Between feature mapping and thematic prominence: Old english se-demonstratives and pronouns in discourse

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-617
Author(s):  
Rafał Jurczyk
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Lexical Item ◽  
Semantic Relations ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Feature Mapping ◽  
Personal Pronouns

Abstract Old English se-demonstratives (which usually trace less salient referents) and personal pronouns (usually continuing previous topics) have frequently been taken to share a common pronominal property (e.g. Breban 2012; Epstein 2011; van Gelderen 2013, 2011; Kiparsky 2002; Howe 1996). This assumption holds despite their non-overlapping distribution which still remains a puzzle (cf. van Gelderen 2013; Los and van Kemenade 2018). In this paper, we argue that this distributional discrepancy stems from the lack of syntactic and formal affinities between the two forms. Se-demonstratives are either dependent (introducing full DPs) or independent (usually labeled as “pronominal”), but still instances of the same lexical item. As a D-category, they necessarily license their NP complements regardless of their being lexical or empty, thereby entering into tight formal and semantic relations with their nominal antecedents. In doing so, they rely on the working of their gender- and case-features, the two carrying semantic import and mapping onto the specific reference [+ref/spec]-property in the semantic module(s). Being bundles of case- and/or φ-features, pronominals lack the complex syntactic structure of se-demonstratives. Their formal and semantic relations with nominal antecedents are thus less intimate, holding due to interpretable person- and number-features.

Interclausal relations with Old English verbs of inaction

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-584
Author(s):  
Ana Elvira Ojanguren López
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Semantic Content ◽  
Semantic Relations ◽  
Finite Clause

Abstract The aim of this article is to analyse the syntactic and semantic interclausal relations that hold with Old English verbs of inaction. These verbs are studied from the perspective of juncture-nexus relations and the semantic relations Phase, Psych-action and Causative. The results are compared on the grounds of the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy. The comparison of semantic content and syntactic expression evidences discrepancies between too weak juncture-nexus types, such as clausal subordination, and very close semantic relations, like Phase. Two main conclusions are drawn. Firstly, the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy allows us to describe the variation in the complementation of inaction verbs in Old English; and to make predictions on the diachronic axis, given that the loss of finite clause complementation and the change to infinitival complementation presented by Present-Day English verbs of inaction are fully predicted by the IRH. Secondly, semantic relations and nexus types remain stable throughout the change, whereas juncture levels change.

Adverbs in the Austronesian languages of Taiwan

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-109
Author(s):  
Paul Jen-kuei Li
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Item ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Austronesian Languages ◽  
Main Verb ◽  
Aspect Markers ◽  
Chinese And English

Abstract This is a study of adverbs in nine typologically divergent Austronesian languages of Taiwan, Atayal, Bunun, Favorlang, Kavalan, Puyuma, Rukai, Saisiyat, Thao, and Tsou. There are only a few adverbs in each of these languages. The form of an adverb is usually invariant and its position in a sentence is relatively free. On the contrary, the form of a verb usually varies and its position in the sentence is usually fixed. Since the function of an adverb is to modify a verb, it may not occur without a verb in a sentence, whereas a true verb may occur without any other verb. Many adverbial concepts in Chinese and English, such as ‘all’, ‘only’, ‘often’, and ‘again’, are expressed using verbs that manifest different foci and take aspect markers. When these words function as the main verb in the sentence, they may attract bound personal pronouns in many Austronesian languages of Taiwan. However, there are a few genuine adverbs in each of these languages. It varies from language to language whether a certain lexical item functions as a verb or adverb.

Morphological Units: A Theoretical and Psycholinguistic Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominiek Sandra
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Morphological Structure ◽  
Semantic Relations ◽  
Semantic Transparency ◽  
Relational Information ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Processing Level ◽  
Communicative Efficiency ◽  
Complex Words

Speakers can transfer meanings to each other because they represent them in a perceptible form. Phonology and syntactic structure are two levels of linguistic form. Morphemes are situated in-between them. Like phonemes they have a phonological component, and like syntactic structures they carry relational information. A distinction can be made between inflectional and lexical morphology. Both are devices in the service of communicative efficiency, by highlighting grammatical and semantic relations, respectively. Morphological structure has also been studied in psycholinguistics, especially by researchers who are interested in the process of visual word recognition. They found that a word is recognized more easily when it belongs to a large morphological family, which suggests that the mental lexicon is structured along morphological lines. The semantic transparency of a word’s morphological structure plays an important role. Several findings also suggest that morphology plays an important role at a pre-lexical processing level as well. It seems that morphologically complex words are subjected to a process of blind morphological decomposition before lexical access is attempted.

scholarly journals Grammatical person and the variable syntax of Old English personal pronouns

