Views
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 58 In

John Anderson 58 In (124.b) we have a complex category involving a functor that incorporates a simple deictic element (there) or an orientational element that is itself complement-taking (below) – I have assumed here a locative complement. The former is an adverb, the latter typical of many prepositions. In (124.c) the functor again heads a complex categorisation, but in this case it is itself given morphological expression in the form of the inflexion: Romam is the singular accusative whose citation (nominative) form is Roma. In (124.a) the functor has independent lexical status; in (124.b) and (c) it is lexically part of a complex. The functor in (124.d) is not given any lexical expression: there and in e.g. (122.a) the {abs(olutive)} (neutral) required by the subcategorisation of the verb is identified by its location immediately to the right of the verb. The adjuncts of (120.b), (121) and (122.a), yesterday and on Tuesday, are similarly introduced by functors, specifically the {loc} functor, which in conjunction with the temporal nominals specifies the temporal location of the scene; these are circumstantial arguments. In this case, of course, their presence is not required by the subcategorisation of the verb, but they are themselves characterised as seeking a verb to modify, as in (125): (125) {P} | {P/{{abs}}} : : { {abs}} { {loc}\{P}} : | | : {N} {N} : : : : : : read reviews yesterday (where again I lay aside consideration of the status of the subject). I am suggesting that (125) is a more adequate representation than (the relevant part of) (120.b). It differs in incorporating what we might refer to as the functional argument structure of this part of the clause. This elaboration compared with the phonology is necessitated by the demands of the interface for an adequate representation of conceptual scenes. These functional argument structures involve crucially a category of a type absent from the phonology. It universally lacks a substantive primary categorisation. It may be manifested in various ways, as I have just been illustrating. It is the paradigm example of a functional category. The presence of a functional/lexical distinction involves a specialisation of a set of primary categories which articulate the functional structure of the scene being represented in the syntax. The functors, in particular, enable expression of argument structure. I can envisage, together with functors the other possible functional categories in (126.a): (126) a. functional categories { } {P} {N} {P.N} functor finite individuator comparator

59 Structural analogy in language, and its limits b. lexical categories {P;N} {N;P} {P:N} verb noun adjective (126.b) gives the specifications for lexical categories we assumed in §2. The functional categories involve only simple combination of the features P and N, including absence of either or both. The lexical categories involve dependency relations, with adjectives, the most complex invoking mutual dependency (rather than co-occurrence – as with the comparator). We have already encountered the finiteness category, in the representations in (87) and (88) and (110) and (111). I reproduce (110) here: (110) a. {past} : : {P/{P;N{prog}}} : : {P;N{prog}} : : : : was speaking b. {past} : : {P} | {P;N} : : saw, talked, heard (110.a) illustrates ‘pure’ (periphrastic) expression of the finiteness element; in (110.b) it is incorporated lexically in the verb. To the extent that in English morphological tense, and person/number outside nominals, are associated with finiteness, it may be said to be expressed morphologically. It can be argued that finiteness may also be expressed purely syntactically. Thus, Anderson (1997: §3.6.4, 2001: §2) suggests that the final position of the verb in (126.a) marks it as non-finite, the position of the finite being in second position in the clause, as in the main clause in (126.a), and as in (126.b): (126) a. Er fragte mich, ob ich ihn verstanden hätte he asked me if I him understood had b. Ich habe ihn verstanden I have him understood This is, of course, counter to the usual assignments of finiteness in sentences like (126.a), although the uncontroversial non-finite in (126.b) is in final position. Anderson (ibid.) makes a distinction between syntactic and morphological finiteness: syntactic finiteness is

Contrast in phonology, structural analogy, and the interfaces
Structural analogy and universal grammar
Structural Realism: Continuity and Its Limits - Ioannis Votsis
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 ...