摘要
以下是内容的简短摘录，而不是摘要:由:Grammatika prilagatel 'nogo: Tipologija和“jektivnosti i atributivnosti”由p.v. Graščenkov Egor Tsedryk p.v. Graščenkov审查。形容词语法:形容词和定语的类型学]。莫斯科:Izdatel'skij dom JaSK, 2018。432页。不参考词类(名词、动词、形容词、副词、介词等)来描述一种给定语言的句法特性似乎是不可思议的。它们继承自知名语言的传统语法，通常被认为是理所当然的。尽管如此，人们可能想知道它们是否是通用的，以及语言如何在自己的系统中对它们进行编码。Graščenkov(以下简称:G)在他的书中以形容词为中心，从跨语言学的角度审视了这一范畴的形态句法特征，其中俄语是最具代表性的(除了是书中的语言)。正如作者从一开始就指出的那样，俄语包含了一个很大的“与形容词类型学相关的语法现象区域”(第10页)然而，渴望获得跨语言资料的读者会从许多其他类型学上不相关的语言中发现大量的例子;除俄语外，还有奥塞梯语、阿尔泰语和纳达吉斯坦语。总的来说，这本书涵盖了一系列令人印象深刻的语言，在书的末尾列出(第427-29页)，共有73个符号。显然，如果不使用第二手资料来源，就不可能涵盖如此大量的数据，但作者也报告了他自己在实地工作期间收集的数据，包括在亚历山大·叶夫根涅维茨·基布里克的监督下进行的考察。在前言中，作者承认基布里克对他更广泛的形容词类型观的影响。他还提到了Ekaterina Anatolievna Lyutikova，她影响了他选择语法作为主要兴趣领域。事实上，G对句法分析的热情贯穿全书(第2章和第3章的部分结构将在2.2节[End Page 329]和2.3节中介绍)。这本书有四章，我将在§2中依次报告。从第2章开始，书中呈现的材料相当密集(有时超出了他们严格理解的形容词领域)。出于这个原因，我不得不把自己限制在精选的亮点上。出于解释的目的，我将主要集中在俄语上，只有几个例子取自阿尔泰语和纳赫-达吉斯坦语(见§2.4)。在§3中，我重新审视了G对俄语中形容词提出的扩展投影，并在§4中做了简要的总结。2. 总结2.1。第1章本书首先概述了词性的研究方法，提出了功能主义和生成主义的观点(例如，Croft 1991;Baker 2003)，并结合了俄罗斯语言学传统的见解，包括Peškovskij和Ščerba的作品。为了寻找词性的广义定义，G依赖于标记的概念，因为它在类型学研究中使用(理解为当词汇类别要实现功能时存在形式标记)。更准确地说，他将词性定义为“在给定语言中具有一组特定语法范畴的派生上未标记的分布类”(第34页)。此外，他把形容词放大，把定语挑出来作为一个独特的分布类别。事实上，本章(以及整本书)的关键信息是，形容词和定语应该在范畴层面上加以区分。定语是一种普遍功能，编码在句法头中，标记为a，而形容词可以作为语言特定的形容词类别实现(在欧洲语言中突出)，也可以作为动词类别的一部分实现(在东南亚语言中)。从术语的角度来看，俄语中的prilagatel 'noe(通常翻译为“形容词”)包括ad ' jektiv(特定语言意义上的形容词)和attributiv(更一般的定语功能)。前者是后者的一个子集，因此下面的蕴涵概括是成立的:一种语言中形容词类别的存在意味着定语功能的存在，而不是相反。也就是说，形容词在某种程度上是普遍的，A是一个普遍的范畴。在某些语言中，A表现为……Reviewed by:
- Grammatika prilagatel′nogo: Tipologija ad′′jektivnosti i atributivnosti by P. V. Graščenkov
- Egor Tsedryk
1. Introduction
It seems inconceivable to describe syntactic properties of a given language without reference to parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, and so on). They are inherited from traditional grammars of well-known languages and are usually taken for granted. Nonetheless, one may wonder whether or not they are universal and how languages encode them in their systems. Focusing on the adjective, Graščenkov (hereafter: G) in his book scrutinizes the morphosyntactic properties of this category from a crosslinguistic perspective, with Russian being the most representative (in addition to being the language of the book). As the author points out from the outset, Russian embraces a large "zone of grammatical phenomena typologically related to adjectives" (p. 10).1 Nevertheless, the reader avid for crosslinguistic data will find a wealth of examples from many other typologically unrelated languages; next to Russian, these are Ossetic, Altaic, and Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Overall, the book covers an impressive array of languages, listed at the end of the book (pp. 427–29), with a total of 73 tokens. It is clear that such a volume of data is impossible to cover without the use of secondary sources, but the author also reports data collected during his own fieldwork, including expeditions dating back to his work under the supervision of Aleksandr Evgenievič Kibrik. In the preface, the author acknowledges Kibrik's influence on his broader typological view of adjectives. He also mentions Ekaterina Anatolievna Lyutikova, who influenced his choice of syntax as a main field of interest. In fact, G's keenness for syntactic analysis emerges through the book (selected structures from chapters 2 and 3 will be presented in sections 2.2 [End Page 329] and 2.3). The book has four chapters, which I will report on sequentially in §2. Starting from chapter 2, the material presented in the book is quite dense (and sometimes it goes beyond the realm of adjectives in their strict understanding). For this reason, I have to limit myself to selected highlights. For expository purposes, I will mostly focus on Russian, with only a couple of examples taken from Altaic and Nakh-Daghestanian languages (see §2.4). In §3 I revisit the extended projections that G proposes for the adjectives in Russian, and I briefly conclude in §4.
2. Summary
2.1. Chapter 1
The book starts with an overview of approaches to parts of speech, presenting both functionalist and generativist perspectives (e.g., Croft 1991; Baker 2003) and incorporating insights from the Russian philological tradition, including works of Peškovskij and Ščerba. Seeking a broad definition of a part of speech, G relies on the concept of markedness, as it is used in typological studies (understood as the presence of formal markers when a lexical category is to fulfill a function). More precisely, he defines a part of speech as "a derivationally unmarked distributional class with a specific set of grammatical categories in a given language" (p. 34). Furthermore, zooming in on the adjectives, he singles out attributivity as a distinctive distributive class. In fact, the key message of this chapter (and of the entire book) is that adjectivity and attributivity should be differentiated on a categorial level. Attributivity is a universal function, encoded in a syntactic head, labeled as A, while adjectivity can be realized as a language-specific adjectival category (prominent in European languages) or it can be part of the verbal category (in languages of Southeast Asia). From the terminological point of view, prilagatel′noe in Russian (commonly translated as "adjective") includes both ad′′jektiv (adjective in its language-specific sense) and atributiv (a more general attributive function). The former forms a subset of the latter, and hence the following implicational generalization holds: the existence of the adjectival category in a language implies the existence of the attributive function, but not vice versa. That is, adjectives are universal to the extent to which A is a universal category.
In some languages, A is manifested...
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
