Results 1 -
6 of
6
Null Vs. Overt Subjects In Turkish Discourse: A Centering Analysis
, 1996
"... NULL vs. OVERT SUBJECTS IN TURKISH DISCOURSE: A CENTERING APPROACH Author: Umit Deniz Turan Supervisor: Ellen F. Prince The purpose of this study is to explore an aspect of discourse coherence which involves anaphoric relations between utterances with special emphasis on subjects in Turkish. Based ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 22 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
NULL vs. OVERT SUBJECTS IN TURKISH DISCOURSE: A CENTERING APPROACH Author: Umit Deniz Turan Supervisor: Ellen F. Prince The purpose of this study is to explore an aspect of discourse coherence which involves anaphoric relations between utterances with special emphasis on subjects in Turkish. Based on an analysis of published narratives, three complementary and interrelated questions are addressed concerning discourse anaphora: 1. Which expressions are available for subsequent definite reference? 2. What factors determine the most salient entity in Turkish among a set of potential antecedents for subsequent definite reference? 3. What are the functions of a particular referential expression (null vs. overt pronouns vs. full NPs), depending on appropriate discourse conditions? An exploration regarding question 1 indicates that, while some NPs evoke discourse entities, other NPs do not. These two types of NPs represent referential and nonreferential expressions and they can function as ...
`The Semantics of Syntax. A Minimalist Approach to Grammar' by Denis Bouchard. A Review.
"... some specific claims about the nature of G--Semantics. Its elements are semantic primitives, which we write in capital letters, e. g. HOUSE, FEAR. These primitives do not necessarily correspond to words. Structures are composed from primitives by binary merge according to the Universal Bracketing S ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
some specific claims about the nature of G--Semantics. Its elements are semantic primitives, which we write in capital letters, e. g. HOUSE, FEAR. These primitives do not necessarily correspond to words. Structures are composed from primitives by binary merge according to the Universal Bracketing Schema. [ A 0 A B] or [ B 0 A B] This means that if two structures with label A and B are merged one of them projects and its bar level is increased by one. No further assumptions on X--bar syntax are being made. In the structures, non--overt elements may 1 I wish to thank Markus Steinbach for useful discussions. 1 Figure 1: y @ @ @ @ TO \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma TO 0 @ @ @ @ FEAR \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma FEAR 0 @ @ @ @ CAUSE<
“Optimal ” Linking for Modern Greek Psych Verb Constructions
, 2001
"... Modern Greek (henceforward MG) distinguishes three classes of Psych Verb Constructions (henceforward PVCs): 1. The Experiencer-Subject Psych Verb Constructions (henceforward ESPVCs). This class of PVCs includes verbs like miso (hate), agapo (love), or latrevo (adore), which feature a nominative expe ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Modern Greek (henceforward MG) distinguishes three classes of Psych Verb Constructions (henceforward PVCs): 1. The Experiencer-Subject Psych Verb Constructions (henceforward ESPVCs). This class of PVCs includes verbs like miso (hate), agapo (love), or latrevo (adore), which feature a nominative experiencer in agreement with the verb, and an accusative theme:
