大葉大學圖書館 |

Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
書名/作者:	Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language.
作者:	Wier, Thomas R.
面頁冊數:	339 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 72-09, Section: A, page: 3246.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International72-09A.
標題:	Language, Linguistics.
ISBN:	9781124718354
摘要、提要註:	This dissertation is an exploration of the idea of linguistic features: what we mean by them, and how they relate to each other.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3460252

Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language.
Wier, Thomas R.

Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language. - 339 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 72-09, Section: A, page: 3246.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2011.

This dissertation is an exploration of the idea of linguistic features: what we mean by them, and how they relate to each other.

ISBN: 9781124718354Subjects--Topical Terms:

423211
Language, Linguistics.

Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language.
LDR:06333nam 2200385 4500 001 377816
005 20130403093021.5
008 130522s2011 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781124718354
035 $a (UMI)AAI3460252
035 $a AAI3460252
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Wier, Thomas R. $3 506683
245 1 0 $a Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language.
300 $a 339 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 72-09, Section: A, page: 3246.
500 $a Adviser: Amy Dahlstrom.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2011.
520 $a This dissertation is an exploration of the idea of linguistic features: what we mean by them, and how they relate to each other.
520 $a To begin with, in Chapter Two, I will lay out the bare rudiments of Georgian grammar on a modular basis. After introducing the basics nominal and verbal morphological traits in question, I will introduce basic constituent, grammatical-functional and argument-structural constructions that will be instrumental in understanding later chapters.
520 $a In Chapter Three, I will address claims that the 'inverted' perfect series and the 'antipassivized' present series of verbs are examples of obligatory grammatical function changing. I will show that the otherwise elegant inversion analysis of Harris (1981) actually fails on many of the grounds which make it famous: binding theory, subcategorization of object arguments, the behavior of quantifiers in 'tough'-constructions and inversion constructions, and person-function constraint constructions, despite appearances, are not genuine synchronic examples of grammatical function changing. After this, I will argue that many of the same problems of the inversion analysis are true of Palmer (1994)'s antipassivization analysis of the present series. Lastly, I will examine Holisky (1981)'s semantic arguments concerning case and agreement.
520 $a In Chapter Four, we will first look in closer detail at the basics of Georgian agreement, and then look at three prominent approaches in the theoretical literature that have wrestled with the Georgian system: Halle and Marantz (1993), Anderson (1992), and Stump (2001). Halle and Marantz (1993) propose the lexical realizational theory of Distributed Morphology. I examine a number of serious problems with this account, and conclude it is both too strong and too weak to account for the blocking phenomena in Georgian. Anderson (1992)'s A-morphous Morphology and Stump (2001)'s Paradigm Function Morphology both propose similar inferential realizational theories in which realizational rules are ordered in blocks, but disagree on whether the ordering can be reduced to Pan&dotbelow;inian elsewhere-principles. I argue that Anderson, who does not believe it can be so reduced, has the upper-hand empirically on the Pan&dotbelow;inian question, and then discuss problems of syntactic noun-incorporation in Old Georgian, violations of the 'no-phrase' constraint, and violations of anaphoric islands, all of which pose problems for nonmorphemic accounts, and which must be addressed before one can move on.
520 $a Chapter Five resolves many of the questions raised in Chapter Four by arguing that features must be modularly specified to deal with the paradoxes raised by both morphemic and amorphemic theories of morphology, and that interface procedures must be flexible enough to account for this fact. I then address the problem of what constrains rule-ordering in rule-blocks if not Stump's Pan&dotbelow;inian Determinism Hypothesis, and after an examination of different kinds of feature theories conclude that distinct feature morphological geometries must exist, and that these act as a constraint on rule ordering. I also devise positive criteria from allomorphy for the presence, in morphology, of a category of third person.
520 $a Chapter Six turns away from strict considerations of morphology and examines syntactic hierarchies in Georgian and other Kartvelian languages by focusing specially on the so-called Person-Case constraint (my person-function constraint). I review the argument of Bonet (1994), who claims, based on data from various Romance languages, that dysharmonic associations of person features with particular grammatical functions in ditransitive constructions is strictly a question of what case the argument receives, because case and grammatical functions are isomorphic. I argue that data from Georgian show this cannot be so because of the differing case arrays across tense-series. I then provide data from other Kartvelian languages, some with radically different case arrays, that reinforces this conclusion. Then, I turn to an alternative semantically based account of Haspelmath (2004), who argues that the constraint is one of dysharmonic association of person features with thematic roles. I argue that evidence from causative constructions as well as nominalizations argues against a semantic account. Lastly, I argue that evidence from agreement and from appositives suggests that, syntactically, Georgian lacks a feature for third person.
520 $a In Chapter Seven, I will conclude by broadening my discussion of feature hierarchies with a typological perspective, so that we can assess what significance the previous chapters really have. I will review the classical celebrated but often misunderstood analysis of feature hierarchies in Silverstein (1976), in which feature hierarchies were argued to be the epiphenomenal result of unidirectional (i.e. asymmetrical) neutralization of semantic features. I will then look at two recent critical reviews of Silverstein's analysis: Filimonova (2005) and Bickel (2008).
520 $a Finally, in the Epilogue, I summarize what the larger claims of the thesis are and address issues that bear further consideration. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
590 $a School code: 0330.
650 4 $a Language, Linguistics. $3 423211
690 $a 0290
710 2 $a The University of Chicago. $b Linguistics. $3 423514
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 72-09A.
790 1 0 $a Dahlstrom, Amy, $e advisor
790 1 0 $a Friedman, Victor $e committee member
790 1 0 $a Sadock, Jerry $e committee member
790 1 0 $a Silverstein, Michael $e committee member
790 $a 0330
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2011
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3460252