Construções com verbo-suporte (CVS) são ligações verbo-nominais que possuem um significado único, como por exemplo, zu Ende bringen (levar a cabo, concluir). O substantivo ligado ao verbo-suporte (VS) pode estar ou não precedido por uma preposição. Por meio de uma CVS é possível expressar a mudança na Aktionsart em relação ao verbo-base, que é o verbo que dá origem ao substantivo da parte nominal da CVS. A Aktionsart expressa pela CVS com bringen e com kommen é, respectivamente, perfectiva ingressiva causativa e perfectiva ingressiva. As CVS podem ter significado ativo ou passivo, sendo bringen um VS com significado ativo, pois expressa um agente ou uma causa, e kommen um VS com significado passivo, uma vez que não os expressa. Por isso, kommen é o principal substituto para bringen na formação de CVS, mantendo Aktionsart perfectiva ingressiva de bringen, mas sem expressar um agente ou causa. No entanto, ao fazermos o levantamento de CVS com bringen, verificamos que esse VS também pode ocorrer na voz passiva, o que nos levou a investigar se essas formas coocorrem paralelamente a todas as CVS com bringen elencadas para compor esta pesquisa. O levantamento de CVS com bringen na voz ativa e passiva e das CVS com kommen foi feito através da ferramenta de busca, gerenciamento e de análise de corpus Cosmas II. As CVS com bringen que compõem o corpus constituído para este trabalho foram categorizadas como prototípicas (preposicionadas e com substantivo deverbal) ou não prototípicas. Além disso, foram categorizadas de acordo com a resposta afirmativa ou negativa a testes de lexicalização, que consistem em descobrir se cada CVS com bringen aceita determinadas mudanças em sua parte nominal, como pluralização do substantivo, adjetivação entre outros. Concluímos que a formação da voz passiva com bringen e a possibilidade de substituir o VS bringen por kommen não dependem da lexicalização da CVS, mas sim da presença ou não de preposição na parte nominal da CVS. / Light-verb constructions (LVCs) are verb-noun combinations with a single meaning, for example, zu Ende bringen (to bring to an end). The noun attached to the light verb may or may not be preceded by a preposition. By means of a LVC it is possible to express a change in the Aktionsart in comparison to the Aktionsart of the verb which gives rise to the noun of the LVC. The Aktionsart, expressed by the LVC with the verbs bringen and kommen, are perfective ingressive causative and perfective ingressive respectively. LVCs may have either a passive or an active meaning. While the light verb bringen has an active meaning, because it expresses a cause or an agent, the verb kommen has a passive meaning. The verb kommen is the main substitute for the light verb bringen, because, although it has a passive meaning, it still maintains the perfective ingressive Aktionsart. However, the corpus data of the constructions with bringen has showed us a great amount of passive-voice constructions. As a result, we have researched if both ways of expressing passivity may occur with all LVCs comprising the verb bringen, which were chosen as the corpus of this research. The data survey was made with Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System Cosmas II. The constructions with the light verb bringen were categorized as prototypical (with a preposition and a deverbative noun) or not prototypical. They were also categorized according to their response to the lexicalization tests, which consist in ascertaining if the constructions accept some changes in their nominal part, like pluralization of nouns, adjectivation, and so on. We concluded that the formation of passive voice of such constructions does not depend on the lexicalization of the LVCs but rather on the presence of a preposition in the nominal part of the LVC.

大多數台灣英語學習者在進入大學前已經習得相當數量的英文字彙，即便如此，他們仍然會誤用常見的搭配詞 (例如: [do/make+noun])。本論文藉用兩種語料庫 (分別為台灣英語學習者語料庫及英國國家語料庫)來分析、觀察[do+noun]和[make+noun]的異同以及英語母語人士及台灣英語學習者使用[do/make+noun]狀況。結果顯示台灣英語學習者和英語母語人士最大的不同在[make+noun]：就語意層面而言，最常被英語母語人士使用的[make+noun]為 ‘to perform, to carry out’ (例如: make a speech, make a fine judge, etc.) 而台灣英語學習者偏好 ‘to create’ (例如: make a sushi, make a robot, etc.)；就名詞特性而言，母語人士偏向使用抽象的名詞 (例如: comment, progress, etc.) 而學習者習慣使用具體的名詞 (例如: robot, sushi, etc.)。除了語料庫語料分析，本論文還透過心理語言學實驗測驗 (即圖片引述實驗－受試者描述他們不熟悉的動作) 觀察母語人士和學習者使用常見的搭配詞－[do/make+noun]－的差異。台灣英語學習者使用為數不少廣義的[do+noun] (例如：do exercise 或 do sports) 而英語母語人士傾向使用帶有具體意義的動詞 (例如:sit-up) 或搭配詞 (例如: do sit-up)。幾乎沒有母語人士使用[make+noun]而大多數學習者使用的是[make+noun]－當make做為causative的用法。根據此實驗分析，本論文提出一個模型來探討英語母語人士和英語學習者對[do/make+noun]的使用異同。 / Learners of English in Taiwan are estimated to reach a certain command of vocabulary size before they enter colleges. However, they still differ from native speakers in producing the commonly-used patterns, such as [do/make+noun]. In order to observe the similarities and differences of [do+noun] and [make+noun], as well as their uses by EFL learners, this paper inspects their senses using two types of corpus data, namely a Taiwan-based learner corpus and the British National Corpus. The results show that learners differ from native speakers mainly in their use of [make+noun]. For example, the most frequent sense used by native speakers is ‘to perform, to carry out,’ as in make a speech, make a fine judge, etc., whereas that used by Taiwanese learners is ‘to create’ as in make a sushi, make a robot, etc. With respect to the characteristic of the noun following make, native speakers tend to choose abstract nouns, such as comment, progress, etc., whereas learners prefer concrete nouns, such as robot, sushi, etc. A psycholinguistic experiment is also included in order to see whether learners use language with general meanings, such as [do/make+noun], more in describing situations unfamiliar to them. Results show that [do+noun] patterns with a more general meaning (e.g., do exercise or do sports) are more often used by the learners in our experiment while native speakers prefer language with a more precise meaning (e.g., sit-up or do sit-up). Few [make+noun] constructions are found in native speakers’ language whereas learners produce numerous [make+noun] constructions, mostly the causative uses of make.

Construções com verbo-suporte (CVS) são ligações verbo-nominais que possuem um significado único, como por exemplo, zu Ende bringen (levar a cabo, concluir). O substantivo ligado ao verbo-suporte (VS) pode estar ou não precedido por uma preposição. Por meio de uma CVS é possível expressar a mudança na Aktionsart em relação ao verbo-base, que é o verbo que dá origem ao substantivo da parte nominal da CVS. A Aktionsart expressa pela CVS com bringen e com kommen é, respectivamente, perfectiva ingressiva causativa e perfectiva ingressiva. As CVS podem ter significado ativo ou passivo, sendo bringen um VS com significado ativo, pois expressa um agente ou uma causa, e kommen um VS com significado passivo, uma vez que não os expressa. Por isso, kommen é o principal substituto para bringen na formação de CVS, mantendo Aktionsart perfectiva ingressiva de bringen, mas sem expressar um agente ou causa. No entanto, ao fazermos o levantamento de CVS com bringen, verificamos que esse VS também pode ocorrer na voz passiva, o que nos levou a investigar se essas formas coocorrem paralelamente a todas as CVS com bringen elencadas para compor esta pesquisa. O levantamento de CVS com bringen na voz ativa e passiva e das CVS com kommen foi feito através da ferramenta de busca, gerenciamento e de análise de corpus Cosmas II. As CVS com bringen que compõem o corpus constituído para este trabalho foram categorizadas como prototípicas (preposicionadas e com substantivo deverbal) ou não prototípicas. Além disso, foram categorizadas de acordo com a resposta afirmativa ou negativa a testes de lexicalização, que consistem em descobrir se cada CVS com bringen aceita determinadas mudanças em sua parte nominal, como pluralização do substantivo, adjetivação entre outros. Concluímos que a formação da voz passiva com bringen e a possibilidade de substituir o VS bringen por kommen não dependem da lexicalização da CVS, mas sim da presença ou não de preposição na parte nominal da CVS. / Light-verb constructions (LVCs) are verb-noun combinations with a single meaning, for example, zu Ende bringen (to bring to an end). The noun attached to the light verb may or may not be preceded by a preposition. By means of a LVC it is possible to express a change in the Aktionsart in comparison to the Aktionsart of the verb which gives rise to the noun of the LVC. The Aktionsart, expressed by the LVC with the verbs bringen and kommen, are perfective ingressive causative and perfective ingressive respectively. LVCs may have either a passive or an active meaning. While the light verb bringen has an active meaning, because it expresses a cause or an agent, the verb kommen has a passive meaning. The verb kommen is the main substitute for the light verb bringen, because, although it has a passive meaning, it still maintains the perfective ingressive Aktionsart. However, the corpus data of the constructions with bringen has showed us a great amount of passive-voice constructions. As a result, we have researched if both ways of expressing passivity may occur with all LVCs comprising the verb bringen, which were chosen as the corpus of this research. The data survey was made with Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System Cosmas II. The constructions with the light verb bringen were categorized as prototypical (with a preposition and a deverbative noun) or not prototypical. They were also categorized according to their response to the lexicalization tests, which consist in ascertaining if the constructions accept some changes in their nominal part, like pluralization of nouns, adjectivation, and so on. We concluded that the formation of passive voice of such constructions does not depend on the lexicalization of the LVCs but rather on the presence of a preposition in the nominal part of the LVC.

