By Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro, Nerea Madariaga
The subject of this assortment is argument constitution. The fourteen chapters during this e-book are divided into 4 components: Semantic and Syntactic homes of occasion constitution; A Cartographic View on Argument constitution; Syntactic Heads eager about Argument constitution; and Argument constitution in Language Acquisition. Rigorous theoretical analyses are mixed with empirical paintings on particular elements of argument constitution. The e-book brings jointly authors operating in several linguistic fields (semantics, syntax, and language acquisition), who discover new findings in addition to extra validated facts, yet then from new theoretical views. The contributions suggest cartographic perspectives of argument constitution, instead of minimalistic proposals of a binary template version for argument constitution, with a view to optimally account for numerous syntactic and semantic proof, in addition to information derived from wider cross-linguistic views.
Read or Download Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A cross-linguistic perspective PDF
Best grammar books
This pioneering examine of pronouns takes into consideration greater than 250 languages. It contrasts own pronouns with pronouns corresponding to demonstratives, interrogatives, and relations and indicates that they belong to 2 special different types. formerly undiscovered features of the 2 different types of pronouns are brought and tested intimately from a cross-linguistic and sensible viewpoint.
This quantity brings jointly papers initially provided at a seminar sequence on Speculative Grammar, common Grammar, and Philosophical research, held on the collage of Bologna in 1984. The seminars aimed toward contemplating quite a few elements of the interaction among linguistic theories at the one hand, and theories of that means and good judgment at the different.
Paintings in morphology is usually occupied with efficient note formation and ordinary inflection, in any occasion with open category different types comparable to verbs, nouns, and adjectives, and their a number of varieties. The structure of Determiners, in contrast, is dedicated to a collection of functionality phrases: the closed type of determiners.
- Good Grammar!
- A Grammar of Modern Latvian (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings ; No. 304) Vol.3
- Oxford Intermediate - Grammar Spectrum Intermediate
- A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar
- Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability
Extra info for Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A cross-linguistic perspective
3a-b) and (11a-b) – does not reflect identity of their lexical representations and/or syntactic structures they project. But what exactly is this difference? In the next section, we start answering the second question by taking a finer look at the non-culminating readings of AP-verbs like oj ‘demolish, crumble’ and AS-verbs like ac ‘open’ in transitive configurations. We will discover that despite apparent similarity of examples like (3a-b) and (11a-b), their interpretation is not exactly the same.
B. The rest of verbs that allow for anticausativization retain the atelic (nonculminating) interpretation. (9a) is illustrated by examples like (10a-b): (10) a. ešik eki sekunt-xa ac-ıl-tan-dı. ’ b. *ešik eki satat ac-ıl-tan-dı. door two hour open-anticaus-pfct-3sg Lit. ’ We see that unlike what happens in a variety of other syntactic environments in (4)(7), anticausativization does affect the eventuality type of accomplishment verbs. In contrast with finite clauses in (4)-(5), as well as with the infinitival clause in (6) and vP that occurs as a complement of the causative morpheme in (7), the atelic anticausative in (10b) is ungrammatical.
Its precise lexical distribution is not significant for our purposes, however. Anticausativization is exemplified in (8b): (8) a. alim ešik-ni ac-xan-dı. ’ b. ešik ac-ıl-tan-dı. ’ In (8a), the non-derived transitive verb ac ‘open’ occurs, and (8b) is the product of anticausativization. In (8b), the internal argument ešik ‘door’ assumes the subject position, and the sentence refers to a change of state of that argument. Two crucial facts about the eventuality type of the anticausative are listed in (9): (9) a.
Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A cross-linguistic perspective by Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro, Nerea Madariaga