{"title":"拟声重述与相位不可渗透性条件的违反","authors":"Güliz Güneş","doi":"10.3390/languages9050162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), phasal domains are opaque to further syntactic operations. Some researchers claim that the PIC applies in the phonological component of grammar (i.e., at PF). Others, however, claim that there is no PIC at PF. I use data from Turkish to provide new arguments against the PIC-at-PF view and conclude that the PIC can only possibly hold in syntax. I show that the PIC-at-PF view is too restrictive, as it makes incorrect predictions about variable prosodic domain formation and optional prosodic variation in Turkish.","PeriodicalId":52329,"journal":{"name":"Languages","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prosodic Rephrasing and Violations of the Phase Impenetrability Condition\",\"authors\":\"Güliz Güneş\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/languages9050162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), phasal domains are opaque to further syntactic operations. Some researchers claim that the PIC applies in the phonological component of grammar (i.e., at PF). Others, however, claim that there is no PIC at PF. I use data from Turkish to provide new arguments against the PIC-at-PF view and conclude that the PIC can only possibly hold in syntax. I show that the PIC-at-PF view is too restrictive, as it makes incorrect predictions about variable prosodic domain formation and optional prosodic variation in Turkish.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Languages\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Languages\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9050162\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9050162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prosodic Rephrasing and Violations of the Phase Impenetrability Condition
According to the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), phasal domains are opaque to further syntactic operations. Some researchers claim that the PIC applies in the phonological component of grammar (i.e., at PF). Others, however, claim that there is no PIC at PF. I use data from Turkish to provide new arguments against the PIC-at-PF view and conclude that the PIC can only possibly hold in syntax. I show that the PIC-at-PF view is too restrictive, as it makes incorrect predictions about variable prosodic domain formation and optional prosodic variation in Turkish.