Monotonicity in Syntax

Graf, Thomas

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-62843-0_3

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, if only two realisations of the adjectival stem are available, then their mapping cannot reverse the order of the underlying hierarchy as presented in ( 21): thus, only contiguous degrees in (21) can get the same exponent, by monotonicity (ABB: bad -worse-worst), but not non-contiguous ones (*ABA: bad-worse-*baddest), as the latter mapping would not preserve the ordering of the underlying hierarchy. 12 Monotonicity accounts along these lines have been proposed for various *ABA-like patterns found, for instance, in case suppletion paradigms and in constraints on clitic clusters (Graf 2019); in bans on movement and Case assignment and in omnivorous number agreement (Graf 2020); in patterns of tense syncretism and in gender resolution rules (Moradi 2020).…”

Section: Monotonicity In Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Missing Person

Terenghi¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Languages encode deictic information in their demonstrative systems, but exactly which information is encoded is a matter of variation. The present dissertation explores this variation, with special attention to Romance demonstrative systems, and does so from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. Synchronically, the focus is on how the attested cross-linguistic differences can be formalised in featural and, more broadly, syntactic terms. This line of investigation results in the proposal of a novel internal structure for demonstrative elements that ties together a lower person-based component and a higher spatial-based one, overcoming the classic dichotomy between the two and affording the system a larger empirical coverage. Diachronically, the focus is on how the inventory of contrastive demonstrative forms changes in the different (micro-)diachronic stages of a given language, and more concretely on how it shrinks and why. Interestingly, this change only involves demonstrative forms, but not other deictic categories (personal pronouns, possessive forms, etc.). Based on novel generalisations concerning the patterns of change attested across Romance demonstratives and on the conclusions drawn from the synchronic investigations, this work proposes that larger demonstrative systems are unstable because of their featural complexity. The latter hinges on a bias towards monotonic derivations, which triggers feature loss and results in a smaller inventory of demonstrative forms. Additionally, a structural condition on feature loss is identified (as formalised in the Last in–First out principle), which accounts for the concrete patterns of reduction and for the asymmetry between demonstrative systems (unstable) and other indexical systems (stable).

show abstract

Section: Monotonicity In Languagementioning

confidence: 99%