Among Urdu’s many verb+verb constructions, this thesis focuses on those constructions, which combine the stem of a main content verb with another inflected verb which is used in a semantically bleached sense. Prior work on these constructions has been focused on their structural make-up and syntactic behavior in various environments. While there is consensus among scholars (Butt 1995, Hook 1977, Carnikova 1989, Porizka 2000 et al.) that these stem+verb constructions encode aspectual information, to date no clear theory has been put forward to explain the nature of their aspectual contribution. In short, we do not have a clear idea why these constructions are used instead of simple verbs. This work is an attempt to understand the precise function of these constructions. I propose that simple verbs (henceforth SV) in Urdu deal only with the action of the verb whereas (regardless of the semantic information contributed by the second inflected verb,1) the stem+verb constructions essentially deal with the action of the verb as well as the state of affairs resulting from this action. The event represented by these constructions is essentially a telic event as defined by Comrie (1976), whose resultant state is highlighted from the use of these constructions. The attention of the listener is then shifted to the result of this telic event, whose salience in the discourse is responsible for various interpretations of the event; hence my term ‘resultive construction’ (henceforth RC). When these constructions are made using the four special verbs (rah ‘stay’, sak ‘can’, paa ‘manage’ and cuk ‘finish’), the product is not resultive. Each of these verbs behaves differently and is somewhere between a resultive and an auxiliary verb construction. This work can be extended to other verb-verb construction in Urdu and other related and non-related languages as well. The analysis of the precise function of the RCs can also help in developing a model for them in various functional grammars. The proposed properties of RCs can be utilized in the semantic analysis of the Urdu quantifiers. This work should aid in identification and explanation of constructions in other languages, particularly those that are non-negatable under normal contexts. [1] All second inflected verbs with the exception of four special verbs rah ‘stay’, sak ‘can’, paa ‘manage’ and cuk ‘finish’. These four special verbs are either auxiliaries or modals as identified in prior literature.

L'étude porte sur la classe des verbes latins en -ficare, tels que aedifico « bâtir une maison » et amplifico « rendre ample ». Ce sont 150 verbes simples et 32 préverbés, répertoriés des premiers siècles de la latinité jusqu'à la mort d'Isidore de Séville, en 636. La mise au point du corpus est fondée sur une distinction concernant la structure morphologique des verbes, qui présentent en premier membre le thème d'un substantif (aedi-fico : aedes « maison ») ou d'un adjectif (ampli-fico : amplus « ample »). Une telle distinction s'est revélée cruciale, à la fois sur le plan sémantique et morphosyntaxique. L'alternance entre actif et déponent ne concerne pas les verbes à premier membre adjectival, mais la voix déponente est assignée à ceux des verbes pour lesquels il existe une construction à verbe-support, où facere [+ support] est associé au substantif à l'accusatif apparaissant en premier membre (par ex. paci-ficor « faire la paix » et pacem facere). Tous les verbes sont considérés comme des verbes composés et non comme des dérivés des adjectifs en -ficus correspondants, mais le premier membre est associable dans le type aedifico au complément d'objet, dans le type amplifico à l'attribut du complément d'objet du verbe facere de la locution verbo-nominale correspondante. Les verbes à premier membre adjectival sont toujours des factitifs, les verbes actifs à premier membre subtantival sont des causatifs, notamment des causatifs lexicaux (par ex. fumifico « faire de la fumée »), où le deuxième membre est associable à facere « produire ». Les verbes à premier membre adjectival, qui correspondent soit à des néologismes à l'intérieur du latin soit à des emprunts au grec, sont très bien représentés dans le latin des auteurs chrétiens et des ouvrages de médecine. / The aim of this study is to describe the class of Latin verbs in -ficare, such as aedifico ‘build a house’ and amplifico ‘amplify’. It examines 150 simple verbs and 32 preverbed verbs, collected from the first centuries of the Latin period to the death of Isidore of Seville in 636. The corpus is based on the morphological distinction between verbs whose first term is a noun stem (such as aedi-fico : aedes ‘house’) and verbs whose first term is an adjectival stem (ampli-fico : amplus ‘ample’). Such a distinction has proved to be crucial both morpho-syntactically and semantically. While the alternation between active voice and deponent voice is not shown in the verbs with an adjectival stem, the deponent voice is assigned to those verbs which coexist with a light verb construction, where facere [+ light verb] governs the noun in the accusative which appears as the first term (paci-ficor ‘to make peace’ and pacem facere). All verbs are interpreted as compound verbs, and not as derivatives from the adjectives in -ficus. In the verbs of the aedifico type, the first term can be associated with the direct object, while in the verbs of the amplifico type, the first term is associated with the predicative adjective of the direct object of facere within the correspondent noun-verb construction. The verbs with an adjectival stem as a first term are always factitive verbs, while the active verbs with a noun stem as a first-term are causatives and more specifically, lexical causatives (fumifico ‘make, produce smoke’), in which the second term is associated with facere ‘produce’. The verbs whose first term is an adjectival stem, which correspond to both neologisms in Latin and borrowings from Greek, are well represented in the Latin language used by Christian authors as well as medical texts.