Cargando…
Clefts and their Relatives.
Cleft constructions have long presented an analytical challenge for syntactic theory. This monograph argues that clefts and related constructions cannot be analysed in a straightforwardly compositional manner. Instead, it proposes that the locality conditions on modification (for example by a restri...
| Clasificación: | Libro Electrónico |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Electrónico eBook |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Amsterdam/Philadelphia :
John Benjamins Pub. Co.,
2012.
|
| Colección: | Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today.
|
| Temas: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Texto completo |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000cam a2200000Mu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | EBSCO_ocn794328706 | ||
| 003 | OCoLC | ||
| 005 | 20231017213018.0 | ||
| 006 | m o d | ||
| 007 | cr |n|---||||| | ||
| 008 | 120528s2012 pau ob 001 0 eng d | ||
| 010 | |z 2012003363 | ||
| 040 | |a EBLCP |b eng |e pn |c EBLCP |d OCLCQ |d N$T |d IDEBK |d YDXCP |d OCLCQ |d OCLCF |d OCLCQ |d CDX |d E7B |d OCLCQ |d LOA |d OCLCQ |d AGLDB |d MOR |d PIFAG |d ZCU |d OCLCQ |d MERUC |d OCLCQ |d U3W |d UUM |d STF |d WRM |d VNS |d VTS |d NRAMU |d ICG |d INT |d VT2 |d AU@ |d OCLCQ |d WYU |d DKC |d OCLCQ |d M8D |d UKAHL |d OCLCQ |d AJS |d UKCRE |d OCLCO |d OCLCQ |d QGK |d OCLCO | ||
| 066 | |c (S | ||
| 019 | |a 794903814 |a 796785331 |a 960201042 |a 988536540 |a 992021224 |a 1037797859 |a 1038616934 |a 1045515753 |a 1055364080 |a 1066598172 |a 1081222132 |a 1087373030 |a 1124324601 |a 1137108438 |a 1153008063 |a 1259070118 |a 1264907040 |a 1297218035 |a 1297474704 | ||
| 020 | |a 9789027274601 |q (electronic bk.) | ||
| 020 | |a 9027274606 |q (electronic bk.) | ||
| 020 | |a 9789027255686 |q (Cloth) | ||
| 020 | |a 9027255687 |q (Cloth) | ||
| 020 | |a 1280676906 | ||
| 020 | |a 9781280676901 | ||
| 020 | |a 9786613653833 | ||
| 020 | |a 6613653837 | ||
| 024 | 8 | |a 9786613653833 | |
| 029 | 1 | |a AU@ |b 000050105182 | |
| 029 | 1 | |a DEBBG |b BV043080069 | |
| 029 | 1 | |a DEBBG |b BV044165494 | |
| 029 | 1 | |a DEBSZ |b 421411341 | |
| 029 | 1 | |a NZ1 |b 16078018 | |
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)794328706 |z (OCoLC)794903814 |z (OCoLC)796785331 |z (OCoLC)960201042 |z (OCoLC)988536540 |z (OCoLC)992021224 |z (OCoLC)1037797859 |z (OCoLC)1038616934 |z (OCoLC)1045515753 |z (OCoLC)1055364080 |z (OCoLC)1066598172 |z (OCoLC)1081222132 |z (OCoLC)1087373030 |z (OCoLC)1124324601 |z (OCoLC)1137108438 |z (OCoLC)1153008063 |z (OCoLC)1259070118 |z (OCoLC)1264907040 |z (OCoLC)1297218035 |z (OCoLC)1297474704 | ||
| 037 | |a 365383 |b MIL | ||
| 050 | 4 | |a P295 | |
| 072 | 7 | |a LAN |x 006000 |2 bisacsh | |
| 072 | 7 | |a LAN |x 009060 |2 bisacsh | |
| 072 | 7 | |a CFK |2 bicssc | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 415 |2 23 |
| 049 | |a UAMI | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Reeve, Matthew. | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Clefts and their Relatives. |
| 260 | |a Amsterdam/Philadelphia : |b John Benjamins Pub. Co., |c 2012. | ||
| 300 | |a 1 online resource (237 pages) | ||
| 336 | |a text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a computer |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a online resource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today ; |v v. 185 | |
| 505 | 0 | |a Clefts and their Relatives; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations used in glosses; Introduction; The syntax of English clefts; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. Proposal; 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it; 2.3.1 Introduction; 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence; 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives.; 2.3.2.2 Control; 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic; 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian; 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French.; 2.3.2.6 Summary. | |
| 505 | 8 | |a 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure; 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions; 2.3.3.3 Summary; 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause; 2.4.1 Introduction; 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause; 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause; 2.4.3.1 Introduction; 2.4.3.2 Locality; 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts; 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator; 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses; 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure. | |
