4 years ago

Structural analogy in language and its limits [Contrast and analogy v.2]

Structural analogy in language and its limits [Contrast and analogy v.2]

John Anderson 56 (122)

John Anderson 56 (122) a. Fritz received reviews from Millie (yesterday/on Tuesday) b. Reviews ranged from good to indifferent Do we have to allow for clauses with more than one (post-verbal) complement? And why? The answer to the former question is ‘yes’, I suggest, and that to the latter question is that we need to be able to differentiate among the roles of the participants in the scene whose type is labelled by the verb. The two post-verbal participants/complements in (122.a) can be differentiated as non-prepositional vs. prepositional. But those in (122.b) are both prepositional (whatever one makes of the categorial status of the items they introduce). What distinguishes these latter is the prepositions, and these prepositions reflect the participant types – or semantic relations – that are demanded by the verb. Even where there is no overt differentiator the participants satisfy different participant-demands of the predicator. And we can rank these participant-types in terms of their eligibility for lacking a preposition and for subject-position. So the animate goal in (122.a) outranks the others for the subject slot. And what for the moment one might call the neutral relation, associated with reviews, like the animate goal usually lacks prepositional marking; and, even when outranked for subject-position, as in (122.a), it occurs closer to the verb, while in (122.b), in the absence of an outranking type, it occupies subject position. The structure in (120.b) that is analogous to phonological structure is determined by the array of participant types associated with particular verbs, and constitutes a grammaticalisation of it. The need for more-than-unary complementation reflects interface requirements: specifically, provision of the capacity to represent complex scenes with multiple participants as well as (potentially) multiple circumstantials. But this also involves the articulation of means of differentiating between different participant-types as well as circumstancetypes. The major means is a category type absent from the phonology. This is a type that may be realised in various ways, as has already begun to emerge from discussion of (122). It may be represented in a pure form (or periphrastically), as in (123.a); or it may be realised along with, cumulated with other semantic categories, as in (b); or it may be ‘absorbed’ into another category, and be expressed morphologically, as in (c); or it may be reflected only positionally, as in (d): (123) a. Fritz lives at home/Fritz went to Rome b. Fritz lives there/below us c. Fredericus Romam iit F. to-Rome went d. Fritz read reviews I associate (123.a) with the configuration in (124.a) (continuing to leave aside subjects for the moment), which continues to use the notation of Anderson (1997), in particular:

57 Structural analogy in language, and its limits (124) a. {P/{{loc}} : : { {loc}} : : : : {N} : : : : : : lives at home went to Rome b. {P/{{loc}} : : { {loc}} : | : {N}/{N/{{loc}} : : : : { {loc}} : : | : : {N} : : : : : : lives there/below us c. {P/{{loc}} : { {loc}} : | : {N} : : : : : Romam iit d. {P/{{abs}} : : { {abs}} : | : {N} : : : : read reviews {loc(ative)} is a secondary category of the category in question, the latter being named functor by Anderson (1997). The primary category itself is left here unspecified; and this is not by oversight, or a temporary measure: it is the category that is neither predicable nor referentiable, so it lacks both P and N. The functor links the predicator to its arguments, and its secondary categories label the relations that hold between them. The verb in (124.a) is subcategorised for a locative complement; and this is satisfied by the locative functor. Functors in general are subcategorised for a nominal complement, and, since this is redundant, it has been left it out of the representations. The goal relation of to Rome is a variant of {loc} associated with directional verbs.

Contrast in phonology, structural analogy, and the interfaces
Structural analogy and universal grammar
Structural Realism: Continuity and Its Limits - Ioannis Votsis
1 Finegan, Edward, Language. Its Structure and Use. 3rd edition ...
The Structure and Content of the Body of an OLIF v.2 File
Correlation Between Structure of Bcl-2 and Its Inhibitory Function of ...
Correlation Between Structure of Bcl-2 and Its Inhibitory Function of ...