DOCSLIB.ORG

The Interaction of Suffixation with Synonymy and Antonymy a Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Interaction of Suffixation with Synonymy and Antonymy a Thesis University of Alberta The Interaction of Suffixation with Synonymy and Antonymy Laura L. Sabourin 0 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Psycholinguistics Department of Linguistics Edmonton, Alberta Fall, 1998 National Library Bibliothèque nationale l*l ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services senrices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1AW OttawaON K1AW canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distriilmer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur consenre la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otheMnse de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract This thesis reports on two psycholinguistic experiments that explore the question of how synonyms and antonyrns are linked in the Mental Lexicon. The experirnental results confirm theoretical expectations that synonymic and antonymic links are fundamental cognitive relations among lexical items. The results also suggest that the nature of these relations may not be identical because it was found that synonymic and antonymic pairs behaved differently in the two experirnental paradigms and that they also showed differences in the way they interacted when suffixation was added as a factor. The relevance of these findings to methodological issues in psycholinguistic experimentation is discussed and the implications for further research are outlined. Table of Contents 2. SEMANnCS. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS. AND SUFFIXATION ...........................7 2.1 INTRODUCTI~N .............................................................................................................. -7 2.2 S~CRELATIONS................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Synonymy ............................................................................................................ -9 2.2.2 Antonymy ......................................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Psycholinguistics and Semnn tic Relations .................................................. 13 2.3 THEROLE OF SU~XATION.............................. ... ..................................................... 18 2.4 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 21 3. DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS ...................................... 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ -22 3.2 SELECTIONCRITERIA .................................................................................................... 23 3.3 SYNONYMAND ANTONYMRATING TGÇK .................................................................... î5 3.3.7 Participants ......................................................................................................... 26 3.3.2 Materials ........................................................................................................... ..-76 3.3.3 Procedzue ............................................................................................................ 26 3.3.4 Results ............................................................................................................... 27 3.3.5 Discussion ................. .. ...................................................................................29 3.4 FINALSTIMULUS LIST .......................... .. ..................................... 30 4 EXPERIMENT 1: RELATEDNESS JUDGMENT TASK ..................................... 33 4.1 INTRODUC~ION......... ....... ............................................................................................. 33 4.2 METHOD....................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.1 Participants ......................................................................................................... 36 4.2.2 Materials ............................................................................................................ -36 4.2.3 Procediire ............................................................................................................ 37 4.3 RESULTS..................................................................................................................... 39 4.4 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................. -45 5. EXPERIMENT 2: SEMANTIC PRIMING TASK ................................................. 51 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 51 5.2 ~OD............................ .,. ..................................................................................... 55 5.2.1 Participants ..................... .. ............................................................................. .55 5.2.2 Materials .......................................................................................................... 55 5.2.3 Procedure ......................................................................................................... 56 5.3 REsu~rç.................... .. ............................................................................................ 