Showing papers in "Language in 1968"
113 citations
90 citations
TL;DR: This article claimed that what and which, both as interrogatives and as relatives, are derived from the same underlying representations, WH + SOME and WH + THAT, respectively, and a transformation called DEFINITIZATION which transforms indefinite determiners into definite ones is substantiated in the course of the argument.
Abstract: It is claimed that what and which, both as interrogatives and as relatives, are derived from the same underlying representations, WH + SOME and WH + THAT, respectively. It is assumed that, in the basic form of relativization, the two occurrences of the noun modified by a relative clause, in the matrix and the constituent sentences, may take different determiners. Indeed, all of the four possible ways of distributing the two basic determiners in the matrix and the constituent sentences are claimed to be realized in certain types of relativization. A transformation called DEFINITIZATION which transforms indefinite determiners into definite ones is substantiated in the course of the argument. Some considerations of semantic character are also added.
81 citations
74 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compared different alternative analyses of the Korean vowel system and concluded that the "descriptively adequate" solution from among several competing, non-unique, 'observationally adequate' solutions gives us the truest and simplest picture, when considered in conjunction with morphophonemic phonomena, and especially in the light of the generality that several phonological rules gain by this analysis.
Abstract: The following alternative analyses of the Korean vowel system are compared: (1) By the view of traditional phonemics, we recognize nine vowels /i e 0 e i a a u o/, plus autonomous /w y/. (2) By distinctive feature analysis, regarding w and y as on-glide realization of features [+round] and [+palatal], we recognize nineteen vowels: i e e i a a u o, wti we (= 0) "'e wa "a, Ye Ye Ya Ya Yu Y0. (3) By the view of generative phonology, we recognize four vowels-high i, low a, mid rounded o, and mid unrounded a-with w and y as on-glides, and with y as a fronting off-glide. (4) If we extend the analogy of off-glide y, and recognize a backing off-glide w, then we have three vowels, i a a, and two distributionally free glides, w and y. It is argued that alternative (3) gives us the truest and simplest picture, when considered in conjunction with morphophonemic phonomena, and especially in the light of the generality that several phonological rules gain by this analysis. It is hoped that this paper illustrates the possibility of choosing the 'descriptively adequate' solution from among several competing, non-unique, 'observationally adequate' solutions.
TL;DR: The problem is to find the most adequate formal device to represent this relation to represent English passives within the framework of current syntactic theory.
Abstract: 1. It has been recognized for a long time that English passives involve some sort of transformation, i.e. that they exhibit a regular structural relation to the corresponding active forms. Our problem is to find the most adequate formal device to represent this relation within the framework of current syntactic theory.l The earliest version of passive transformation was given by Chomsky in essentially the following form: (1) NP, Aux, Vt, NP', X =X NP', Aux + be + En, Vt, by + NP, X. Although this seems intuitively correct, it presents several difficulties when its full implications are examined in the light of the present theory of generative grammar. In particular, the derived phrase structure of the transform is not very clear, since no definite phrase structure can be assigned to the agentive byphrase, which is generated ex nihilo (Lees 1960:31). Katz and Postal (1964:72, 148-9) avoided this difficulty by deriving the passive from an underlying structure with a passive marker by + Passive, which they consider to be an expansion of the manner adverbial. The syntactic motivation for this treatment comes from the fact that the verbs that can undergo passivization are restricted to those that take manner adverbials freely. By making use of this passive marker, it is possible to dispense with subcategorial restrictions on the verb in the structure index of the passive transformation, since it can be non-transitive as well as purely transitive, provided it co-occurs with this marker (Katz and Postal, 149; Chomsky 1965:104-5). Thus the recent formulation by Katz-Postal-Chomsky would look like this:
TL;DR: In Asturian and Central-South Italian dialects, there is a category of collective nouns, pronouns, and definite articles which is usually called neutro de materia and considered a continuation of the Latin neuter as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: In Asturian and Central-South Italian dialects, there is a category of collective nouns, pronouns, and definite articles which is usually called 'neutro de materia' and considered a continuation of the Latin neuter. This category is not a neuter in the traditional sense of the term, but represents a grammatical category hitherto unrecognized in Romance, the mass-noun, and is to be traced to an (also unsuspected) survival of the Latin ablative, through its use in partitive constructions, first with and then without de 'of'.
TL;DR: In this article, a transformational derivation is proposed for the possessive adjective construction of modern French, for example ma maison'my house'. All of the rules involved are seen to have independent motivation.
Abstract: A brief introduction presents the data to be accounted for. In ?1, a transformational derivation is proposed for the possessive adjective construction of modern French, for example ma maison 'my house'. All of the rules involved are seen to have independent motivation. Several other possessive constructions are examined in ?2, and are shown to be surface reflexes of the intermediate stages required by the proposed derivation of possessive adjectives, thus constituting further evidence in support of this derivation. ?3 is a somewhat more speculative treatment of other possessive phenomena.
TL;DR: The authors consider two major Arabic sentence types and show that they are but different manifestations of a single deep structure, which can reveal underlying regularities in superficially unrelated sentence structures and simplify the analysis of relative clauses, subjectless sentences and sentences containing copula pronouns.
Abstract: latter case by a focus transformation which duplicates a noun before the verb and leaves the initial instance of the noun after the verb to be pronominalized. This pronominalization, in the case of subject nouns, is realized as the so-called number inflection of the verb. Such a treatment also simplifies the analysis of relative clauses, ostensibly subjectless sentences, and sentences containing copula pronouns. One of the major advantages of transformational-generative grammar is that it reveals underlying regularities in superficially unrelated sentence structures. In this paper we shall consider two major Arabic sentence types and show that they are but different manifestations of a single deep structure.