Article published in:
Noun Valency
Edited by Olga Spevak
[Studies in Language Companion Series 158] 2014
► pp. 113–140

Chapter 5. A data-driven analysis of the structure type ‘man–nature relationship’ in Romanian

| Romanian Academy, Bucharest
The Romanian tri-nominal juxtaposition structure relaÈ›ie om – natură ‘man-nature relationship’ is cross-linguistically widespread and typical of a series of relational nouns, such as agreement, interaction, and mixture, which can have a “compound” expansion (Canada–U.S. agreement, parent–child interaction, air–water mixture, etc.). Our analysis is twofold: we first examine the grammatical relationship between relaÈ›ie ‘relationship’ and om – natură ‘man–nature’, and second the construction om – natură. On the basis of data from a large Romanian newspaper corpus, we show that the “compound” construction om – natură is in fact a free phrase; we call it a Relational Coordination Construction (RCC). It usually embodies valency complements of a relational noun, and it semantically implies reciprocity. The analysis adopts a non-transformational, data-driven perspective within the Construction Grammar framework.
Published online: 19 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.158.05bar
References

References

Barbaud, Philippe
1971 L’ambiguïté structurale du composé binominal. Cahiers de linguistique 1: 71–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
2008 Dvandvas. Word Structure 1(1): 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio & Demonte, Violeta
1999 Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Descriptive grammar of Spanish language). Madrid: Real Academia Española, ESPASA.Google Scholar
Bouvier, Yves-Ferdinand
2000 Définir les composés par opposition aux syntagmes. GG at G (Generative Grammar in Geneva) 1: 165–187. <http://​www​.unige​.ch​/lettres​/linge​/syntaxe​/journal​/pdf​_volume​_one​/article6​_bouvier​.pdf>Google Scholar
Fried, Miriam & Östman, Jan-Ola
2004 Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fradin, Bernard
2009 IE, Romance: French. In Oxford Handbook on Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 417–435. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gushchina, Olga
2008 Les constructions directes “substantif + substantif”. Le cas du nom propre. In Actes du CMLF 2008 – Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Jacques Durand, Benoît Habert & Bernard Laks (eds), 2505–2518. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar
Guțu-Romalo, Valeria
2005 Gramatica limbii române, Vol. II: Enunțul (Grammar of Romanian Language, Vol. II: The Sentence). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas
1999 English valency structures – a first sketch. Erfurt Electronic Studies in English 6. <http://​webdoc​.gwdg​.de​/edoc​/ia​/eese​/rahmen22​.html>Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mathieu-Colas, Michel
1995 Syntaxe du trait d’union: Structures complexes. Linguisticae Investigationes 19(1): 153–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, Adam, Macleod, Catherine & Grishman, Ralph
1996 Standardization of the complement adjunct distinction. In Euralex ‘96. Proceedings , Martin Gellerstam, Jerker Järborg, Sven-Göran Malmgren, Kerstin Norén, Lena Rogström & Catarina Röjder Papmehl (eds), 141–150. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University, Department of Swedish.Google Scholar
Noailly, Michèle
1990 Le substantif épithète. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
To appear. Les séquences nom-nom. In La grande grammaire du français, Anne Abeillé, Danièle Godard & Anne Delaveau (eds) Arles Actes Sud
Olsen, Susan
2001 Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 2000, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 279–320. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Coordination in morphology and syntax. The case of copulative compounds. In The Composition of Meaning. From Lexeme to Discourse [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 255], Alice ter Meulen & Werner Abraham (eds), 17–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara & Borschev, Vladimir
2012 Sortal, relational, and functional interpretations of nouns and Russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics, 29: 445–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar