Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:46:17.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

G. G. Corbett
G. G. Corbett
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The aim of this paper is to justify the use of syntactic features, to show how they relate to semantic features and how they operate in syntax and morphology. 1 Particular stress is laid on the elimination of redundant features. First we shall review the literature, to show why syntactic features should require justification. Then, as an illustration, we shall investigate the feature of animacy in Russian in all components of the grammar in which it has a rôle.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1981 , pp. 55 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Babby, L. H. (1976). Morphology in a transformational grammar of Russian: inflectional categories. International Review of Slavic Linguistics I. 241–272.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1967 a). Syntactic features in morphology: general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. In To Honor Roman Jakobson I. The Hague: Mouton. 239–270.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1967 b). Some semantic universals of German adjectivals. FL 3. 1–36.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1969). On certain problems of semantic representations. FL 5. 153–184.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1971). On classifying semantic features. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds), Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press. 410–435.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coats, H. S. (1972). On describing analogy in the evolution of Russian noun inflection. Papers in Linguistics 5. 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coats, H. S. (1978). A study of inflectional change: the genitive-accusative in East Slavic. In Birnbaum, H. (ed.), American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, I, Linguistics and Poetics. Columbus: Slavica. 234–255.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1978 a). Morphological classification of cases in the Slavonic languages. Slavonic and East European Review, 56. 177–191.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1978 b). Genitive-accusatives in Slavic: the rules and their motivation. International Review of Slavic Linguistics, 3. 27–42.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1979). Predicate agreement in Russian (Slavonic Monographs, 7). University of Birmingham, Department of Russian Language and Literature.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (forthcoming (a)). Animacy in Russian and other Slavonic languages: where syntax and semantics fail to match. In Chvany, C. V. & Brecht, R. D. (eds), Forms and meanings: morphosyntax in Slavic, Columbus, Slavica.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (forthcoming (b)). Neutral agreement. To appear in Quinquereme – New Studies in Modern Languages.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (forthcoming (c)). Naturalness and markedness in morphological rules: the problem of animacy in Russian.Google Scholar
Dietze, J. (1973). Die Entwicklung der altrussischen Kategorie der Beseeltheit im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 18. 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwall, W. O. (1969). Government, concord and feature-change rules. Glossa 3. 200–240.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. R. (1971). Theoretical implications of some global phenomena in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Distributed by University Microfilms, 71–27, 891.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. R. (1973). Cyclic attraction into networks of coreference. Lg 49. 1–18.Google Scholar
Gallis, A. (1968). Ein eigentümlicher Gebrauch des Gen.-Akk. bei Trediakovskij und Lomonosov. Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves. Brussels. Tome XVIII (1966–67). 117–121.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1969). Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Revised version published (1972) as Studies in African Linguistics: Supplement 3. Los Angeles: University of California. (Page references to 1972 printing).Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Language, 2nd ed.Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1967). Recent issues in semantic theory. FL 3. 124–194.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Lg 39. 170–210.Google Scholar
Reprinted in Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds), (1964) The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 479–518. (References to 1964 printing.)Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lightner, T. M. (1963). A note on the formulation of phonological rules. Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, M.I.T., 68:187–189.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics 1 and 2. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968). The role of semantics in a grammar. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 124–169.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1962). A functional view of language. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. & Oreŝnik, J. (1973). Language-particular rules and explanation in syntax. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A Festschrjft for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 419–459.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1973). Nouniness. In Fujimura, O. (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 137–257.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1970). Phonological and morphological markedness. In Bierwisch, M. & Heidolph, K. E. (eds), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 286–294.Google Scholar
Shevelov, G. Y. (1963). The syntax of modern literary Ukrainian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Thelin, N. B. (1971). On stress assignment and vowel reduction in contemporary standard Russian. (Studia Slavica Upsaliensia 9). Uppsala: Skriv Service.Google Scholar
Vanek, A. L. (1970). Aspects of subject-verb agreement. (Studies in Slavic Linguistics i). University of Alberta. Reprinted (1977) (Slavic Linguistics 5). Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1966). Explorations in semantic theory. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Current trends in linguistics, vol. 3, Theoretical foundations The Hague: Mouton. 395–477.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1967). On arguing with Mr. Katz: a brief rejoinder. FL 3. 284–287.Google Scholar