58 5.3.1 Main Effects ........................................................................................................ 59 5.3.2 In teraction Effects .............................................................................................. 61 5.4 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................. -65 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS .....*................*.***.*........................................................69 6.1 THEON-LINE EXPERIMLWS COMPARED ....................... ... ....................................... -69 6.2 FmWORK ............................................................................................................. -73 6.2.1 The Use of Non-Neufral AfFxation ............................................................. 73 6.2.2 A Cornparison of Synonymic and Antonymic Subcategories ................ 74 6.2.3 Priming Pnradigm using Narning Latency .................................................. 75 6.2.4 Paired Priming ................................................................................................... 76 6.3 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 76 REFERENCES ...................................... ........................................................................... 78 APPENDIX A: INITIAL STIMULUS LIST USED FOR THE RATING TASK .. 81 APPENDIX B: ASSOCIATION PAIR RATINGS.................................................. ..83 APPENDIX C: SYNONYM RATINGS ...................................................................... 84 APPENDIX D: RATlNGS FOR ANTONYMS......................................................... 85 List of Tables TABLE3-1: THEBRWU(DOWN OF MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY FOR EACH STLWLUS PAIR IN BOTH m SYNONYMICAND AN~ONYMICRELATIONS ......................................... ...23 TABLE3-2: STIMULUSEXAMPLES FOR EACH CATEGORY OF SEMTIC RELATEDNESS AND ÇUFFIXA~ION................................ ... ........................................................................ -24 TABLE3-3: AVERAGESCORE FOR EACH CATEGORY (ALL DATA) IN THE RATING TASK. RATINGS RANGED FROM 1(WORST) TO 5 (BEÇT)......................................................... 27 TABLE3-41 AVERAGERATINGS IN EACH OF THE SIX CATEGORIES OF MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY AFER EXCLUSION OF THE TWO WORST SYNONYMS AND THE TWO BEST MOM. ................................................................................................................-29 TABLE3-5: FWAL!XIMULUS PAIRS FOR BOTH SEMAiWC RELATIONS ACROSS EACH LEVEL OF MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEMTY. ......... ..... ........................................................ ..32 TABLE4-1: SUMMARY OF THE NUMBERS OF PAIRS FOR EACH TYPE OF RELATION INCLUDED ÜV THE EXPERIMENT AND THEIR CORRECT RESPONSE. .................................................. -37 TABLE42: MW RESPONSE TI- (AND ÇTPUUDARDDEVIATION) IN MILLISECONDS FOR EACH SEMAANTIC RELATIONSHIP AVERAGED OVER LEVEL OF .MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXI'~~......................... ... .............................................................................. -40 TABLE4-3: MEANRESPONSE mm (AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS) IN MILLISECONDS FOR EACH LEVEL OF SUFFIXATION, AVERAGING OVER LEVELS OF SEMANTIC RELATION. ....41 TABLE4-4: MEANRESPONSE MES AND STANDARD DEVIATION (PRESE~EDIN BRACKETS) FOR EACH LEVEL OF THE INTERACTION OF SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIP ;V\ID SL'FFU(ATION.~~ TABLE4-5: THESTIMULUS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Function of Phrasal Verbs and Their Lexical Counterparts in Technical Manuals
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1991 The function of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts in technical manuals Brock Brady Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Applied Linguistics Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Brady, Brock, "The function of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts in technical manuals" (1991). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4181. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6065 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Brock Brady for the Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (lESOL) presented March 29th, 1991. Title: The Function of Phrasal Verbs and their Lexical Counterparts in Technical Manuals APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: { e.!I :flette S. DeCarrico, Chair Marjorie Terdal Thomas Dieterich Sister Rita Rose Vistica This study investigates the use of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts (i.e. nouns with a lexical structure and meaning similar to corresponding phrasal verbs) in technical manuals from three perspectives: (1) that such two-word items might be more frequent in technical writing than in general texts; (2) that these two-word items might have particular functions in technical writing; and that (3) 2 frequencies of these items might vary according to the presumed expertise of the text's audience.
