| 词条 | Draft:Pronominal Argument Hypothesis |
| 释义 |
The Pronominal Argument Hypothesis is a proposed analysis of polysynthetic languages in which the morphemes that agree with the arguments of the verb are not just considered indexes of the arguments, but in fact constitute the primary expression of the arguments within the sentence.{{sfn|Jelinek|1984}} The hypothesis was proposed by Eloise Jelinek, having worked with Salishan and Athabascan languages. Because this theory posits that the pronominal agreement morphemes are the true syntactic arguments of the sentence, Jelinek's hypothesis was called the pronominal argument hypothesis. If the hypothesis were correct, it would mean that freestanding nouns in such languages do not constitute syntactic arguments, but simply adjoined specifiers or adjuncts. This in turn would explain why many polysynthetic languages seem to be non-configurational, i.e. they have no strict rules for word order and seemingly violate many of the basic rules for syntactic structures posited within the generative framework.{{sfn|Hale|2003}} Daniel Michel presented pilot data in 2013 that spatial path features on inflecting verbs in American Sign Language (ASL) are also pronominal incorporation rather than agreement, in keeping with the pronominal argument hypothesis. ASL verbs can be classified into three types: plain, spatial, and inflecting. The articulation of an inflecting verb, such as GIVE, follows a path to and from the spatial loci that pronouns use, but does not include the pronouns themselves. In contrast, plain verbs, such as KNOW, are not moved from locus to locus, but rather use independent pronouns.{{sfn|Michel|2013}} NotesReferences{{refbegin}}
|
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。