Andersons


Title of the Work
Student’s Name
Name of Institution
Title of the Work
The word occupies a central place in the system of language. However, despite the central status of this unit, there is no a common definition of the term ‘word’. Among a huge number of definitions, even at the present stage of the development of linguistic science, it is impossible to single out the one that will not cause questions or doubts on the part of linguists.
The word is a shortest unit of language, capable of denoting the phenomena of reality (objects, signs, actions, states, relations, etc.), expressing feelings, emotions, the will of a person. Words maximize the fulfillment of the main function of any language, namely to serve as a means of people communication, to provide mutual understanding between them. This is confirmed, in particular, by the fact that the measure of language proficiency (for example, when studying foreign languages) is determined primarily by the volume of the learned vocabulary of another's language.
There are a lot of words in every language. If, for example, the number of sounds/phonemes is calculated in dozens of languages, the number of morphemes (not counting the root ones, which are often equal to individual words) are hundreds, the number of words is tens and hundreds of thousands. In this case, the words in each language are very heterogeneous both in terms of material structure, and in semantics and the functions performed. Thus it becomes clear why the word is very difficult to define. This is explained by the variety of words from the structural-grammatical and semantic points of view (compare, for example, the noun and the article).
In linguistics, attempts are constantly made to clarify the concept of a word with all its essential features taken into account. It is important to define it so that it would allow the word to be opposed to all other units of the language (phonemes, morphemes, sentences). such signs of words are:
1) phonetic design, that is, the expression of a sound or a combination of sounds;
2) semantic valence, that is, the presence of meaning (the word differs from sound)
3) non-double-braking, that is, the inability to have more than one basic verbal stress (the word differs from the phrase, including phraseology)
4) lexico-grammatical relation, that is, belonging to a certain lexico-grammatical category, or part of speech (the word differs from the morpheme)
5) lexical impenetrability, that is, the inability to "insert" inside the word other verbal units (the word differs, for example, from free phrases, prepositional-case constructions
The definition of a word is not universal: there are languages ​​in which not all words are characterized by the above set of characteristics. Traditionally, the notion of a word in familiar languages ​​is based on the so-called spelling or phonetic word, but in particular spelling as a science has expressed its propensity for conservatism in order to ensure linguistic norms, therefore, there are a number of questions, for example, why the negative form of the English modal verb Can not this be one lexeme, and the identical in grammatical features might not - are these two words?
Part of the morphological rules belong to the lexical component of language, and another part belong to the syntactic part. This hypothesis is known as the split morphology and is associated primarily with the name of S. Anderson.
According to Anderson, this should be done on the basis of the traditional opposition between inflection and derivation: word-formation rules refer to lexical (since they only increase the number of elements of the lexical component, forming new units in the lexicon), inflectional rules should be part of the syntactic level, since inflectional morphology is the encoding of syntactic relations by morphological means. The laconic formulation of Anderson was often cited: "Inflectional morphology is the one that is relevant to the syntax" (Anderson 1982: 587).
Thus, according to Anderson, the stems should come to the input of syntactic rules, not the word forms: the values ​​of inflectional indicators are "calculated" from the syntactic structure, and their form is determined by the phonological component. Anderson insists on the need for rules that translate the bundles of syntactic signs directly into phoneme chains, and in a number of articles, he elaborated a formal device for describing the word change in this way, called "Extended Word and Paradigm Theory".
Anderson is practically the only theoretician of generativism, explicitly proclaiming the importance of dichotomy word-change/word formation for constructing a formal language model.
