Cano Cambronero, María De Los-Ángeles2024-01-212024-01-212012-02-09https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/94219Referencias bibliográficas: • Alexiadou, A. (2001): Functional structure in nominals: nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. • Borer, H. (2005): Structuring Sense. Oxford: OUP. • Laca, B. (1993): “Las nominalizaciones orientadas y los derivados españoles en –dor y –nte”, Varela, S. (ed.), La formación de palabras, Madrid: Taurus. • Marantz, A. (1997): “No escape from syntax”. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics, 4: 201-225. • Rainer, F. (1999): “La derivación adjetival”. Bosque, I. and V. Demonte (dirs.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, v. 3, cap. 70, Madrid: Espasa. • Rifón, A. (1996-1997): “Sinonimia y polisemia de los sufijos –dor y –nte”. Revista de Lexicografía, III.We expect with this study to unveil the differences between these deverbal suffixes and to show that there is not any synonymy and the suffixes are semantically and aspectually specified. We adopt a syntactic approach in order to explain the data. That is, derivatives associated with verbal predicates contain functional projections: AspP, VoiceP, vP, etc. (Marantz 1997, Alexiadou 2001, Borer 2005). In this sense, we expect to show that the different semantic-aspectual interpretations may be determined by the presence of different functional projections.engAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/conference outputopen access811.134.2811.134.2'373.611811.134.2'36SinonimiaSufijosLingüísticaLengua española5705 Lingüística Sincrónica57 Lingüística