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
RHONA ALCORN
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Old English ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Historical Linguistics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relative Positioning ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Prepositional Object ◽  
Narrative Mode

The variable positioning of bare personal pronouns in Old English prose remains something of a mystery. In the role of prepositional object, for example, these elements are often found in positions where other prepositional object types are rarely attested. This article reports the results of an empirical study of a correlation between the variable placement of these pronouns and their specification for grammatical person. By demonstrating that this correlation defies a number of independent explanations, it is argued that person is an important aspect of the syntax of these constituents. The identification of two further correlations, one involving narrative mode and the other involving the relative positioning of preposition and verb, further demonstrates the value of quantitative methods in historical linguistics.

scholarly journals The role of linguistic context in conveying the syntactic meaning of the verb in Khanaqeen sub_dialec

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-136
Author(s):  
Muhammed Majeed Saeed ◽  
Qais Kamal Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Theoretical Aspect ◽  
Linguistic Context ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Linguistic Information ◽  
The Third ◽  
Lexical Items ◽  
And Function

In the first part, the researcher determined the personal pronouns in the dialect of Khanaqeen: one group of separate pronouns and two groups of attached pronouns. The position and function of each pronoun is explained. The second part deals with the theoretical aspect of verb formation. The relation between the lexical and syntactic structure of the verb is indicated. The study has revealed that the linguistic information of the verb is organized and accumulated in the lexical items. Later this linguistic information interacts to form the external syntactic structure of the verb within the frame of the phrase and sentences. The third part also deals with the role of linguistic context due to its central role in determining the tense of verbs and sentences in the dialect of Khanaqeen.

scholarly journals Semantic relations underlie non-linear planning in complex noun phrases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
JENS ROESER ◽  
Mark Torrance ◽  
Thom Baguley
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Production System ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Semantic Relations ◽  
Surface Form ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
Non Linear

When producing a noun phrase whether or not pre-planning extends beyond theinitial noun varies with the phrase’s syntactic structure. However it is not clear on whatbasis – conceptual or syntactic – the production system determines that pre-planning isnecessary. In two experiments (Ns= 32, 64) participants produced noun phrases inresponse to picture arrays. Surface form was held constant but scope of the initialdeterminer was manipulated by varying the contrastive functions of the first and thesecond noun (e.g., The man with the painting [but not the girl with the painting] vs. Theman with the painting [but not the man with the ball]). Evidence from eye movement data revealed a stronger tendency for early planning in the extended-scope condition. This is evidence that pre-planning requirements of structurally complex noun phrase are determined prior to the processing of syntax and lexis.

Does English really have case?

1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Abstract Case ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One

Does English have morphological case (as opposed to abstract Case)? Evidence is presented which suggests that it may be a completely case-less language like Chinese, contrary to the widely held view that the distinct pronoun forms and the ‘genitive’ 's involve morphological case. The existence of case in English has recently been accepted almost without question, but the question at least deserves serious discussion as it is easy to find alternative analyses. According to the analysis offered here, I and me are both personal pronouns whereas my, mine and 's are possessive pronouns; and the difference between I and me, like the one between my and mine, is handled by a very specific and local lexical rule which is sensitive to the syntactic structure but does not involve case.

scholarly journals A native origin for Present-Day English they, their, them

Diachronica ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelle Cole
Keyword(s):  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
Personal Pronoun ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Person Plural ◽  
Textual Evidence ◽  
The North ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Pronominal System ◽  
Germanic Languages

Abstract It is commonly held that Present-Day English they, their, them are not descended from Old English but derive from the Old Norse third-person plural pronouns þeir, þeira, þeim. This paper argues that the early northern English orthographic and distributional textual evidence agrees with an internal trajectory for the ‘þ-’ type personal pronouns in the North and indicates an origin in the Old English demonstratives þā, þāra, þām. The Northern Middle English third-person plural pronominal system was the result of the reanalysis from demonstrative to personal pronoun that is common cross-linguistically in Germanic and non-Germanic languages alike.

scholarly journals The Correspondence between Syntax and Semantics

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 118
Author(s):  
Cherif Teimi
Keyword(s):  
Special Interest ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Semantic Relations ◽  
Conceptual Semantics

<p>The issue of Interfaces is central to linguistic studies. Modern linguistics, especially semantic studies, has given a special interest to this topic. However, up till very recently, the issue has been dealt with mainly from a syntactico-centric point of view. Throughout the development of linguistic theories, there has been a rooted idea in generative grammar that meaning is generated from syntactic structure. In fact, although we adopt the Conceptual Semantics framework, which considers meaning to be too rich and multidimensional to be encoded in purely syntactic mechanisms, we shall deal with the correspondence between syntax and semantics where these two components directly correlate with one another. In other words, we will deal with the topic from the angle where syntax bears <em>all</em> semantic relations.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document