作为主体行为属性的地位

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Indogermanische Forschungen Pub Date : 2017-09-26 DOI:10.1515/if-2017-0006
Esther Le Mair, C. A. Johnson, M. Frotscher, T. Eythórsson, Jóhanna Barðdal
{"title":"作为主体行为属性的地位","authors":"Esther Le Mair, C. A. Johnson, M. Frotscher, T. Eythórsson, Jóhanna Barðdal","doi":"10.1515/if-2017-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A subject analysis of oblique subject-like arguments remains controversial even across modern languages where the available data are not finite: while such arguments are considered syntactic subjects in Icelandic, they have more often been analyzed as objects in Lithuanian, for example. This issue has been left relatively neglected for the ancient Indo-European languages outside of Sanskrit (Hock 1990), Gothic (Barðdal & Eythórsson 2012), and Ancient Greek (Danesi 2015). In this article, we address the status of oblique subject-like arguments in Old Irish, whose strict word-order enables us to compare the position (relative to the verb and other arguments) of nominative subject arguments of the canonical type to oblique subject-like arguments. We first establish a baseline for neutral word-order of nominative subjects and accusative objects and then compare their distribution to that of oblique subject-like arguments under two conditions: i) on a subject analysis and ii) on an object analysis. The word-order distribution differs significantly across the two contexts when the oblique arguments are analyzed as syntactic objects, but not when they are analyzed as syntactic subjects. These findings add to the growing evidence that oblique subject-like arguments should be analyzed as syntactic subjects, although their coding properties are non-canonical.","PeriodicalId":13385,"journal":{"name":"Indogermanische Forschungen","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/if-2017-0006","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Position as a behavioral property of subjects\",\"authors\":\"Esther Le Mair, C. A. Johnson, M. Frotscher, T. Eythórsson, Jóhanna Barðdal\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/if-2017-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract A subject analysis of oblique subject-like arguments remains controversial even across modern languages where the available data are not finite: while such arguments are considered syntactic subjects in Icelandic, they have more often been analyzed as objects in Lithuanian, for example. This issue has been left relatively neglected for the ancient Indo-European languages outside of Sanskrit (Hock 1990), Gothic (Barðdal & Eythórsson 2012), and Ancient Greek (Danesi 2015). In this article, we address the status of oblique subject-like arguments in Old Irish, whose strict word-order enables us to compare the position (relative to the verb and other arguments) of nominative subject arguments of the canonical type to oblique subject-like arguments. We first establish a baseline for neutral word-order of nominative subjects and accusative objects and then compare their distribution to that of oblique subject-like arguments under two conditions: i) on a subject analysis and ii) on an object analysis. The word-order distribution differs significantly across the two contexts when the oblique arguments are analyzed as syntactic objects, but not when they are analyzed as syntactic subjects. These findings add to the growing evidence that oblique subject-like arguments should be analyzed as syntactic subjects, although their coding properties are non-canonical.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indogermanische Forschungen\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/if-2017-0006\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indogermanische Forschungen\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/if-2017-0006\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indogermanische Forschungen","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/if-2017-0006","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: 6

摘要

摘要:即使在可用数据不有限的现代语言中,对倾斜的类主词论点的主词分析仍然存在争议:虽然这些论点在冰岛语中被视为句法主语,但在立陶宛语中,它们更经常被分析为宾语。对于梵语(Hock 1990)、哥特语(Barğdal&Eythórsson 2012)和古希腊语(Danesi 2015)之外的古代印欧语言来说,这个问题相对被忽视了。在这篇文章中,我们讨论了古爱尔兰语中倾斜主词样论点的地位,其严格的语序使我们能够比较规范类型的主格主词论点与倾斜主词类论点的位置(相对于动词和其他论点)。我们首先为主格主语和宾格宾语的中性语序建立了一个基线,然后在两个条件下将它们的分布与倾斜的类主语论点的分布进行比较:i)在主语分析上和ii)在宾语分析上。当斜论点作为句法对象进行分析时,两种语境中的语序分布有显著差异,而当它们作为句法主体进行分析时则没有。这些发现为越来越多的证据增添了新的内容,即尽管它们的编码特性是非规范的,但倾斜的类主语论点应该作为句法主语进行分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Position as a behavioral property of subjects
Abstract A subject analysis of oblique subject-like arguments remains controversial even across modern languages where the available data are not finite: while such arguments are considered syntactic subjects in Icelandic, they have more often been analyzed as objects in Lithuanian, for example. This issue has been left relatively neglected for the ancient Indo-European languages outside of Sanskrit (Hock 1990), Gothic (Barðdal & Eythórsson 2012), and Ancient Greek (Danesi 2015). In this article, we address the status of oblique subject-like arguments in Old Irish, whose strict word-order enables us to compare the position (relative to the verb and other arguments) of nominative subject arguments of the canonical type to oblique subject-like arguments. We first establish a baseline for neutral word-order of nominative subjects and accusative objects and then compare their distribution to that of oblique subject-like arguments under two conditions: i) on a subject analysis and ii) on an object analysis. The word-order distribution differs significantly across the two contexts when the oblique arguments are analyzed as syntactic objects, but not when they are analyzed as syntactic subjects. These findings add to the growing evidence that oblique subject-like arguments should be analyzed as syntactic subjects, although their coding properties are non-canonical.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Indogermanische Forschungen publishes contributions (essays and reviews) mainly in the areas of historical-comparative linguistics, historical linguistics, typology and characteristics of the languages of the Indogermanic language family. Essays on general linguistics and non-Indogermanic languages are also featured, provided that they coincide with the main focus of the journal with respect to methods and language history.
期刊最新文献
Tocharian B ore (plural wrenta) and nominal reduplication in Tocharian and PIE Avestan-Middle Persian tense mismatches in the Zand and the Middle Persian “performative preterite” Translation and transmission in the Armenian New Testament A note on the syntax of interrogation in Gothic Non-nominative subjects in Latin and Ancient Greek
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1