    [Show full text]
  • The Generative Lexicon
    The Generative Lexicon James Pustejovsky" Computer Science Department Brandeis University In this paper, I will discuss four major topics relating to current research in lexical seman- tics: methodology, descriptive coverage, adequacy of the representation, and the computational usefulness of representations. In addressing these issues, I will discuss what I think are some of the central problems facing the lexical semantics community, and suggest ways of best ap- proaching these issues. Then, I will provide a method for the decomposition of lexical categories and outline a theory of lexical semantics embodying a notion of cocompositionality and type coercion, as well as several levels of semantic description, where the semantic load is spread more evenly throughout the lexicon. I argue that lexical decomposition is possible if it is per- formed generatively. Rather than assuming a fixed set of primitives, I will assume a fixed number of generative devices that can be seen as constructing semantic expressions. I develop a theory of Qualia Structure, a representation language for lexical items, which renders much lexical ambiguity in the lexicon unnecessary, while still explaining the systematic polysemy that words carry. Finally, I discuss how individual lexical structures can be integrated into the larger lexical knowledge base through a theory of lexical inheritance. This provides us with the necessary principles of global organization for the lexicon, enabling us to fully integrate our natural language lexicon into a conceptual whole. 1. Introduction I believe we have reached an interesting turning point in research, where linguistic studies can be informed by computational tools for lexicology as well as an appre- ciation of the computational complexity of large lexical databases.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Lexical Access During Sentence Processing
    Perception & Psychophysics 1980,28 (1),1-8 Measuring lexical access during sentence processing MICHELLE A. BLANK Bell Laboratories, Whippany, New Jersey 07981 The results from "on-line" investigations of sentence comprehension are often difficult to interpret since it is not always apparent what component processes are reflected in the re­ sponse measure. The results of two experiments reported here indicate that response latencies from phoneme-triggered lexical decision (PTLD) reflect the time needed for lexical access during sentence processing. Listeners were presented with sentences and were asked to make a word/nonword judgment for items beginning with a particular word-initial target phoneme. Speed of lexical access was manipulated by varying the semantic predictability of the target­ bearing word. WORD judgments were faster for words that were preceded by semantically related verbs than were WORD judgments for words that were preceded by neutral verbs. The present results are consistent with other studies showing semantic facilitation of lexical access during the processing of fluent speech. It is argued that the phoneme-triggered lexical­ decision task is a more suitable measure of lexical access during sentence processing than phoneme monitoring (Foss, 19691 or word monitoring (Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1975l. In addi­ tion. it is pointed out that the phoneme-triggered lexical-decision task lends itself to modifica­ tions which should enable investigators to study various aspects of on-line sentence processing. The problem of discovering how listeners understand sentence processing. A few examples of tasks that have spoken language is unquestionably a formidable one. A been assumed to reflect ongoing sentence processing first step taken by psycholinguists toward solving this include speech shadowing (e.g., Marslen-Wilson, 1973), problem has been to view sentence comprehension in phoneme-monitoring (e.g., Foss, 1969), word monitor­ terms of several component processes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution of the Lexical Component in ELT Coursebooks and Its Suitability for Vocabulary Acquisition from a Cognitive Perspective
    International Journal of IJES English Studies UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA www.um.es/ijes The Distribution of the Lexical Component in ELT Coursebooks and its Suitability for Vocabulary Acquisition from a Cognitive Perspective. A Case Study 1 RAQUEL CRIADO LACELL RESEARCH GROUP – UNIVERSIDAD DE MURCIA ABSTRACT The psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective of language acquisition requires some essential conditions in vocabulary acquisition: a) repetitive practice, which allows for data to reach long-term memory, and thus become proceduralised and automatised; b) how relevant the lexical items are regarding the communicative needs of the learners insofar as communicative relevance is linked to frequency in general linguistic usage; c) the potential in vocabulary acquisition, which will necessarily relate to the amount of new lexical items introduced in each one of the units in textbook; d) the way words are taught, i.e. whether aimed at explicit or incidental learning. In order to analyse and evaluate these issues, we will study the lexical items presented in a specific textbook from the point of view of frequency, distribution along the manual, opportunities for rehearsal and repetition (which will depend on frequency), and the nature of the activities centred on vocabulary. The results of this case study will allow us to check whether or not they may stand a comparison against the findings of psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research on vocabulary acquisition. KEYWORDS : vocabulary acquisition, ELT, frequency, practice, corpus linguistics,
