Login

Structural competition in grammar

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Danny Fox. en_US
dc.contributor.author Katzir, Roni (Roni A.) en_US
dc.contributor.other Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy. en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2009-06-30T16:34:14Z
dc.date.available 2009-06-30T16:34:14Z
dc.date.copyright 2008 en_US
dc.date.issued 2008 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/45899
dc.description Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2008. en_US
dc.description Includes bibliographical references (p. 141-148). en_US
dc.description.abstract This thesis makes the following three claims: (1) Competition exists in natural language: the grammaticality (and meaning) of using a linguistic object 0 can be affected by the grammaticality (and meaning) of a different linguistic object [phi]' (2) Structure plays a role in competition: [phi]' can only affect the grammaticality (and meaning) of [phi]' of [phi]' and [phi]' are structurally related (in particular, if [phi]' is no more complex than [phi]' (3) Simpler is better: if 0 is strictly more complex than [phi]', and if the two are equally good otherwise, q will be blocked by [phi]' The first claim is the most general and the least controversial. It adds little to what is commonly accepted in the domains of conversational implicature, focus alternatives, morphological blocking, and economy conditions in syntax and semantics. Chapter 1 presents background on some of the issues regarding this general claim. The second claim is more controversial. Most work on implicature has treated considerations of structural complexity as unimportant or downright orthogonal to conversational reasoning. In the domain of focus alternatives structure has been occasionally used (in particular, below the word level), but argued to be irrelevant otherwise. In Chapter 2 I will present a case study that shows that, at least sometimes, reference to structure (specifically to structural complexity) is necessary. Chapter 3, jointly written with Danny Fox, discusses a remaining question about the use of alternatives for implicature and provides arguments for a parallel treatment of implicature and focus, as well as for a constraint on the ability of contextual relevance to remove a formal alternative from the set of actual alternatives. In Chapter 4 I discuss certain cases of morphological blocking that cannot be based solely on structural pruning. For the patterns to be accounted for, a direct preference for simpler structures must be active in the grammar. en_US
dc.description.provenance Made available in DSpace on 2009-06-30T16:34:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 320526110.pdf: 8973948 bytes, checksum: b0db19087838e794ea0cdc17d991acdf (MD5) 320526110-MIT.pdf: 8973757 bytes, checksum: a9a601708ac6c83d56cf859cddd6e913 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 en
dc.description.statementofresponsibility by Roni Katzir. en_US
dc.format.extent 148 p. en_US
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher Massachusetts Institute of Technology en_US
dc.rights M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission. en_US
dc.rights.uri http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582 en_US
dc.subject Linguistics and Philosophy. en_US
dc.title Structural competition in grammar en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US
dc.description.degree Ph.D. en_US
dc.contributor.department Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy. en_US
dc.identifier.oclc 320526110 en_US

Files in this item

Files Size Format
Preview, non-printable (open to all) 8.973Mb application/pdf
Full printable version (MIT only) 8.973Mb application/pdf

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace@MIT


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Links