Refine
Document Type
- Article (7) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- Deutsch (6)
- Ablaut (2)
- Flexion (2)
- Pronomen (2)
- Anapher (1)
- Case (1)
- Deklination (1)
- Englisch (1)
- Inflectional morphology (1)
- Kasus (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
- De Gruyter (2)
- Elsevier (1)
- Mouton (1)
- Mouton Publishers (1)
- Springer (1)
- Universität Bern (1)
Some basic difficulties in the generative description o f grammatical coordination are traced back to principal open points in Chomsky’s initial model o f transformational grammar. The argument is based (i) on an analysis of the role played by internal and external conditions of adequacy for grammars in the conception of syntactic structures, and (ii) on an examination of the relation between syntax and semantics as proposed by Chomsky. The continuation o f the problems stated is shown by surveying a number of contributions from later models. As a possible solution a description of coordination in terms of a "surface syntax for semantics" is envisaged.
In their article 'Psycholinguistics without "psychological reality" ', Maria Black and Shulamit Chiat have argued the case for abandoning 'the notion of "psychological reality"' (1981: 37), pointing to 'the contradictions and non sequiturs found whenever psychological reality is mentioned'
(1981: 58, n. 9) in linguistic literature. Interestingly, the same issue of Linguistics provides us with a case in point. Roland A. Wolff (henceforth W) reports on a test intended to address the 'general question ... : To what extent does a formal grammar (a linguist's account, or model) correspond to a speaker's internalized grammar (competence)?' (1981: 3; if not otherwise indicated in the following, page references are to Wo1ff, 1981).
Anaphora by pronouns
(1983)
An adequate conception of anaphora is still a desideratum. Considering the anaphoric use of third-person personal pronouns, the present study contributes to the solution of the question of what anaphora is. Major tenets of generative approaches to pronominal anaphora are surveyed; descriptive and methodological problems with transformational as well as interpretive treatments are discussed. The prevailing assumption that anaphora is a syntactically based phenomenon is shown tobe inadequate. In particular, it is argued that pronominal anaphora does not constitute a case of eilher a syntactic ( agreement) relation or a semantic ( coreference) relation between antecedents and anaphors, i.e. linguistic expressions. Infact, there is no grammatical antecedent-anaphor relation that is essential to the description of pronouns. Pronouns are to be treated in their own right rather than by recourse to supposed antecedents. An account of the use of pronouns has to be based on a notion of speaker reference and on a unified description of lexical entries for pronouns that specify their meanings. Sampie entries for English are suggested. It is emphasized that pronoun meanings rejlect social, not biological, classifications of possible referents. To the extent that pronouns are used according to morphosyntactic features, as in languages like German or French, lexical entries for pronouns should specify the pronouns' 'associative potential'. Associative potential has the samefunction as conceptual meaning, viz. delimiting the associated extension. In addition to this, pronouns turn out to differ from 'normal definite nominals' only in the low conceptual content of their meanings. Pronoun occurrences that apparently agree with and are coreferential with referential antecedents are found to form a restricted subclass of pronoun use in generat as weil as of anaphoric pronoun use. Thus one must refrainfromforcing each and every pronoun occurrence into this mold. Instead, anaphora by pronouns is characterized as a type of use where pronouns serve to refer to referents that the speaker considers to be retrievable from the universe-of-discourse.
The present paper provides a new approach to the form-function relation in Latin declension. First, inflections are discussed from a functional point of view with special consideration to questions of syncretism. A case hierarchy is justified for Latin that conforms to general observations on case systems. The analysis leads to a markedness scale that provides a ranking of case-number-combinations from unmarked to most marked. Systematic syncretism always applies to contiguous sections of the case-number-scale (‘syncretism fields’). Second, inflections are analysed from a formal point of view taking into account partial identities and differences among noun endings. Theme vowels being factored out, endings are classified on the basis of their make-up, e.g., as sigmatic endings; as containing desinential (non-thematic) vowels; as containing long vowels; and so on. The analysis leads to a view of endings as involving more basic elements or ‘markers’. Endings of the various declensions instantiate a small number of types, and these can be put into a ranked order (a formal scale) that applies transparadigmatically. Third, the relationship between the independently substantiated functional and formal hierarchies is examined. In any declension, the form-function-relationship is established by aligning the relevant formal and functional scales (or ‘sequences’). Some types of endings are in one-to-one correspondence with bundles of morphosyntactic properties as they should be according to a classical morphemic approach, but others are not. Nevertheless, endings can be assigned a uniform role if the form-function-relationship is understood to be based on an alignment of formal and functional sequences. A diagrammatical form-function relationship is revealed that could not be captured in classical or refined morphemic approaches.
Ablautreihe
(2014)
Ablaut
(2014)