    [Show full text]
  • The Polysemy of PO in Mandarin Chinese
    The Polysemy of PO in Mandarin Chinese Harvey Hsin-chang Ho National Taiwan Normal University [email protected] Abstract The present paper notes that the lexical item PO, literally meaning ‘to break’, bears multiple semantic imports in Mandarin Chinese. Given the lack of well-documented research on the semantics of the lexical item, this paper aims to explore the various meanings of PO. By examining the collocations of PO, thirteen meanings are identified, with predicative and attributive senses. It is proposed that the manifold meanings are interrelated with each other and that several meanings are derived from the core verbal meaning of the lexical item. Three generalized metaphors are observed to assume a mediating role in the semantic extensions of PO. In light of the semantic relatedness of the various meanings, the polysemous nature of the lexical item PO is substantiated. Key words: PO, polysemy, semantic extension, lexical semantics 1. Introduction Since a growing number of psychological studies shed new light on human cognition in 1970s, the field of semantics has witnessed flourishing cognitive-oriented approaches to semantic representations of lexicon and grammar—especially lexical semantics and cognitive semantics (Rosch 1973, 1977, 1978, Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Lakoff 1987, 2002, Johnson 1987, Langacker 1987, 1990, 1999, Geerearts 1993, Talmy 1985, 2000a,b, Taylor 1989, 2002a,b, 2003, among others). These cognitive-theoretic proposals have spawned a voluminous literature pertaining to conceptualization, categorization, semantic extension, and grammaticalization of polysemous lexical items in Mandarin Chinese, such as guo ‘to cross’ (Wang 2002, Hsiao 1997, 2003, Wu 2003), gei ‘to give’ (Huang 2004), and kai ‘to open’ (Tsai 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • 12208 Prokhorova 2020 E.Docx
    International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net Volume 12, Issue 2, 2020 The Multistatutory Nature of the Adjective “Right” in Adjectival English Lexicon Olga N. Prokhorovaa, Igor V. Chekulaib, Marina N. Klochkovac, Elena V. Pupyninad, Anna I. Kononovae, a,b,c,d,eThe National Research University “Belgorod State University” This article provides an outline on an adjective in modern English language, and in particular, the multistatus lexical item “right”, which carries different meanings in different variants of combinatorics. The authors analyse the combinations used with the adjectival lexical item “right” and identify categories that determine the semantic content of each given statement. The need for a detailed study of this lexical item is caused by the necessity for a general theoretical understanding of its multi-categorial nature, identification and description of the mechanism that determines the change in categorial and functional statuses, the characteristics of this item at the formal-syntactic, semantic and conceptual levels and the criteria for the formation of its categorial meanings within the context, where it can be used. However, currently in most cases individual functional-semantic features of poly-status lexemes are studied without due regard to other categorial statuses. Key words: English adjective, polysemy, lexical item “right”, multistatus lexical item, multistatus lexeme, eurysemy, multistatutory. Introduction This linguistic study is devoted to identifying and studying the functional and semantic features of the polystatus lexical item “right” in modern English, determining its essential characteristics showing new categorical and functional statuses in this lexical unit. Polystatus lexemes in linguistics are usually those lexemes that exhibit the feature of grammatical status diversification, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 13 Lexical and Grammatical Studies
    Unit 13 Lexical and grammatical studies 13.1 Introduction We noted in units 10.2 and 10.3 that lexical and grammatical studies are probably the areas that have benefited most from corpus data. This unit presents four excerpts which discuss the use of corpora in these areas. The first excerpt, Krishnamurthy (2000) demonstrates the use of corpora in collocation analysis, which is followed by an excerpt from Partington (2004), which studies semantic preference. For grammatical studies, Carter and McCarthy (1999) explore the English GET-passive in spoken discourse while Kreyer (2003) compares genitive and of-construction in written English. 13.2 Krishnamurthy (2000) In this excerpt, Krishnamurthy briefly reviews the British tradition of text analysis, from Firth to Sinclair, which is closely tied to collocation. On the basis of this review, Krishnamurthy discusses the relevance of corpus linguistics to collocation analysis. This excerpt provides background knowledge for case study 1, where we will explore collocations in the BNC and discuss the implications of our findings for pedagogical lexicography. Krishnamurthy, R. 2000. ‘Collocation: from silly ass to lexical sets’ in Heffer C., Sauntson H. and Fox G. (eds.) Words in Context: A tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. 2 Collocation theory We are generally indebted to Firth for channeling the attention of linguists towards lexis (Halliday 1966: 14) and specifically for originating the concept of collocation. Writing from the perspective of stylistics, and viewing meaning as dispersed in a range of techniques working at a series of levels, Firth said: ‘I propose to bring forward as a technical term, meaning by collocation, and to apply the test of collocability’ (1957: 194).
