Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-gbqfq Total loading time: 0.437 Render date: 2022-05-28T00:19:02.635Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

The atoms of language1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2015

BOZHIL P. HRISTOV*
Affiliation:
University of Sofia
*
Author’s address: Department of English and American Studies, St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia, 15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., Sofia 1504, Bulgariab.hristov@uni-sofia.bg

Abstract

The first part of this review article summarises and evaluates the contents of the book, attempting to do justice to the wealth of perspectives it offers. The book considers phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic features from the vantage points of approaches as diverse as typology, computational linguistics and formal theories like Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) and Minimalism. The second part of the article discusses several of the unifying threads that run through the volume, including the internal and cross-linguistic validity and correspondence of features, as well as the boundaries between morphology, syntax and semantics. I argue for a syntactic treatment of what has been referred to as periphrastic tense constructions in Bulgarian (including the future and the perfect), which I believe ensures greater language-internal and cross-linguistic consistency in proposing features and assigning their values. After briefly examining animacy in Bulgarian, I conclude that the operation and classification of features can make drawing boundaries between semantics and morphosyntax especially difficult. Finally, a case is made for treating tense as at least partly morphosyntactic in English, in contrast to prevalent current assumptions about the strictly morphosemantic nature of tense cross-linguistically.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2005. Possessors and (in)definiteness. Lingua 115.6, 787819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1976. Kâm xarakteristikata na perfekta (minalo neopredeleno vreme) v bâlgarskija ezik [Towards a description of the perfect in Bulgarian]. In Pašov & Nicolova (eds.), 277–286.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Boeckx, Cedric. 2011. Review of Anna Kibort & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 2010. Journal of Linguistics47.2, 522–524.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25, 63110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Webelhuth, Gert. 2013. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account. In Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, 141167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.). 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G., Popova, Gergana & Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Defining ‘periphrasis’: Key notions. Morphology 22.2, 233275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays in Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica 20.3–4, 265296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Sag, Ivan A. & Pollard, Carl. 2005. Minimal Recursion Semantics: An introduction. Journal of Research on Language and Computation 3.2–3, 281332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15, 203224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2008. Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of case. In Corbett, Greville G. & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Case and grammatical relations: Papers in honor of Bernard Comrie (Typological Studies in Language 81), 134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Hristov, Bozhil. 2010. Agreement patterns and coordination in Lexical Functional Grammar. In Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), LFG2010, 186206. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dejanova, Marija. 1976. Slavjanskata glagolna opozicija imperfekt  ∼ aorist [The Slavonic verbal opposition imperfect  ∼ aorist]. In Pašov & Nicolova (eds.), 316–320.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duridanov, Ivan, Dogramadžieva, Ekaterina & Minčeva, Angelina et al. . 1991. Gramatika na starobâlgarskija ezik [An Old Bulgarian grammar]. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na Bâlgarskata akademija na naukite.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Typologies of agreement: Some problems from Kayardild. In Dunstan Brown, Greville G. Corbett & Carole Tiberius (eds.), Agreement: A typological perspective: Special issue of the Transactions of the Philological Society101.2, 203–234. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Deep–surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: An Australian example. In Thomas A. Sebeok, Henry Hoenigswald & Robert Longacre (eds.), Diachronic, areal, and typological linguistics (Current Trends in Linguistics 11), 401–458. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010a. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86.3, 663687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010b. The interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories: Reply to Newmeyer. Language 86.3, 696699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2012. How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. In Graf, Thomas, Paperno, Denis, Szabolcsi, Anna & Tellings, Jos (eds.), Theories of everything: In honor of Edward Keenan (UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17), 109130. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. Comparative syntax. In Carnie, Andrew, Sato, Yosuke & Siddiqi, Dan (eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 490508. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil P.2012. Agreement, case assignment and nominal coordination. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil P. 2013a. Pronominal case assignment in English. Journal of Linguistics 49.3, 567611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil P. 2013b. Defacing agreement. In Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), LFG2013, 335355. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1989. The treatment of tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica 23.3–4, 335340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002a. The verb. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 71–212.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002b. Non-finite and verbless clauses. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 1171–1271.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. . 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Halle, Morris. 1956. Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Janakiev, Miroslav. 1976. Za gramemite, naričani v bâlgarskata gramatika ‘segašno vreme’ i ‘bâdešte vreme’ [On the grammemes referred to in Bulgarian grammar as ‘present tense’ and ‘future tense’]. In Pašov & Nicolova (eds.), 230–251.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod M.2011. Review of Anna Kibort & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 2010. Studies in Language 35.1, 217–227.Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna. 2011. The feature of tense at the interface of morphology and semantics. In Galani, Alexandra, Hicks, Glyn & Tsoulas, George (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces, 171194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kracht, Marcus. 1997. Inessential features. In Retoré, Christian (ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics: First International Conference, LACL ’96 (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1328), 4362. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucarov, Ivan. 1999. Morfologija [Morphology]. In Bojadžiev, Todor (ed.), Sâvremenen bâlgarski ezik: Fonetika, leksikologija, slovoobrazuvane, morfologija, sintaksis [Modern Bulgarian: Phonetics, lexicology, word formation, morphology, syntax], 277497. Sofija: IK Petâr Beron.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirčev, Kiril. 2000. Starobâlgarski ezik: Kratâk gramatičeski očerk [Old Bulgarian: A brief grammatical outline]. Veliko Târnovo: Faber.Google Scholar
Nicolova, Ruselina. 2008. Bâlgarska gramatika: Morfologija [Bulgarian grammar: Morphology]. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo ‘Sv. Kliment Oxridski’.Google Scholar
Pašov, Petâr & Nicolova, Ruselina (eds.). 1976. Pomagalo po bâlgarska morfologija. Glagol [Readings in Bulgarian morphology: The verb]. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 323–523.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1989. The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7, 275281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Preliminaries. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 1–41.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and noun number in English: A functional explanation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don & Eska, Joseph F.. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916/1972. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye, avec la collaboration d’Albert Riedlinger. Éd. critique préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Scatton, Ernest. 1993. Bulgarian. In Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 188248. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siloni, Tal. 2003. Prosodic case checking domain: The case of constructs. In Lecarme, Jacqueline (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar II, 481510. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Junghanns, Uwe & Szucsich, Luka (eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information, 249282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Woisetschlaeger, Erich. 1983. On the question of definiteness in ‘an old man’s book’. Linguistic Inquiry 14.1, 137154.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. German adjective agreement in GPSG. Linguistics 24, 957990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The atoms of language1
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The atoms of language1
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The atoms of language1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *