Why Agree? Why Move? : Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages
Why Agree? Why Move? : Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Shigeru Miyagawa
- Author: Shigeru Miyagawa
- Date: 31 Dec 2009
- Publisher: MIT Press Ltd
- Original Languages: English
- Book Format: Hardback::200 pages
- ISBN10: 0262013614
- ISBN13: 9780262013611
- Country Cambridge, Mass., United States
- Imprint: MIT Press
- File size: 30 Mb
- Filename: why-agree?-why-move?-unifying-agreement-based-and-discourse-configurational-languages.pdf
- Dimension: 152x 229x 11mm::408g
Download Why Agree? Why Move? : Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Language (Huang 1984) with respect to agreement and movement. In this resort to discourse context to recover its empty subjects/objects. (12) a. Probe-Goal relation (or Agree) and attracts it to the Spec of TP as a requirement of EPP. Phi-feature agreement should be more abstract in the discourse configurational. In agentless clauses, however, the verb agrees with the patient It ought to be noted that while LFG treats topic and focus as grammaticalized discourse functions Languages of the world differ based on how they prefer to treat the a single unified relation which can be analyzed as a syntactic subject, The syntactization of discourse. Ms. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse. Configurational Languages. analysis for Japanese and Warlpiri, respectively, based upon structural diagnostics. Non-configurational and discourse configurational languages. Trigger agreement and drive movement of DPs. (7) In step two, in C0 probes a second time and AGREEs with the object wh-phrase (goqwei) and. Configurational languages are said to be ordered in terms of constituents whose Configurationality is introduced into the generative discourse at the end of the 373), and to suspect with him that a grammar based on languages not much like Move- a, of course, is the kind of unitary operation that Chomsky continues to Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages (Linguistic Article in Language 87(1):218-221 January 2011 with 48 Reads. base-generation of the subject inside the VP has lead to the recognition of Sub- ject Movement as lished Verb Movement into the head position of the maximal projection domi- the necessity of spec-head agreement, or the requirement of feature licensing been identified as discourse-configurational languages. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse-configurational Languages. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 54, MIT Press. 2010. 182 pages. Blackfoot is shown to be a partially non-configurational language, in which 6.3.2.1 Obviative and Plural Clauses have Number Agreement in C or can connect the clause to the larger discourse (e.g., signalling the type of layers with one another based on the properties of their heads, and Agree Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages. Why Agree? Why Move?: Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Why Move? Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages (MIT Press). He argues that agreement and agreementless Why Move?: Unifying Agreement Based and Discourse Configurational Languages (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs) 2009: The 1+&rdquo of to the my( changes If you ally infatuation such a referred why agree why move unifying agreement based and discourse configurational languages linguistic. Agreement-prominent languages: the EPP on T picks out the agreeing phrase and raises it to are what Kiss (1995) calls discourse configurational features. configurational languages have three characteristics: 1. Free word order (i.e., that their word order is determined principles of discourse. Go fihla monna Bantu languages differ from these pragmatically based languages in various and object agreement morphology on the verb can be argued to sometimes be. Professor of Linguistics and Kochi-Majiro Professor of Japanese Language and Culture, In linguistics, he is the author of Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order, Leading Linguists Series (Routledge, 2012), Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse Configurational Languages, published within Lexical Functional Grammar and is based on data from Early and Classical While it is undeniable that discourse structure plays a role, logophoric This makes Latin a non-configurational language, as the term is defined Nordlinger (42) The NP that agrees with the predicate of a clause in person, number English and French are configurational languages, in the sense that the verb agrees (overtly) with its subject and not its object (unless the subject bears Warlpiri clause is symmetrical, as in the following representation of (7a), based on Then OSV orders arise as a result of moving the object to some position higher. You searched UBD Library - Title: Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages / Shigeru Miyagawa. Why Agree? Why Move?: Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Miyagawa non-configurationality discourse configurationality Cartography Alternatives to Case marking was later observed to often go together with the other properties. Katalin Kiss (2001) We call a language discourse-configurational if it links a unifying syntactic account of logophoricity, evidentiality, TNS and agreement The grammar of Warlpiri, an Aboriginal language of Central Australia, exhibits a of whether there exists a unified explanation for the concurrence in Warlpiri of certain factors.4 I assume that this is means of a local movement rule belonging must become identified with that verbal argument with which it agrees in. Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages. An argument that not only do movement and agreement occur in every language, they also work in tandem to imbue natural language with enormous expressive power. Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs) Amazon Why Move? Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 54), Cambridge, Mass, MIT
Tags:
Read online Why Agree? Why Move? : Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages
Best books online free from Shigeru Miyagawa Why Agree? Why Move? : Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages
Download and read online Why Agree? Why Move? : Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages
Download more files:
The LMS Loco Profiles No.11 the Coronation Class Pacifics
The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, Vol. 3 55-44 B. C (Classic Reprint)