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 72 (155)

John Anderson 72 (155) {V} | {V} {V} | | {V} {V} | | {V} {V} : : : : one of my children saw the movie (cf. too e.g. Crystal 1969: §5.10.2, Ladd 1986). 36 Thus, if we want to generalise over simple and recursive embedding in the phonology, the limitation on the embedding of {V} and consonants is that {V} cannot be embedded under a consonant. The force of what, on the basis of this, we can conclude about recursion in the phonology depends upon the appropriateness of this kind of analysis of intonation, however. And even if it is appropriate, it introduces only a very shallow depth of recursion. And there are other types of recursion in syntax than the direct {V}-to-{V} type we find in (155). On the other hand, direct recursion tends to be avoided in the syntax. And this seems to be largely due to the intervention of functional categories, as well as the absence of restrictions parallel to the failure of consonants to govern vowels. Even such a representation as (88) involves a {P:N} intervening between the two {P} nodes: (88) {past} : : {P{deictic}} | {N} {P;N} : : : : {P} : : : : : {N} : {P;N} : : : : : : : : : : John said [Mary had left] So too if we include a complementiser, as in (156), wherein I have removed ‘{past}’ (as not relevant at this point), but included the subcategorisation of say as predication-taking verb, but not functor nodes (as again not relevant, yet):

73 Structural analogy in language, and its limits (156) {P} | {N} {P;N/{P}} : : : : {P} : : | : : { \{P} {P} : : : : : : : {N} : {P;N} : : : : : : : : : : : : John said that Mary had left That {P;N} is both dependent on and complemented by {P}is nevertheless closer to direct recursion than we tend to find elsewhere. 37 However, the most direct recursion is illustrated by those verbal elements that can never be in finite position. Verbs in English (and many languages) can incorporate lexically a finiteness element; they can thus occur in either kind of configuration that we find in (110): (110) a. {past} : : {P/{P;N{prog}}} : : {P;N{prog}} : : : : was speaking b. {past} : : {P} | {P;N} : : saw, talked, heard The configuration in (110.b) is made available by a redundancy of the form of (157): (157) {P} | {P:N} ⇒ {P:N} Some verb forms reflect failure of (157): these are morphologically non-finite forms. These are forms which are marked lexically as exceptions to (157), {P;N,*(157)}; I shall abbreviate this as {*P}. Since such forms cannot normally form independent predications, they figure as arguments in the predications headed by other predicators, including other

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 ...