权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Referential Hierarchies in Morphosyntax: description, typology, diachrony - "Differential agreement in Chintang"

形态句法中的参考层次结构：描述、类型学、历时性 - “Chintang 中的差异协议”

基本信息

批准号：
135496473
负责人：
Professor Dr. Balthasar Bickel
金额：
--
依托单位：
Seminar für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaften
依托单位国家：
德国
项目类别：
Research Grants
财政年份：
2009
资助国家：
德国
起止时间：
2008-12-31 至 2011-12-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/135496473?language=en
关键词：
Referential Hierarchies Morphosyntax description typology

项目摘要

The goal of this project is to elucidate the nature of referential scale effects on verb agreement in comparison to case marking. Both marking systems can be affected by referential scales. The most obvious parallel is between differential (i.e. optional) object agreement and differential case marking on objects, which both seem to follow similar principles: higher ranking arguments favor overt agreement and overt case, lower-ranking arguments disfavor overt agreement and overt case (cf., e.g. Swahili and Spanish). Less well-known is case marking that is sensitive to a direct vs. inverse scenario distinction. This is attested for example in Yurok or Sahaptin and parallels verb-coded direct vs. inverse distinction, but this is attested. But there are also systematic differences between referential scale effects on case vs. on agreement: (i) split alignment in agreement does not seem to follow a universal referential scale (Bickel in press) while for case, at least a handful of families reflect some versions of the scale (Bickel & Witzlack- Makarevich 2008); (ii) while differential case marking may be driven by Zipfian principles (favoring zero exponence on the most frequent NPs, i.e. high-ranking agents and low-ranking patients; cf. Jäger 2007), no such principle apparently underlies agreement, which is instead favored by high-ranking arguments regardless of their role (Siewierska 2004, Bickel in press). (iii) differential agreement can affect both nonagentive arguments of ditransitives simultaneously, while differential case marking is often blocked by ditransitives (as in Nepali) or extends only to themes (as in Spanish).

本课题的目的是通过对比格位标记来阐明指称尺度对动词一致的影响的本质。这两种评分系统都会受到参考标尺的影响。最明显的相似之处是宾语的差异(即可选)和宾语上的差异大小写标记，两者似乎遵循相似的原则：较高级别的论元支持显性一致和显性大小写，较低的论元不支持显性一致和显性大小写(参见，例如斯瓦希里语和西班牙语)。不太为人所知的是大小写标记，它对正反情景区分敏感。例如，这在Yurok或Sahaptin和Parallels动词编码的正反向区分中得到了证明，但这一点得到了证明。但在案例和协议的参照标度效应之间也存在系统性差异：(I)协议中的分裂对齐似乎并不遵循通用参照标度(Bickel In Press)，而对于案例，至少有少数家庭反映了该标尺的某些版本(Bickel&Witzlack-Makarevich，2008)；(Ii)尽管差异案例标记可能是由Zipfian原则驱动的(倾向于对最频繁的NP，即高级别代理人和低级别患者，倾向于零指数；参看)。Jäger 2007)，显然没有这样的原则作为协议的基础，相反，无论他们扮演什么角色，高级论点都支持这一原则(Siewierska 2004，Bickel in Press)。(3)差异协议可以同时影响双及物词的两个非施事论元，而差异格标记法往往被双及物词阻挡(如在尼泊尔语中)或仅延伸至主位(如在西班牙语中)。