2014
DOI: 10.1349/ps1.1537-0852.a.443
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Emai's Variable Coding of Adjuncts

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although we will primarily use Forker's approach, we will also exploit other similar approaches discussed in a thematic issue of Language Discovery from 2014. Apart from the paper written by Forker, that issue included contributions authored by Arka (2014), Creissels (2014), Haspelmath (2014), Schaefer and Egbokhare (2014), and Wichmann (2014: 1-2). In our view, the approach designed by Forker, enhanced by the above-mentioned typologically-driven and gradient proposals (cf.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Although we will primarily use Forker's approach, we will also exploit other similar approaches discussed in a thematic issue of Language Discovery from 2014. Apart from the paper written by Forker, that issue included contributions authored by Arka (2014), Creissels (2014), Haspelmath (2014), Schaefer and Egbokhare (2014), and Wichmann (2014: 1-2). In our view, the approach designed by Forker, enhanced by the above-mentioned typologically-driven and gradient proposals (cf.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, arguments are expected to be marked for a grammatical case, whereas adjuncts are marked for a semantic case (Forker 2014: 31-32). Adjuncts can be introduced by overt relational predicates, whereas arguments cannot (Schaefer and Egbokhare 2014). As those diagnostics fail to be applicable to the Arusa language system, they are omitted in our list.…”
Section: D-5mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The reason for the mismatch between the number of observed novae and the predicted rate is due to a number of issues, including extinction from interstellar dust, or the apparent location of the CV (i.e., eruptions occurring along a line of sight that passes close to the Sun). Indeed, studies performed by Schaefer (2014) showed a low efficiency of discovery: for novae with peak apparent magnitude of 6 the efficiency is 22 %, while for novae with V = 10 mag the efficiency drops to 9%. It is worth noting that about 800 nova candidates have been reported from M31 (Pietsch 2010), and nearly 400 from our own Galaxy, from which roughly 100 are expected to be RN masqueraded as CN (Pagnotta & Schaefer 2014).…”
Section: Classical Novaementioning
confidence: 99%