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 66

John Anderson 66 lowing two subsections, to do with the facilitation of embedding and the prescribing of legitimate violations of projectivity (‘long-distance dependencies’). The functional categories have also received this attention because their role in frustrating syntax-phonology analogies is perhaps less obvious than the other factors involved in the presence of extended embedding and of ‘tangling’ that we shall now be looking at. 3.2 Derivation and embedding In §3.1 I have invoked various categories which involve the incorporation of other categories, involving in particular functional categories. This seems to be typical of the lexical structures from which the syntax is projected. In some cases this kind of complexity is formally expressed in the morphology. Whereas what is traditionally regarded as inflexional morphology reflects the presence of functional categories (case, finiteness) or secondary categories (number, tense), derivational morphology is primarily concerned with relationships between primary categories, which may be more or less transparently expressed, more or less productive. (Anderson (1984) offers a discussion of English derivations based on roughly the assumptions adopted here.) We have already encountered such in the discussion in §2.2 of deverbal nouns like that in (68), repeated here: (68) {N;P} | {N;P} { \N;P} | : {P;N} : | : {P;N/{ }} { \{P;N}} : : : : : { } : : : : : : : : : : students of physics at Cambridge from Iceland And we can indeed flesh out this representation with the appropriate functional categories, as (147):

67 Structural analogy in language, and its limits (147) {N} | {N/prt}} { {abl}\{N/{prt}}} | : { {prt}} : {N} | : : {N;P{erg}} : : | : : {P;N} : : | : : {P;N/{abs},{erg}} { {loc}\{P;N}} : : : : : : : { {abs}} : {N} : : : : : : : : : : {N/{prt}} : : : : : : | : : : : : : {prt} : : : : : : | : : : : : : {N;P} : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : students of physics at Cambridge from Iceland The abl(ative) feature is, I think transparently, another participant type; {erg(ative)} (uncombined) is the relation of the agentive argument. Here we have an agentive deverbal noun which has inherited much of the argument structure of the verb it is based on, though with such nouns the verbal complements are much more generally omissible – as well as having their relation consistently expressed by an overt functor when they follow the noun. And pre-nominal circumstantials lose the adverbial -ly if they have one when used adverbially, as shown in (148):

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 ...