At first glance, Anderson's theory has many advantages over other views, but its too rigid and formal initial setups ultimately put its supporters in front of a number of intractable problems. The main of these problems, in my opinion, is that in languages, ​​the boundary between inflectional and derivational meanings (if it is to be carried out) actually does not pass where there is a boundary between syntactic and non-syntactic meanings, while Anderson attempts to identify these two divisions. This identification proves to be very successful as long as it is a question of coherent or case categories (occupying, indeed, the main place in Anderson's reasoning); However, to reconcile linguistic intuition, which requires considering the verb tense or the number of the noun as the inflectional category, with the postulates of the "split morphology" is much more difficult. Anderson's assertion that word formation (unlike inflection) is idiomatic and irregular, also fails to test the typological material: at least in agglutinative languages ​​(and, to a lesser extent, in many
Others), there is a whole class of unlimited-productive word-building indicators
В концепции одного из ведущих специалистов в области морфологии и общей теории языка, новозеландского лингвиста Эндрю Карстейрса-Маккарти [8] различение морфологии и синтаксиса выступает как принципиальное. В то время как среди англоязычных трудов распространены взгляды, согласно которым морфология сводится к синтаксису, морфологические феномены вполне могут быть распределены между лексикой и синтаксисом, он последовательно отстаивает самостоятельность морфологии (не отрицая, естественно, ее теснейших связей с синтаксисом и словарем); ср. содержание второй главы “Why there is morphology: traditional accounts” в [8]. Если морфологию понимать просто как учение о формах (в отрыве от их семантического наполнения и особенностей выбора на оси селекции), то, действительно, можно говорить о полной исчерпанности собственно морфологической проблематики: самые полные списки парадигм со всеми формальными модификациями давно стали достоянием грамматик и грамматических словарей. Однако, когнитивно-ориентированная морфология исходит из того предположения, что выбор формы обусловливаются особенностями человеческого интеллекта и коммуникации, то есть когнитивной способностью человека: «... исчерпывающее описание языка не может быть дано без полного описания человеческой когниции» [1, с. 63], и это в полной мере справедливо по отношению такому разделу языкознания, как морфология. В.А. Плунгян [9, с. 78] справедливо называет важнейшим свойством грамматического значения «когнитивную вы-деленность», которая в свою очередь предопределяет такое основополагающее качество грамматического значения, как облигаторность. Научная библиотека КиберЛенинка: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/lingvistika-grammatika-lingvistika-grammatika-teksta-soderzhanie-i-korrelyatsiya-ponyatiy#ixzz4gVZEvg4SВторая глава (Why there is morphology: traditional accounts) посвящена доказательству того, что морфология действительно существует и несводима к синтаксису. Это реакция на то, что среди англоязычных работ много таких, где делаются попытки распределить морфологические феномены между синтаксисом, фонологией и словарем, морфологию нередко рассматривают с исторической точки зрения как продукт распада более ранней системы, где были только фонология и синтаксис. И действительно, если грамматика нужна для того, чтобы семантические отношения между значащими единицами в высказывании были предсказуемы, то почему бы не обойтись одним синтаксисом?
Но, с другой стороны, если морфология представляет собой лишь досадное недоразумение или в лучшем случае побочный продукт эволюции, почему же тогда язык не стремится немедленно от нее избавиться? Почему в языке нет механизма, который бы не позволял словам превращаться в морфемы, блокировал бы развитие алломорфии, запрещал идиоматические приращения значения и т. д.? А такого механизма очевидным образом нет - иначе морфология в языках мира встречалась бы гораздо реже. Более того, морфология, как отмечает Э. Карстейрс-Маккарти, может накладывать свой отпечаток на регулярные фонетические соответствия при развитии языков (ср. [Бурлак, Старостин 2005: 201-202; Иткин 2007: 75-79]).