| 505 | 8 | |a 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity; 2.4.3.9 Summary; 2.5. Conclusion; Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses; 3.2.1 Introduction; 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and '?-binding'; 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister; 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative; 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions; 3.3 Consequences of the analysis; 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition. | |
| 505 | 8 | |a 3.3.2 The uniqueness of?-binding I: restrictions on subjects3.3.3 The uniqueness of?-binding II: the ban on stacking; 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent; 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions; 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects; 3.3.8 Summary; 3.4 T-binding in it-extraposition sentences; 3.4.1 Introduction; 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts; 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive; 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position; 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of?-binding revisited. | |
| 505 | 8 | |a 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent; 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent; 3.4.4 Summary; 3.5 Conclusion; Clefts in Slavonic languages; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 Proposal; 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting; 4.3.1 No relative clause structure; 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause'; 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs; 4.3.4 Connectivity effects; 4.3.5 No predicational clefts; 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP; 4.3.7 Summary; 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection. | |
| 500 | |a 4.4.1 No copula or relative clause. | ||
| 520 | |a Cleft constructions have long presented an analytical challenge for syntactic theory. This monograph argues that clefts and related constructions cannot be analysed in a straightforwardly compositional manner. Instead, it proposes that the locality conditions on modification (for example by a restrictive relative clause) must be reformulated such that they account for the apparent compositionality of DP-internal modification whilst also permitting 'discontinuous' modification of the type which is independently needed for constructions such as relative clause extraposition. The empirical focus. | ||
| 588 | 0 | |a Print version record. | |
| 504 | |a Includes bibliographical references and index. | ||
| 546 | |a English. | ||
| 590 | |a eBooks on EBSCOhost |b EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide | ||
| 650 | 0 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Sentences. | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Clauses. | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Syntax. | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Semantics. | |
| 650 | 2 | |a Semantics | |
| 650 | 6 | |a Phrase (Linguistique) | |
| 650 | 6 | |a Propositions (Linguistique) | |
| 650 | 6 | |a Syntaxe. | |
| 650 | 6 | |a Sémantique. | |
| 650 | 7 | |a semantics. |2 aat | |
| 650 | 7 | |a LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES |x Grammar & Punctuation. |2 bisacsh | |
| 650 | 7 | |a LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES |x Linguistics |x Syntax. |2 bisacsh | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Clauses |2 fast | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Sentences |2 fast | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Grammar, Comparative and general |x Syntax |2 fast | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Semantics |2 fast | |
| 776 | 0 | 8 | |i Print version: |a Reeve, Matthew. |t Clefts and their Relatives. |d Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, ©2012 |z 9789027255686 |
| 830 | 0 | |a Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://ebsco.uam.elogim.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=457444 |z Texto completo |
| 880 | 8 | |6 505-00/(S |a 4.6.3 Applying the θ-binding analysis to Russian clefts -- 4.6.3.1 Problems for compositionality -- 4.6.3.2 Θ-binding of the 'cleft clause' -- 4.6.4 Consequences of the θ-binding analysis -- 4.6.4.1 The interpretative properties of Russian clefts -- 4.6.4.2 'Adjacency' effects -- 4.6.4.3 Apparent cases of non-adjacency -- 4.6.4.4 Why Russian does not have English-style clefts -- 4.6.4.5 Summary -- 4.7 Conclusion -- The syntax of specificational sentences -- 5.1. Introduction -- 5.2. The specificational syntax of clefts -- 5.2.1 Problems for compositionality II -- 5.2.2 Specificational syntax and association with focus -- 5.2.3 The syntax of Eq -- 5.3. Consequences of association with focus -- 5.3.1 Restrictions on the placement of focus -- 5.3.1.1 XP2 must be the focus -- 5.3.1.2 Extraction -- 5.3.1.3 The non-existence of 'inverse' specificational sentences -- 5.3.2 The possibility of multiple foci -- 5.3.3 The impossibility of focus projection -- 5.4. Further consequences of the analysis -- 5.4.1 Extraposition in specificational sentences -- 5.4.2 More on extraction of the post-copular XP -- 5.4.3 The dissociation of specification and θ-binding: The case of Serbo-Croatian -- 5.5. Conclusion -- Conclusion -- References -- Index. | |
