There are some other approaches, too, like treating case as a feature assigned to a phrase rather than originating on a head ( Baker and Kramer, 2014:148) or inserted as postsyntactic morphemes (eg, Embick and Noyer, 2001). The only plausible answer (that I don’t anticipate working out any time soon) is that K is realized as case on the noun. When people would ask me about this when I was in grad school, I would provide a joke answer of, “Oh, I like to pretend the K head explodes and rains down its pieces on the heads below,” but I did not have a real answer. I believe the same is true for Ingason (2016), who discusses case concord in Icelandic (hmm, where have I heard of that before?). In my NLLT paper (and in my other work on case concord), I do treat case as originating on K in some sense, but I do not specify how the K head itself is realized. In this example, inessive case -s appears on each word ( Norris, 2018: 539) Take, for example, Estonian: In Estonian (ISO ekk Uralic, Estonian), case is marked on many of the words inside NP. There are languages with case multiple times per NP (languages with case concord), and here it is not clear what the connection is between K and case. The mapping between case and K is clearest in these case particle languages, because there is one case morpheme and one syntactic locus (and 1, as they say, = 1). However, the border between adpositions and case is fuzzy, and since adpositions also closely track VO order, I expect it’s true that case particles do likewise (to the extent that a border between case particles and adpositions can be established). And Dryer’s sample of case affixes does not include case particles. In Khasi (ISO kha Austroasiatic, Bangladesh/India), verbs precede objects and case particles precede NPs (Bittner and Hale, 1996:4).īut they do not cite or report on the results of a typological study. In Mískito (ISO miq Misumalpan, Honduras/Nicaragua), verbs follow objects and case particles follow NPs (Bittner and Hale, 1996:4). At the beginning of their paper which is mostly about nominal licensing (but does use KP), Bittner and Hale (1996:4) suggest that the order of case particles and nominal phrases tracks that of verb and object. I can’t get too in the weeds with this (b/c blog), but here’s one example where the connection between case and K is brought up. I think many/most NP generative syntax folks would not disagree with a statement like, “KP is the location of case features,” but there are in fact very few works that carefully explore the connection between K and case morphemes. The earliest citation I’m aware of for KP is Lamontagne & Travis (1987) (see also Travis & Lamontagne, 1992), but since as early as 2005, people have been using KP without citation. If you ask anybody who works on generative nominal morphosyntax where case is, my guess is that most of them will bring up KP, a head that (most of the time) is assumed to take a DP complement. The chapter provides some general conclusions and suggests some directions for theoretical development.Before you read too far, let me issue this disclaimer: when I say case in this blogpost, I am never talking about syntactic Case with a capital C. The distinction between linguistic and nonlinguistic knowledge is a crucial one, for both theoretical and practical reasons. Any discourse can be described in terms of content, presentational structure, and linguistic form. Harweg takes substitution to be the most important innovation in the development of text-linguistics. It was not until the 1960s that texts or discourse generally came to be considered an object of linguistic analysis. Linguistic theories of discourse are a relatively recent development in linguistics. The first American linguist to attempt the analysis of connected discourse as discourse was probably Fries. It provides a handful of proposals for treating discourse properties as linguistic properties, or language-like properties.
The chapter examines a few well-known proposals in light of these issues. It presents a brief survey of some of the pertinent literature. This chapter discusses the relation between discourse and linguistic theory.
0 kommentar(er)