Источник: http://naukarus.com/a-carstairs-mccarthy-the-evolution-of-morphology-oxford-oxford-university-press-2010-253-p-studies-in-the-evolution-of-laThe label ‘Extended Word-and-Paradigm’ was introduced in ThomasFlinders (1981), a collection of papers applying Anderson’s (1982) model in various languages. 2 The layering which Anderson posits for some morphosyntactic representations is quite independent of the ‘layering’ imposed by the successive application of morphological processes or spell-out rules or by level-ordering. The prefixes g- of the M-set and v- of the V-set are associated with different layers in the first sense but the same layer in the second sense (see section 7.3.1). The term ‘layered morphology’ used by Simpson and Withgott (1986) (section 7.3.2) relates to the second sense. Lieber (1989) discusses layered morphosyntactic representations like Anderson’s from the point of view of feature percolation (see section 2.4). 3 Carstairs (1987a) uses the term take-over for a referral such that, in some context, property A is referred to property B and the realisation of the two properties A and B looks like that of B alone in other contexts. In such circumstances, B can be said to ‘take over’ A. The Systematic Homonymy Claim in effect states that noncumulative homonymies must be take-overs of a certain kind. Plank (1986) proposes that there is an absolute upper limit of ‘about 30’ on the number of distinct exponents available for nominal inflection in any language. This means that a language which has an elaborate Case-system, cumulation of Case and Number, and more than one declension-type must inevitably display some inflectional homonymy. 4 Anderson (1982) regards inflectional spell-out as taking place ‘outside’ the lexicon, and Zwicky’s modular approach commits him to a similar view. They therefore claim that morphology is split into lexical (derivational) and nonlexical parts, and implicitly that derivational processes cannot follow inflectional ones. For discussion of this ‘splitmorphology hypothesis’, see Lieber (1981b), Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1984), Bochner (1984), Perlmutter (1988). 5 Rule (12) as it stands is insufficient to account for all stem-vowel changes in the Past Subjunctive, because sometimes more than just ‘ordinary’ umlaut is involved; for example, helfen ‘help’, Past Indicative half, has in standard written German a Past Subjunctive form hülfe, not hälfe. Like Anderson, we will ignore this difficulty. Rule (11) implicitly denies that the -e of lobte, brachte, etc. is introduced by the same rule that introduces -t-; the correctness of this assumption does not matter for our purposes. Anderson’s suggestion that the stem bring- is marked [-Past] has affinities with Mayerthaler’s ‘markedness reversal’ (see chapter 8). 6 Another problem for the Elsewhere Condition is double Plural marking in Breton nouns; see Anderson (1986) and Stump (1989). 7 Constraints similar in appearance to the Elsewhere Condition have been proposed for reasons to do with the syntactic rather than the phonological end of morphology. These are the No Vacuous Affixation Principle (Marantz 1984:128): ‘For a certain class of features F, an Notes 263 [alpha Fi ] affix may attach only to a [-alpha Fi ] root’, and the Principle of Morphological Nonredundancy (Zubizarreta 1985:278): ‘Attachment of redundant morphology is prohibited’. The No Vacuous Affixation Principle is meant to ensure, for example, that the English Passive suffix -en, which is marked [-transitive], is attached only to [+transitive] verbs. 8 Carstairs’s Peripherality Constraint has nothing to do with the Peripherality Condition proposed in metrical phonology. The coincidence of terminology is unfortunate. 9 The acute accent in the Hungarian examples indicates a long vowel. 10 For some thoughts on reconciling phonological lookahead with layered morphology, see Carstairs (1990).References
Zurif, E. & Swinney, D. The neuropsychology of language. Retrieved from: http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/Zurif_Swinney_Handbook1994.pdfJakobson, R. (1995) On language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Triola, M. F. (2015). Essentials of statistics. Boston: Pearson.
Ott, L., & Longnecker, M. (2010). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
GraphPadSoftware. Interpreting results: Skewness and kurtosis. GraphPadSoftware. Retrieved from: https://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/6/statistics/index.htm?stat_skewness_and_kurtosis.htmPollan, M. (2006). The omnivore’s dilemma. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Bell, J. K., & Cohn A. (1968). …
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C. R., Berry, A., Harlow, T., & Bach, J. S. (1993). . . .
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C. R., Berry, A., Harlow, T., & Bach, J. S . . . Last Author’s Name (1993). . . .
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up
poor. New York: Russell Sage.
Helfer, M. S., Keme, R. S., & Drugman, R. D. (1997). The battered child (5th ed.).
Foundation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bagchi, A. (1996). Conflicting nationalisms: The voice of the subaltern in Mahasweta Devi’s Bashai Tudu. Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, 15(1), 41–50.
Krugman, A. (2007, May 21). Fear of eating. New York Times, p. A1.
Shiva, V. (2006, February). Bioethics: A third world issue. Nativeweb. Retrieved from http://www.nativeweb.org.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2004, July). Drinking water standards. Retrieved from US EPA website http://water.epa.gov/drink
https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://owl.english.purdue.edu//media/pdf/20110928111055_949.pdf&chrome=true

Приложенные файлы

  • docx 18047825
    Размер файла: 41 kB Загрузок: 0

Добавить комментарий