Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Morphosyntax / Re: Evidence for Universality of TP, DP, etc.
« Last post by Daniel on April 25, 2018, 11:39:11 PM »
There is no consensus, and opinions vary a lot with different theoretical approaches:
--For older Generative approaches (for example, Government & Binding), the assumption would be that languages have exactly the same structures (with some variation based on different parameter settings).
--For current Minimalist approaches to Generative syntax, labels are less important, and structure is freer, determined only by Merge, features, and whatever other (minimal!) assumptions a particular iteration of the theory makes.
--And of course for something like Construction Grammar, there is no assumption (or maybe even no possibility) that different languages have the same structures.

So, in short, it depends!

But regarding these specific points, you'll find quite a bit of research if you search for it regarding TP and DP specifically. "Tenseless" is a keyword that will bring up a lot of results if you also combine that with other Generative keywords. Whether any truly tenseless languages exist is currently an ongoing debate, and while conceptually an interesting one, it isn't clear to me that different researchers are really making the same claims or maybe just talking past each other when they argue about it.
It might be a little harder to find the papers about DP, but they're definitely out there.

Summary: my advice is to not look for broad overviews (because either you won't find them or you'll find opinions biased by theoretical assumptions) and instead look for papers specifically about TP and DP cross-linguistically. It's an active topic of research now.


Some quick search results:
On TP you could start here with some references about "tenselessness" but be sure to get a variety of sources because this is an open, and often debated, topic:

On DP, for example:
Again, researchers disagree about whether languages vary in this regard, as well as whether individual languages are always consistent in using NP or DP or might mix them.
Morphosyntax / Re: All of the students haven't submitted the paper
« Last post by Daniel on April 25, 2018, 11:30:40 PM »
Yes, the same ambiguity works for me. It would be strongly biased by intonation, I think, though.

"None of the students" would be the more naturally way to indicate that no papers have been submitted, so the default interpretation is probably that SOME students have not yet (but some have), especially if you add "yet" to the end of the sentence.

However, structurally, I would like "all" to take wide scope, so this makes the sentence somewhat awkward. The same applies to "every", though, and (1) is awkward in the same way, but I'd say (1) is more likely to be interpreted as "No one has" than "Some haven't yet".
Morphosyntax / All of the students haven't submitted the paper
« Last post by binumal on April 25, 2018, 10:35:24 PM »
Among the following sentences ,the first one is well known example for scope ambiguity .Is the second one too ambiguous in the same way.
1. Every student hasn't submitted the paper
2.All of the students haven't submitted the paper
Thanks in advance
Morphosyntax / Re: Evidence for Universality of TP, DP, etc.
« Last post by binumal on April 25, 2018, 10:31:14 PM »
As for Universality of T.P ,D.P etc ,the fact is that there isnt any conclusive proof that these categories are Universal. On the contrary, there are claims in the literature that certain languages lack certain categories ( for eg. the claims of Jayaseelan,K.A  that    T.P is  in Malayalam  , the absence of D.P in Japanese(N.Fukui ?) etc.) .But ,still most of the   researchers does not fully endorse their views.
Morphosyntax / Re: Evidence for Universality of TP, DP, etc.
« Last post by panini on April 25, 2018, 09:57:22 AM »
Does this mean you think that Malay (for example) cannot for expressions referring to time? If you grant that "time" is a concept that can be expressed in Malay, that means it is in the semantics of Malay, somehow, and therefore it has a syntactic correlate. Not that I actually believe that, but that is the basic assumption of current nano-semantics, as I understand it.  If you are familiar with generative semantics, the fundamental assumptions are pretty much the same, and are based on a universal notion of "human thought".
Morphosyntax / Evidence for Universality of TP, DP, etc.
« Last post by Morphosyntax on April 25, 2018, 05:50:07 AM »
Malay and Mandarin are languages that do not have morphological tense and inflection and Japanese is one that does not have determiners. What evidence is there to say that TP/IP/DP are universal? This also raises the question of what caregory to use in syntactic representation, i.e. what projection to use instead of TP/IP to harbour the subject of a clause. I can imagine the answer going along the lines of…

“Although Malay/Mandarin doesn’t have morphological tense, it still does have time reference and tense in the semantics of an event/clause and the same is so in all languages.”

… but I’m not entirely sure. If anyone could point me towards any literature arguing the universality of these categories, that’d be great.
Outside of the box / Re: Medieval manuscript reveals proto-Romance language.
« Last post by Daniel on April 24, 2018, 02:11:09 AM »
When it is independently verified, please let us know.
Having read the replies it becomes apparent that I need to explain scientific protocol. That is to say: I have presented a new paradigm and solution. Thus, it is now up to others to test the paradigm and solution without me in the room: i.e. to independently verify. I can see no evidence that anyone has even attempted this. Furthermore, it should always be done entirely dispassionately.

Besides which, and I repeat, many southern European scholars have already kindly done so and they are now using the solution to translate the manuscript for their own fields of research.

Lastly, did it never occur that someone would eventually work it out?
It was merely a matter of applying rational logic in combination with prior knowledge of linguistics and historical context.
Language-specific analysis / Re: What do you think conservative language?
« Last post by panini on April 21, 2018, 02:55:53 PM »
I guess you're asking, why do some languages seem to change less or more slowly, compared to others. The standard story is that there must be some unknown sociological factors, but I think that's a bit facile. It is certainly true that if you have two linguistically different populations smashing into each other, you are likely to have substantial changes in language resulting. E.g. Moroccan Arabic is much further from Classical Arabic because originally Moroccans spoke Berber; Saudi dialects of Arabic tend to be the most conservative, correlated with the fact that Arabic was originally spoken only there. I don't think, though, that this really explains why Norwegian is so different from Old Norse, and Icelandic isn't.

The one social fact that does seem to have a connection to language change is urbanization. Seoul Korean has changed more from Middle Korean, compared to other especially rural dialects, and in general, linguists have found that cities are leaders of language change. Perhaps this is because cities attract speakers from many dialect areas, and what emerges is a mashing together and sanding-down of dialect differences.

Typology and Descriptive Linguistics / Re: Formal & informal "you"
« Last post by giselberga on April 21, 2018, 11:49:26 AM »
I am korean native speaker

The Formal “you” and informal “you” in Korean are The Informal is 너/네/니 and the Formal is 저희
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]