摘要:

AbstractIn this paper I argue that the dating and extent of the ‘quantitative movement’ in English metres (c.1550 toc.1603) is no mere literary accident, but is connected with changes that had taken, or were taking, place in the stress phonology of English. Chief among these changes was the extensive replacement of the native, ‘left‐strong’ system of English stress by a Latinate, ‘right‐strong’ system. This replacement has further consequences: a particular kind of relationship between English syllable structure and stress is established, and many secondary‐stressed syllables at the right edges of English words are reduced. Both these consequences are germane to the structure of English quantitative verses of the period, as the paper explicates. The paper therefore explores, using non‐linear formalism, what links may exist between the stress phonology of English and instances of

ISSN:0079-1636    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-968X.1991.tb01055.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0079-1636    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-968X.1991.tb01056.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe validity of the C(ase) H(ierarchy), the paradigm case, and the notion of demotion in Comrie's universal theory of causative constructions is questioned. It is argued that the CH theory precludes a more realistic and plausible understanding of the causative construction. Data from a wide range of languages are examined in their own right, not from the perspective of the paradigm case. An alternative view is offered that both causative and noncausative sentences are susceptible to the same NP density control. Under this view the so‐called deviations from the paradigm case‐extended demotion and doubling‐are seen as different grammatical means of keeping the NP density control in effect. The alternative view receives further support from those languages in which transitive verbs must be detransitivised prior to undergoing morphological causativis

ISSN:0079-1636    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-968X.1991.tb01057.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe accepted history of Yiddish, based on historical and literary records, places its origin in the Rhineland, in the far west of the German speaking area. The Germanic parts of Yiddish, however, point to dialects much further east. This has been explained through a ‘Principle of Exchangeability’, whereby ongoing contact with other German dialects on the long trek eastward obliterated earlier forms. Unambiguous evidence may be gleaned from the Semitic elements in Yiddish, which have no European cognates. Modern Yiddish dialects show no trace of the old Rhineland merger of Semitic/h/with/h/. The standard model explains this by reversal of merger, and invokes additional reversals to explain the modern Yiddish oppositions/s/vs./Š/, and five long vs. five short vowels in Semitic‐origin items. Reversal of unconditioned merger is untenable. Where seven such reversals are needed to sustain a historical model, it should be abandoned. The comparative method, which takes empirically confirmed modern data as its point of departure, is superior to the writing of language history as a corollary of external or literary h

ISSN:0079-1636    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-968X.1991.tb01058.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY