2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variable rules meet Impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
(45 reference statements)
1
11
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…5 A extração de informações 3 Utiliza-se, conforme a literatura gerativista minimalista, a nomenclatura DP para se referir ao sujeito composto por um determinante e um nome e TP para designar a relação Spec-head estabelecida entre sujeito e verbo quando o DP é movido para Spec,TP, onde o traço [número] do verbo pode, então, ser checado de acordo com o DP sujeito. 4 Subespecificação também é um conceito adotado pela Morfologia Distribuída (MD) (EMBICK, 2015;HALLE;MARANTZ, 1993;NEVINS;PARROTT, 2010). No entanto, neste artigo, assume-se a visão de Rooryck (1994): "At first sight, underspecified α-valued features simply appear to be unspecified features, but I argue that their complete absence of specification plays a role in the grammar 'variable' or αfeatures have no 'fixed' value, but can 'pass on' the features of the elements surrounding them" (ROORYCK, 1994, p. 209 -destaques do autor).…”
Section: A Identificação Da Gramática Como Identificação De Traçosunclassified
“…5 A extração de informações 3 Utiliza-se, conforme a literatura gerativista minimalista, a nomenclatura DP para se referir ao sujeito composto por um determinante e um nome e TP para designar a relação Spec-head estabelecida entre sujeito e verbo quando o DP é movido para Spec,TP, onde o traço [número] do verbo pode, então, ser checado de acordo com o DP sujeito. 4 Subespecificação também é um conceito adotado pela Morfologia Distribuída (MD) (EMBICK, 2015;HALLE;MARANTZ, 1993;NEVINS;PARROTT, 2010). No entanto, neste artigo, assume-se a visão de Rooryck (1994): "At first sight, underspecified α-valued features simply appear to be unspecified features, but I argue that their complete absence of specification plays a role in the grammar 'variable' or αfeatures have no 'fixed' value, but can 'pass on' the features of the elements surrounding them" (ROORYCK, 1994, p. 209 -destaques do autor).…”
Section: A Identificação Da Gramática Como Identificação De Traçosunclassified
“…The equally high rates in Catalan support this analysis for three reasons: (i) DOM seems to have no syntactic or semantic effects, as the ratings are the same in both sets of sentences; (ii) it is optional for one and the same speaker, who assigns equally high grades to sentences with and without DOM, and (iii) it may reflect social or contextual properties outside of grammar, such as style, the identity of the speaker or the type of personal relation with the interlocutor, because DOM is condemned in prescriptive grammars and thus associated to less formal registers. Following Nevins and Parrott [ 71 ], who analyze Labovian variation as the effect of probabilistic PF rules that apply in some contexts, we propose that Catalan DOM obtains from the application of a probabilistic rule that introduces the exponent a to mark case (cf. Noyer’s [ 72 ] notion of dissociated morpheme) in DPs that are syntactically assigned accusative case, as in (11).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 17 Some of the paradigm levelling phenomena discussed by Nevins & Parrot (2010) (see footnote 16 above) are categorical in some regional varieties of English, some show inter- and intra-individual variation. This may mean that the PPP patterns similarly to other paradigm levelling phenomena in this aspect of sociolinguistic variability of occurrence.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“… 16 Nevins & Parrot (2010) employ impoverishment rules in their DM-analysis of agreement syncretism (‘paradigm levelling’) in various varieties of English (e.g. {You / We / They} was .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%