Copy raising reconsidered

• Autorzy: Melnik Nurit

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v11i2.336

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

There is no consensus in the literature regarding the defining characteristics of copy raising (CR), or in other words what determines whether a CR-like expression is CR or not. As a result, existing analyses target different data sets. In this paper, I propose a different approach to these constructions, which takes a functional perspective. I propose to abandon the term copy raising, which is misleading in a number of ways. Instead, I distinguish between perceptual depiction reports and perceptual inference reports and show that the functions which they fulfill are not particular to CR-like constructions, but are in fact more general. Such an approach, I claim, resolves existing conundrums surrounding CR. The analysis is formalized in the framework of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) and is inspired by previous accounts of CR in related frameworks such as LFG and SBCG, as well as HPSG analyses. In the spirit of HPSG, the analysis employs type inheritance hierarchies to distinguish between what is shared by the two constructions and what is construction-specific in order to account for alternative realizations of a single lexeme and to ascribe constructional (or extra-lexical) meaning to linguistic elements.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

raising; perception; inference; predication; modification

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 11, No. 2
• Strony: 297--341
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 27 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Melnik Nurit

• The Department of Literature,Language & Arts, The Open University of Israel

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0610-915X

Bibliografia

• 1. Ash ASUDEH (2002), Richard III, in Mary ANDRONIS, Erin DEBENPORT, AnnePYCHA, and Keiko YOSHIMURA, editors,Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of theCLS, volume 1, pp. 31-46, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.
• 2. Ash ASUDEH (2004),Resumption as resource management, Doctoral dissertation,Stanford University.
• 3. Ash ASUDEH (2012),The logic of pronominal resumption, volume 35, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206421.001.0001.
• 4. Ash ASUDEH and Ida TOIVONEN (2012), Copy raising and perception,NaturalLanguage & Linguistic Theory, 30(2):321-380,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9168-2.
• 5. Ash ASUDEH and Ida TOIVONEN (2017), A modular approach to evidentiality,in 22nd International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference (LFG 2017), CSLIPublications.
• 6. Marco BARONI, Silvia BERNARDINI, Adriano FERRARESI, and Eros ZANCHETTA(2009), The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processedweb-crawled corpora,Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3):209-226.
• 7. Joan BRESNAN (1982), Control and complementation, Linguistic Inquiry,13(3):343-434.Joan BRESNAN, Ash ASUDEH, Ida TOIVONEN, and Stephen WECHSLER (2015),Lexical-functional syntax, 2nd edition, Wiley-Blackwell,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119105664.
• 8. Noam CHOMSKY (1981),Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
• 9. Mary DALRYMPLE, John J. LOWE, and Louise MYCOCK (2019),The Oxfordreference guide to Lexical Functional Grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198733300.001.0001.
• 10. Alon FISHMAN (2023), Hebrew copulative perception verbs,Linguistics,61(4):997-1026.
• 11. Caroline HEYCOCK (1994),Layers of predication, Garland, New York.
• 12. Ronald KAPLAN and Joan BRESNAN (1982), Lexical functional grammar: Aformal system for grammatical representation, in Joan BRESNAN, editor,TheMental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pp. 173-281, MIT Press,Cambridge, Mass.
• 13. Paul KAY (2021), Copy raising as a lexical rule, in Stefan MÜLLER and NuritMELNIK, editors,Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Head-DrivenPhrase Structure Grammar, Online (Frankfurt/Main), pp. 68-82, UniversityLibrary, Frankfurt/Main, doi:10.21248/hpsg.2021.4.
• 14. Adam KILGARRIFF, Pavel RYCHLÝ, Pavel SMRŽ, and David TUGWELL (2004),The Sketch Engine, in Proceedings of EURALEX, Lorient, France, pp. 105-116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199292332.003.0020.
• 15. Jong-Bok KIM (2014), English copy raising constructions: Argument realizationand characterization condition,Linguistics, 52(1):167-203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0059.
• 16. Idan LANDAU (2011), Predication vs. aboutness in copy raising,NaturalLanguage & Linguistic Theory, 29(3):779-813, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9134-4.
• 17. Shalom LAPPIN (1984), Predication and raising, in Charles JONES and PeterSELLS, editors,Proceedings of NELS 14, pp. 236-252, GLSA, Amherst.
• 18. Yael MASCHLER (2002), On the grammaticization of ke’ilu ‘like’, lit.‘as if’, inHebrew talk-in-interaction,Language in Society, 31(2):243-276.
• 19. Stefan MÜLLER, Anne ABEILLÉ, Robert D. BORSLEY, and Jean-Pierre KOENIG,editors (2021),Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook, LanguageScience Press, Berlin, doi:https://10.5281/zenodo.5543318,https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/259.
• 20. Carl J. POLLARD and Ivan A. SAG (1994),Head-Driven Phrase StructureGrammar, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• 21. Paul POSTAL (1974),On raising, MIT Press, Cambridge.Eric POTSDAM and Jeffrey RUNNER (2001), Richard returns: Copy raising and its implications, in Mary ANDRONIS, Chris BALL, Heidi ELSTON, and Sylvain NEUVEL, editors,Proceedings of the 37th Regional Meeting of the ChicagoLinguistic Society, pp. 453-468, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL.
• 22. Andy ROGERS (1972), Another look at flip perception verbs, inPapers from the8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 303-315, ChicagoLinguistic Society, Chicago, IL.
• 23. Andy ROGERS (1974),Physical perception verbs in English: A study in lexicalrelatedness, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
• 24. Rachel Etta RUDOLPH (2019), A closer look at the perceptual source in copyraising constructions, in M. Teresa ESPINAL, Elena CASTROVIEJO, ManuelLEONETTI, Louise MCNALLY, and Cristina REAL-PUIGDOLLERS, editors,Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23, volume 2, pp. 287-304.
• 25. Ivan A. SAG (2007), Remarks on locality, in Stefan MÜLLER, editor,Proceedingsof the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar,CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2007.23.
• 26. Ivan A. SAG (2012), Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis,in Hans C. BOAS and Ivan A. SAG, editors,Sign-Based Construction Grammar,number 193 in CSLI Lecture Notes, pp. 69-202, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
• 27. Ivan A. SAG, Hans C. BOAS, and Paul KAY (2012), Introducing Sign-BasedConstruction Grammar, in Hans C. BOAS and Ivan A. SAG, editors,Sign-BasedConstruction Grammar, number 193 in CSLI Lecture Notes, pp. 1-30, CSLIPublications, Stanford, CA