    [Show full text]
  • Stylistics Lecture 3 Morphemes & Semantics
    Stylistics Lecture 3 Morphemes & Semantics MOAZZAM A L I MALIK ASSISTANT PROFESSOR UNIVERSITY OF GUJRAT Words & Morphemes Words are potentially complex units, composed of even more basic units, called morphemes. A morpheme is the smallest part of a word that has grammatical function or meaning. we will designate them in braces { }. For example, played, plays, playing can all be analyzed into the morphemes {play} + {-ed}, {-s}, and {-ing}, respectively. Basic Concepts in Morphology The English plural morpheme {-s} can be expressed by three different but clearly related phonemic forms /iz/, /z/, and /s/. These are the variant phonological realizations of plural morpheme and hence are known as allomorphs. Morph is a minimal meaningful form, regardless of whether it is a morpheme or allomorph. Basic Concepts in Morphology Affixes are classified according to whether they are attached before or after the form to which they are added. A root morpheme is the basic form to which other morphemes are attached In moveable, {-able} is attached to {move}, which we’ve determined is the word’s root. However, {im- } is attached to moveable, not to {move} (there is no word immove), but moveable is not a root. Expressions to which affixes are attached are called bases. While roots may be bases, bases are not always roots. Basic Concepts in Morphology Words that have meaning by themselves—boy, food, door—are called lexical morphemes. Those words that function to specify the relationship between one lexical morpheme and another—words like at, in, on, -ed, -s— are called grammatical morphemes. Those morphemes that can stand alone as words are called free morphemes (e.g., boy, food, in, on).
    [Show full text]
  • Antonymy and Conceptual Vectors
    Antonymy and Conceptual Vectors Didier Schwab, Mathieu Lafourcade and Violaine Prince LIRMM Laboratoire d'informatique, de Robotique et de Micro´electronique de Montpellier MONTPELLIER - FRANCE. schwab,lafourca,prince @lirmm.fr http://www.lirmm.fr/f ~ schwab,g lafourca, prince f g Abstract a kernel of manually indexed terms is necessary For meaning representations in NLP, we focus for bootstrapping the analysis. The transver- 1 our attention on thematic aspects and concep- sal relationships , such as synonymy (LP01), tual vectors. The learning strategy of concep- antonymy and hyperonymy, that are more or tual vectors relies on a morphosyntaxic analy- less explicitly mentioned in definitions can be sis of human usage dictionary definitions linked used as a way to globally increase the coher- to vector propagation. This analysis currently ence of vectors. In this paper, we describe a doesn't take into account negation phenomena. vectorial function of antonymy. This can help This work aims at studying the antonymy as- to improve the learning system by dealing with pects of negation, in the larger goal of its inte- negation and antonym tags, as they are often gration into the thematic analysis. We present a present in definition texts. The antonymy func- model based on the idea of symmetry compat- tion can also help to find an opposite thema to ible with conceptual vectors. Then, we define be used in all generative text applications: op- antonymy functions which allows the construc- posite ideas research, paraphrase (by negation tion of an antonymous vector and the enumer- of the antonym), summary, etc. ation of its potentially antinomic lexical items.
