1,720,966 research outputs found
The Nature, Use, and Origin of Explanatory Adequacy
No full textIf we want to compare the explanatory and descriptive adequacy of the MP and OT, the original definitions by Chomsky (1964) are or little direct use. However, a relativized version of both notions can be defined, which can be used to express a number of parallels between the study of individual I-languages and the language faculty. In any version of explanatory and descriptive adequacy, the two notions derive from the research programme and can only be achieved together. They can therefore not be used to characterize the difference in orientation between OT and the MP. Even if ‘OT’ is restricted to a particular theory in Chomskyan linguistics (to the exclusion of, for instance, its use in LFG), it cannot be said to be stronger in descriptive adequacy than in explanatory adequacy in the technical sense of these terms.The definitive version of this paper is published in Linguistics in Potsdam 25 (2006).Hacken, P. (2006). The Nature, Use and Origin of Explanatory Adequacy. In H. Broekhuis & R. Vogel (Eds), Linguistics in Potsdam 25. Optimality Theory and Minimalism: A possible Convergence? Potsdam : Universitätsverlag PotsdamISBN: 9783939469544 (published book
Book Review: On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics: HalpernAaron On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics, Stanford, CA, 1995. ISBN 1 881 52660 7, £17.95 (paperback). ISBN 1 881 52661 5, £35.00 (hardback)
No full textDefining morphology a principled approach to determining the boundaries of compounding, derivation, and inflection
No full text
Carola Trips & Jaklin Kornfilt (eds.) (2017), "Further Investigations into the Nature of Phrasal Compounding", Berlin: Language Science Press
No full textPhrasal compounding is a phenomenon illustrated by slept all day look. Prototypical examples are determinative compounds with a nominal head and a phrasal non-head. They raise interesting questions about the interaction of syntax and morphology and have been discussed in this context by Botha (1981) for Afrikaans and Lieber (1992) for English. Also in German and Turkish, they have received ample attention. This volume has as its main purpose to extend the range of languages for which phrasal compounds are discussed. It consists of a brief introduction (chapter 1), six chapters devoted to individual languages, and a final chapter with a more general outlook. The use of further in the title is perhaps surprising, in particular because the volume under review is the first of a new series. It is motivated by the fact that the papers are from “the second workshop on phrasal compounding”, held in Mannheim in 2015. In this review, I will first present and discuss each chapter, then consider some general points about the volume
The nature, use and origin of explanatory adequacy
No full textIf we want to compare the explanatory and descriptive adequacy of the MP and OT, the original definitions by Chomsky (1964) are or little direct use. However, a relativized version of both notions can be defined, which can be used to express a number of parallels between the study of individual I-languages and the language faculty. In any version of explanatory and descriptive adequacy, the two notions derive from the research programme and can only be achieved together. They can therefore not be used to characterize the difference in orientation between OT and the MP. Even if ‘OT’ is restricted to a particular theory in Chomskyan linguistics (to the exclusion of, for instance, its use in LFG), it cannot be said to be stronger in descriptive adequacy than in explanatory adequacy in the technical sense of these terms
Het wezen van samenstellingen
No full textThis paper addresses the question of the definition of compounding from a terminological perspective. In terminology, concepts are defined by a selection of properties shared by prototypical cases. For scientific terminology, the selection is validated by the strength of the theories that can use the definition. It is shown that morphophonological criteria often adduced in the delimitation of compounding are not adequate in a universal definition. In order to come up with a better definition, a two-step procedure is proposed. In the first step, a universal definition is used to determine for constructions in a particular language whether they belong to compounding. In the second step, language-specific properties are used to identify instances of these constructions. A definition is proposed that takes a compound as a word with a binary, headed structure, a relation between the elements that is not determined by compounding and a non-head that is not introduced as an entity in the discourse. The use of this definition is illustrated with a number of constructions in different languages. It is shown that expressions commonly called exocentric and copulative compounds are generally not compounds in this definition, but that some expressions that have been labelled as such are in fact compounds. The two-step procedure demonstrated here for compounding can also be used for other linguistic terms.In dit artikel wordt de vraag hoe samenstelling kan worden gedefinieerd vanuit een terminologisch perspectief behandeld. In de terminologie worden concepten gedefinieerd op basis van een selectie van gemeenschappelijke eigenschappen van prototypische instanties. Voor wetenschappelijke terminologie wordt deze selectie gevalideerd door het succes van de theorieën waarin de definitie kan worden gebruikt. In het artikel wordt eerst aangetoond dat de morfofonologische criteria die vaak voor de afgrenzing van samenstelling worden gebruikt niet geschikt zijn voor een universeel toepasbare definitie. Om tot een betere definitie te komen, wordt een procedure met twee stadia voorgesteld. In het eerste stadium wordt de universeel geldige definitie gebruikt om te bepalen welke constructies in een taal samenstellingen vormen. In het tweede stadium worden taalspecifieke eigenschappen van deze constructies gebruikt om individuele uitdrukkingen te classificeren. Er wordt een definitie voorgesteld die een samenstelling als een binaire structuur met een hoofd karakteriseert, waarvan de semantische samenhang tussen de twee componenten niet door de constructie wordt bepaald en de component die niet het hoofd is niet referentieel is. De toepassing van deze definitie wordt geïllustreerd aan de hand van een aantal constructies in verschillende talen. Van uitdrukkingen die vaak exocentrische of copulatieve samenstellingen worden genoemd wordt aangetoond dat ze in het algemeen geen samenstellingen zijn, maar dat sommige van zulke uitdrukkingen in dit opzicht een uitzondering zijn. De procedure met twee stadia die hier gebruikt wordt leent zich ook goed voor diverse andere taalkundige termen
Rezension / Review: Carola Trips & Jaklin Kornfilt (eds.) (2017), "Further Investigations into the Nature of Phrasal Compounding", Berlin: Language Science Press
No full textDieser Beitrag ist ursprünglich im Peter-Lang-Verlag erschienen (https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/plg/jwf/2018/00000002/00000001/art00009)This contribution was originally published by Peter Lang Publishing (https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/plg/jwf/2018/00000002/00000001/art00009
- …