| 880 | 0 | |6 505-00/(S |a Clefts and their Relatives -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Dedication page -- Table of contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations used in glosses -- Introduction -- The syntax of English clefts -- 2.1. Introduction -- 2.2. Proposal -- 2.3. What specificational analyses get right: the non-expletive nature of cleft it -- 2.3.1 Introduction -- 2.3.2 Syntactic evidence -- 2.3.2.1 Alternation with demonstratives. -- 2.3.2.2 Control -- 2.3.2.3 The obligatoriness of cleft pronouns in V2 Germanic -- 2.3.2.4 Restrictions on referential pro in Italian -- 2.3.2.5 Experiencer blocking in French. -- 2.3.2.6 Summary -- 2.3.3 Interpretative parallels between clefts and specificational sentences -- 2.3.3.1 Restrictions on information structure -- 2.3.3.2 Presuppositions -- 2.3.3.3 Summary -- 2.4. What specificational analyses get wrong: The behaviour of the cleft clause -- 2.4.1 Introduction -- 2.4.2 The cleft clause as a restrictive relative clause -- 2.4.3 The clefted XP as the antecedent of the cleft clause -- 2.4.3.1 Introduction -- 2.4.3.2 Locality -- 2.4.3.3 Restrictions on predicational clefts -- 2.4.3.4 The features of the relative operator -- 2.4.3.5 Reduced cleft clauses -- 2.4.3.6 Evidence for a promotion structure -- 2.4.3.7 Evidence for a matching structure -- 2.4.3.8 Obligatory contrastivity -- 2.4.3.9 Summary -- 2.5. Conclusion -- Clefts and the licensing of relative clauses -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Two licensing conditions for relative clauses -- 3.2.1 Introduction -- 3.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses and 'θ-binding' -- 3.2.3 The problem with clefts I: modification of a non-sister -- 3.2.4 The problem with clefts II: two antecedents for one relative -- 3.2.5 Two licensing conditions -- 3.3 Consequences of the analysis -- 3.3.1 Obligatory versus optional extraposition. | |
| 880 | 8 | |6 505-00/(S |a 3.3.2 The uniqueness of θ-binding I: restrictions on subjects -- 3.3.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding II: the ban on stacking -- 3.3.4 Movement of the thematic antecedent -- 3.3.5 Movement of the syntactic antecedent -- 3.3.6 Cases in which it is impossible to satisfy both conditions -- 3.3.7 Relativised minimality effects -- 3.3.8 Summary -- 3.4 Θ-binding in it-extraposition sentences -- 3.4.1 Introduction -- 3.4.2 Parallels between it-extraposition sentences and clefts -- 3.4.2.1 It is not an expletive -- 3.4.2.2 The CP is in VP-adjoined position -- 3.4.2.3 The uniqueness of θ-binding revisited -- 3.4.3 Differences between it-extraposition sentences and clefts -- 3.4.3.1 Movement of the thematic antecedent -- 3.4.3.2 Other consequences of the lack of a syntactic antecedent -- 3.4.4 Summary -- 3.5 Conclusion -- Clefts in Slavonic languages -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Proposal -- 4.3 The parallels between clefts and focus-fronting -- 4.3.1 No relative clause structure -- 4.3.2 Ellipsis of the 'cleft clause' -- 4.3.3 Possible clefted XPs -- 4.3.4 Connectivity effects -- 4.3.5 No predicational clefts -- 4.3.6 Further movement of the clefted XP -- 4.3.7 Summary -- 4.4 The cleft as a single extended verbal projection -- 4.4.1 No copula or relative clause -- 4.4.2 The types of adverbs permitted after èto -- 4.4.3 Imperative clefts -- 4.4.4 Clitic-climbing -- 4.4.5 Summary -- 4.5 Consequences of the 'double-subject' structure -- 4.5.1 Introduction -- 4.5.2 Evidence for two IPs -- 4.5.2.1 Sentential vs. constituent negation -- 4.5.2.2 Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian -- 4.5.3 Evidence that èto is a DP specifier -- 4.5.3.1 Èto in 'bare copular sentences' -- 4.5.3.2 The positions of adverbs -- 4.5.3.3 Control complements -- 4.5.4 Summary -- 4.6 Russian clefts as specificational sentences -- 4.6.1 Introduction -- 4.6.2 Previous analyses. | |
| 938 | |a Askews and Holts Library Services |b ASKH |n AH28556021 | ||
| 938 | |a Coutts Information Services |b COUT |n 22583556 |c 99.00 EUR | ||
| 938 | |a EBL - Ebook Library |b EBLB |n EBL921956 | ||
| 938 | |a ebrary |b EBRY |n ebr10565401 | ||
| 938 | |a EBSCOhost |b EBSC |n 457444 | ||
| 938 | |a ProQuest MyiLibrary Digital eBook Collection |b IDEB |n 365383 | ||
| 938 | |a YBP Library Services |b YANK |n 7441753 | ||
| 994 | |a 92 |b IZTAP | ||