By Pierre Larrivée
Why do languages switch? The idea that the grammar of negation evolves in response to cycles is checked out from the behaviour of unfavorable goods and structures, as a rule throughout the heritage of English and French. The reports express that the adaptation inside a language at any given aspect of historical past is simply too nice for cycles to be invoked as an self sustaining mechanism of grammar swap. as a substitute, version can be understood via the styles of evolution of person (families of) goods.
Read Online or Download The Evolution of Negation TILSM 235 PDF
Best grammar books
Studying approximately Language is an exhilarating and bold sequence of introductions to primary subject matters in language, linguistics and similar parts. The books are designed for college kids of linguistics and people who are learning language as a part of a much broader direction. Cognitive Linguistics explores the concept language displays our adventure of the realm.
Point 2 - Cambridge English: MoversThe lecturers ebook at each point contains the reply key, photocopiable checks and audio transcripts.
- Grammar in Progress: Glow Essays for Henk Van Riemsdijk
- Word-Order Based Grammar
- The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology
- WH-Clauses In English: Aspects of Theory and Description. (Language and Computers 34) (Language & Computers)
Additional resources for The Evolution of Negation TILSM 235
T didn’t-Op1] . [VP see [DP Op2 anything ]] . , where Op2 undergoes head-movement to Op1. The incorporation operation has consequences for the distribution of NPI any, given the following corollary of the account of incorporation and defective Goals put forward by Roberts (2010a): (22) A Probe P can act as an incorporation host for a Goal G only if P lacks an EPP-feature capable of attracting G. The reason for this is that an EPP-feature on the Probe causes the Goal to move to the speciﬁer of the Probe, but if the Goal is defective, it will have to incorporate.
From a formal perspective, one way of understanding this would be to view it in a way similar to question-answer pairs in languages that make use of verbal forms to express positive answers, another polarity-related context (cf. Holmberg 2001, 2003 and also Aboh 2010 for discussion). In these cases, answers necessarily require identical replication of the declarative counterpart of the associated question, part of which then undergoes elision. In the present case, this identical replication requirement would clearly entail that no-one is in fact associated with focus in B just as it evidently is in A and in doublenegation structures more generally; it is only the presence of a further (contrastive) focus on the predicate that leads to the already-mentioned focus being ‘‘downgraded’’ in the context of the response.
This reading involves scope-splitting in the sense that it appears that the modal is scopally interpreted ‘‘in between’’ not and every, despite the fact that the latter elements are generally (but not universally: see Sportiche 2005) thought to belong to a constituent which excludes the modal. Since the modal has scope over the universal, the universal has a de dicto interpretation. Following Lechner (2005), who follows Penka & von Stechow (2001), we take it that in examples like (8), not every pearl bears a feature [þneg] which requires it to appear in the local scope of an abstract operator NOT, and an interpretive convention regulates the transition from the morphologically negative QP to its contradictory.
The Evolution of Negation TILSM 235 by Pierre Larrivée