Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJelinek, Eloise
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-25T22:33:41Z
dc.date.available2012-05-25T22:33:41Z
dc.date.issued1982
dc.identifier.issn0894-4539
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/226100
dc.descriptionPublished as Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics from A-Z, Studies on Arabic, Basque, English, Japanese, Navajo and Papagoen_US
dc.description.abstractRelating categories across languages is the crucial question in the study of language universals.) It will be argued here that the syntactic categories (primary sentential constituents) of a language are not projections of lexical categories, and that identifying categories across languages as equivalent, as Steele (1981) has for instantiations of the category AUX, does not rest upon a language internal correspondence between these syntactic categories and particular lexical categories. A set of language independent definitions of the syntactic categories SUBJECT, AUX, PREDICATE and ADVERBIAL in terms of the functional properties (role in function/argument structure) of sentential constituents is proposed, and the instantiation of these categories in the unrelated languages Egyptian Arabic and English is shown. This set of category definitions suffices for an economical account of sentence structure in these configurational languages, and the definitions are shown to be useful in cross-language comparisons. The claim is made here that PREDICATE is a universal syntactic category: that is, all (complete) sentences of all languages necessarily have some constituent that we may label PREDICATE. This is not true of the other syntactic categories to be identified here, nor is it true of any lexical category, including verb.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona)en_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author(s).en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en_US
dc.titlePredicate as a Universal Syntactic Categoryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.identifier.journalCoyote Papersen_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThe Coyote Papers are made available by the Arizona Linguistics Circle at the University of Arizona and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact coyotepapers@email.arizona.edu with questions about these materials.en_US
dc.source.journaltitleCoyote Papers
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-26T15:56:51Z
html.description.abstractRelating categories across languages is the crucial question in the study of language universals.) It will be argued here that the syntactic categories (primary sentential constituents) of a language are not projections of lexical categories, and that identifying categories across languages as equivalent, as Steele (1981) has for instantiations of the category AUX, does not rest upon a language internal correspondence between these syntactic categories and particular lexical categories. A set of language independent definitions of the syntactic categories SUBJECT, AUX, PREDICATE and ADVERBIAL in terms of the functional properties (role in function/argument structure) of sentential constituents is proposed, and the instantiation of these categories in the unrelated languages Egyptian Arabic and English is shown. This set of category definitions suffices for an economical account of sentence structure in these configurational languages, and the definitions are shown to be useful in cross-language comparisons. The claim is made here that PREDICATE is a universal syntactic category: that is, all (complete) sentences of all languages necessarily have some constituent that we may label PREDICATE. This is not true of the other syntactic categories to be identified here, nor is it true of any lexical category, including verb.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
cpiii-023-046.pdf
Size:
496.5Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record