Views
5 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 60 the

John Anderson 60 the ability to license an unmarked independent predication; morphological finiteness, which is associated with non-reduction in marking for tense and person/number and/or absence of overt marking as syntactically non-finite (such as we find in verstanden), may or may not be associated with morphological finiteness, though it tends to be (thus justifying the same labelling, as involving ‘finiteness’). The forms fragte in (126.a) and habe in (b) are both syntactically and morphologically finite, and in particular they occupy the appropriate position for a syntactically finite form. The form hätte in (126.a) is morphologically finite but it is not syntactically finite: such a form cannot license an independent predication while occupying final position. The functional role of (syntactic) finiteness is thus to licence independent predication: the presence of the finiteness element guarantees the independent predicational status of the construction (other things being equal). The role of the individuator is to provide a potential referent for the arguments in the functional argument structure. Just as verbs, which label predication-types, combine with finiteness to provide independent predications, so nouns, which label entity-types, combine with an indivuator to constitute a referentiable argument of a participant or circumstantial relation. This is exemplified by the nominal phrases in (127): (127) a. Fritz read some reviews b. Fritz read a review c. Fritz read reviews d. Fritz read trash Some and a are individuators: they take as a complement a partitive noun, i.e, a noun in a partitive (functor) relation to them. I represent this as in (128.a): (128) a. {N/{{prt}}} : : { {prt}} : | : {N;P} : : : : some/a review(s) b. {N/{{prt}}} | { {prt}} | {N;P} : : reviews/trash (I ignore the differences due to the presence vs. absence of plurality/singularity.) Elsewhere, the p(a)rt(itive) functor has overt expression: (129) Fritz read one/some of the reviews

61 Structural analogy in language, and its limits In (127.c/d) the individuator is not expressed by a separate item (periphrastically), but the whole configuration in (128.b) is expressed by a single item. These quantifiers are ‘transitive’ individuators, they take a partitive complement. There is also a sub-class of intransitive individuators, including (proper) names and pronouns. They constitute complete referentiable arguments by themselves: pronouns either incorporate a partitive (someone) or are heavily context-dependent (via deixis or anaphora – I, you, (s)he); the name is the prototypical individuator, as argued in Anderson (in press b, in preparation). Covert individuators – in English, partitive individuators – may take a specifier, as in (130.a), represented in (130.b): (130) a. Fritz read the trash/review(s) b. {N} | { \{N/{prt}} {N/{{prt}}} : | : { {prt}} : | : {N;P} : : : : the trash/review(s) As in (128.b), the individuator in (130) is not given independent expression. The specifier the is definite; it embodies the speaker’s assumption that the hearer can identify the referent. Definiteness is a phrasal feature of individuator phrases which is associated with the specifier of the individuator, if present – i.e. (for the moment) if the individuator is partitive. In English, names do not normally take a specifier (as embodied in the representation for the in (130.b), which requires a partitive individuator), so definiteness is associated with them, unless they are not arguments and reject definiteness – as in (131): (131) a. He is called John b. (Come on,) John (see Anderson in press b, in preparation). In Greek, for instance, names that are arguments take the (definite) specifier, as shown in (132): (132) o γiánis éfiγe the John left But the specifier is, of course, absent when the name is not an argument: (133) a. onomázete γiánis he-is-called John b. (éla,) γiáni (come,) John (The name form in (133.b) is vocative.) 33

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 ...