Bracketing Paradoxes resolved

IF 0.7 3区文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

Linguistic Review Pub Date : 2021-07-29 DOI:10.1515/tlr-2021-2072

Heather Newell

{"title":"Bracketing Paradoxes resolved","authors":"Heather Newell","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Bracketing Paradoxes (BPs) have been the subject of many different analyses since the 1970s. Each of these analyses have included BP-specific machinery to account for the apparent mismatch between the syntactico-semantic and morpho-phonological structures argued to be necessary for a complete analysis of this phenomenon. This article proposes that independently necessary operations and structures in the morpho-syntactic and phonological modules allow for an analysis of BPs that avoids postulating ad-hoc tools. Specifically, a system that includes cyclic (phasal) interpretation of the morpho-syntax in combination with a flat (CVCV) phonological framework avoids the emergence of paradoxical structures altogether. The discussion therefore includes both current morpho-syntactic and phonological analyses of each construction proposed to give rise to a BP; comparatives (unhappier), Level-ordering BPs (ungrammaticality), Phrasal BPs (modular grammarian), Compound BPs (particle physicist), Particle-verbs (podžëg ‘set fire’ [Russian]), and Reduplicated BPs (kwíita-kwíita ‘to pour a bit’ [Kihehe]). The proposal that a flat phonological framework is key in avoiding the paradoxical nature of BPs has implications for the correct structure of phonological representations generally.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"38 1","pages":"443 - 482"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2072","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Bracketing Paradoxes (BPs) have been the subject of many different analyses since the 1970s. Each of these analyses have included BP-specific machinery to account for the apparent mismatch between the syntactico-semantic and morpho-phonological structures argued to be necessary for a complete analysis of this phenomenon. This article proposes that independently necessary operations and structures in the morpho-syntactic and phonological modules allow for an analysis of BPs that avoids postulating ad-hoc tools. Specifically, a system that includes cyclic (phasal) interpretation of the morpho-syntax in combination with a flat (CVCV) phonological framework avoids the emergence of paradoxical structures altogether. The discussion therefore includes both current morpho-syntactic and phonological analyses of each construction proposed to give rise to a BP; comparatives (unhappier), Level-ordering BPs (ungrammaticality), Phrasal BPs (modular grammarian), Compound BPs (particle physicist), Particle-verbs (podžëg ‘set fire’ [Russian]), and Reduplicated BPs (kwíita-kwíita ‘to pour a bit’ [Kihehe]). The proposal that a flat phonological framework is key in avoiding the paradoxical nature of BPs has implications for the correct structure of phonological representations generally.

查看原文本刊更多论文

括号法悖论解决了

自20世纪70年代以来，括号悖论(bp)一直是许多不同分析的主题。每种分析都包含了bp特有的机制，以解释句法语义和形态音系结构之间明显的不匹配，这被认为是完整分析这种现象所必需的。本文提出，在形态-句法和音系模块中独立必要的操作和结构允许对bp进行分析，从而避免假设特设工具。具体来说，一个包括循环(相位)的形态语法解释与平面(CVCV)音系框架相结合的系统，完全避免了矛盾结构的出现。因此，讨论包括当前的形态句法和音系分析，提出每个结构产生一个BP;比较级(unhappier)、等级排序bp(不符合语法)、短语bp(模块化语法)、复合bp(粒子物理学家)、粒子动词(podžëg ' set fire '[俄语])和重复bp (kwíita-kwíita ' to pour a bit ' [Kihehe])。平坦的音系框架是避免bp矛盾本质的关键，这一建议对音系表征的正确结构具有普遍意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Linguistic Review Multiple-

CiteScore

1.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Linguistic Review aims at publishing high-quality papers in syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, within a framework of Generative Grammar and related disciplines, as well as critical discussions of theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Striving to be a platform for discussion, The Linguistic Review welcomes reviews of important new monographs in these areas, dissertation abstracts, and letters to the editor. The editor also welcomes initiatives for thematic issues with guest editors. The Linguistic Review is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope.