Where does heteroclisis come from? Evidence from Romanian dialects
Where does heteroclisis come from? Evidence from Romanian dialects
复制标题
异性从何而来？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Maiden
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Maiden
本研究考察了罗马尼亚方言历史上的一些情况下的heteroclisis，并得出结论认为，数据要求重新考虑Stump的区分（语言82：279-322，2006）之间的“cloven”heteroclisis，其中的内部范式“分裂”是对齐的一些形态句法特征的区别，和“断裂”heteroclisis，这是不是这种情况下，heteroclisis的模式是纯粹的形态。斯顿普的描述给人的印象是，“分裂”变体普遍占主导地位，而“分裂”变体往往非常紧密地遵循语言中可用的“分裂”模式。相反，我认为，这种“仅限词干”的情况实际上可能是跨语言异质性的基础，这种现象一般来说并不直接敏感于形态句法的内容，而是敏感于词干同质异形的特征，而且往往是纯粹的“形态学”模式。
This study examines some cases of heteroclisis in the history of Romanian dialects, and concludes that the data call for a reconsideration of Stump’s distinction (Language 82:279–322, 2006) between ‘cloven’ heteroclisis, where the intraparadigmatic ‘split’ is aligned with some morphosyntactic feature distinction, and ‘fractured’ heteroclisis, where this is not the case and the pattern of heteroclisis is purely morphological. Stump’s account creates the impression that the ‘cloven’ variety is universally predominant, and that the ‘fractured’ variety tends to follow very closely the available ‘cloven’ patterns of the language. I shall suggest, instead, that the ‘fractured-only’ situation may in fact underlie heteroclisis cross-linguistically, the phenomenon being in general sensitive not directly to morphosyntactic content, but rather to characteristic, and often purely ‘morphomic’, patterns of stem-allomorphy.