama 2001, be assigned to such A-N expressions. This category is defined as larger the Word (i.e.X^0) but nonetheless as a morphological category and not a syntactic category.
The other constructions treated in this paper are prenominal expressions such as [after-the-party] mess, [clear-the-air] statement, [middle-of-the-road] figure. Such expressions should be defined as phrases reanalyzed as words (i.e.X^0), that is, lexicalized phrases, because they are fixed in form and comply with the Lexical Integrity Principle. I also argue that such expressions should be regarded as idioms because of the appearance of the articles the and a and decategorization (e.g.[after-party] mess and [middle-of-road] figure), both of which are typically observed in phrasal idioms like kick the bucket and lose (*the/ *a) face.
|