    [Show full text]
  • A Model for the Interaction of Lexical and Non-Lexical Knowledge in the Determination of Word Meaning
    A model for the interaction of lexical and non-lexical knowledge in the determination of word meaning Peter Gerstl IBM Germany, Scientific Center Institute for Knowledge Based Systems Schloflstr. 70 7000 Stuttgart 1 e-mail: gersti @ dsOiilog.bitnet Abstract The lexicon of a natural language understanding system that is not restricted to one single application but should be adaptable to a whole range of different tasks has to provide a flexible mechanism for the determination of word meaning. The reason for such a mechanism is the semantic variability of words, i.e. their potential to denote different things in different contexts. The goal of our project is a model that makes these phenomena explicit. We approach this goal by defining word meaning as a complex function resulting from the interaction of processes operating on knowledge elements. In the following we characterize the range of phenomena our model is intended to describe and give an outline of the way in which the interpretation process may determine the referential potential of words by the integration and evaluation of a variety of factors. 1 Introduction A system with the capability of natural language understanding typically relies on knowl- edge about a restricted domain of application. For example, as a natural language com- ponent of an information system, it needs to be able to identify the relevant linguistic patterns. In case of an information system for flight scheduling words such as "plane", "departure", "late", ...will typically be more relevant than for example: "pahn", "this- tle", "pine" which might be appropriate for a different domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Cruse
    English D Lexical Semantics Course Mitthögskolan HT 2002 Morgan Lundberg Notes on Meaning in Language by D. Alan Cruse Meaning in Language by D.A. Cruse Chapter 5 Introduction to lexical semantics The nature of word meaning [Recap: Phoneme: minimal meaning distinguishing element: /d/, /f/, /u:/. Morpheme: minimal meaning bearing element: dis-, zebra, -tion] The (prototypical) word – ‘a minimal permutable (‘utbytbart’) element’ · Can be moved about in a sentence (or rather, position altered): Am I mad?/I am mad. · Can’t be - broken up by other elements [exception: ‘infixes’ – unusual in Eng.] - have its parts reordered: needlessly – *lylessneed Internal structure: root morpheme [+ derivational and/or inflectional morphemes (affixes)]. Grammatical words are said to have no root morpheme: on, a, or, the Note on compounds : polar bear, bluebird, sea horse – look like two morphemes, but are (semantically) best considered one unit – one root morpheme. Ex: Polar bear – ?This bear is polar. Bluebird – ?a/*any bird which is blue Sea horse - *a horse (that lives/swims/grazes) in/by the sea Cf. ordinary nominal modification: red house – the house is red Prosody is indicative (except in very long words): ‘sea ,lion (compound) vs. ‘big ‘house (common noun phrase). What is a word in lexical semantics? · Word form – phonologically (and/or graphically) distinct “shape”: bank, mole · Lexeme – phonologically and semantically distinct, autonomous symbolic unit (i.e., it can stand alone because it contains a root morpheme): bank1, bank 2, mole1, swimming, etc. - Inflected forms based on the same root count as the same lexeme: swims, swimming, swam, swum. · In lexical semantics, a word is the same as a lexeme (=lexical unit).
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Semi-Lexical Categories in Word-Formation in English and Japanese
    A Study on Semi-lexical Categories in Word-Formation in English and Japanese 著者 Ryohei NAYA year 2018 その他のタイトル 日英語の語形成にみられる半語彙範疇に関する研究 学位授与大学 筑波大学 (University of Tsukuba) 学位授与年度 2017 報告番号 12102甲第8433号 URL http://doi.org/10.15068/00152213 A Study on Semi-lexical Categories in Word-Formation in English and Japanese A Dissertation Submitted to the University of Tsukuba In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Ryohei NAYA 2017 Acknowledgments If this thesis succeeds in providing a new perspective in the study of language(s), it is “by standing on the shoulders of giants,” as the metaphor goes, as I have depended heavily on many previous studies, which are listed at the end of this thesis. However, sole reliance on these studies was not enough for me to complete this thesis. I have also been supported by many people, without whom I could not have continued my studies and finished this thesis. They made me a better graduate student, and they made me a researcher. First, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Yukio Hirose, Masaharu Shimada, and Akiko Nagano. Yukio Hirose, the chair of my thesis committee, has generously supported me throughout my graduate years. He kindly read my papers in detail, gave me constructive comments, and patiently corrected my English, no matter how busy he was. I have benefited greatly from his thought-provoking comments based on his brilliant insight into languages. His comments were always helpful in guiding me to carefully examine linguistic phenomena and understand objectively the position of my studies in the field of linguistics.
    [Show full text]