| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910464923803321 |
|
|
Titolo |
The evidential basis of linguistic argumentation / / edited by András Kertész, Csilla Rákosi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Amsterdam, Netherlands ; ; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania : , : John Benjamins Publishing Company, , 2014 |
|
©2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (326 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Studies in Language Companion Series, , 0165-7763 ; ; Volume 153 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Linguistic models - Data processing |
Linguistic analysis (Linguistics) |
Linguistics - Research - Methodology |
Corpora (Linguistics) |
Computational linguistics |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and indexes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Chapter 1.Introduction; 1. The aim of the volume; 2. On the state of the art; 3. On the p-model; 4. The structure of the book; Acknowledgements; References; Part I.The methodological framework; Chapter 2.The p-model of data and evidence in linguistics; 1. The problem; 2. A possible solution to (P)(a): The p-model; 2.1 Introductory remarks; 2.2 The uncertainty of information: Plausible statements; 2.3 Obtaining new information from uncertain information: Plausible inferences |
2.4 The p-context and the p-context-dependency of plausible inferences2.5 Problems, their solution and their resolution; 2.6 The problem solving process; 2.6.1 Plausible argumentation; 2.6.2 Problem-solving strategies; 2.7 The solution to (P)(a); 3. A possible solution to (P)(b): The p-model's concepts of 'data' and 'evidence'; 3.1 Data; 3.2 Evidence; 4. Conclusions; Acknowledgements; References; Part II. Object-theoretical applications; Chapter 3.The plausibility of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
approaches to syntactic alternation of Hungarian verbs; Chapter 4.Methods and argumentation in historical linguistics |
1. Introduction2. Argumentation in historical linguistics; 2.1 Quantitative and qualitative data in historical research; 2.2 Frequency; 2.3 Analogy; 2.4 Summary; 3. A case study; 3.1 The starting p-context: Three accounts of the morphological development of the Catalan periphrastic perfective past; 3.1.1 Colon (1978a, b); 3.1.2 Detges (2004); 3.1.3 Juge (2006); 3.2 Extension of the starting p-context: The historical present; 3.3 Coordination of the extended p-context; 4. Modification of the p-context and comparison of the rival solutions; 5. Conclusions; Acknowledgements; Historical sources |
ReferencesChapter 5.Hungarian verbs of natural phenomena with explicit and implicit subject arguments; 1. Introduction: Aims and the organisation of the chapter; 2. The rivalling approaches in the starting p-context: On the subjectlessness of verbs of natural phenomena in Hungarian; 2.1 Magyar Értelmező Kéziszótár (Concise Explanatory Dictionary of Hungarian) (Pusztai 2003); 2.2 Magyar Grammatika (Hungarian grammar) (Keszler 2000); 2.3 Lexical-functional grammar (Komlósy 1994); 2.4 A generative syntactic analysis (Tóth 2001); 2.5 The evaluation of the starting p-context |
3. Extending the starting p-context with new data4. Extending the p-context with results of previous research into implicit arguments in Hungarian; 4.1 Definition of implicit arguments and their occurrence in Hungarian; 4.2 Compatible rivalling proposals; 4.3 Non-compatible rivalling approaches; 5. Modification of the p-context: The occurrence of verbs of natural phenomena with implicit subject arguments in Hungarian; 6. The resolution of the starting p-problem in the modified p-context: The advantages of the analysis of verbs of natural phenomena with implicit and explicit subject arguments |
Acknowledgements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
This chapter provides a survey about the most frequent methods of inconsistency resolution in Optimality Theory. With the help of the p-model, inconsistencies in OT are divided into two main groups. The first group includes conflicts that are deemed to be fatal and are solved usually by the modification of the theory: namely, clashes between "linguistic data" (acceptability judgements) and applications of the model (results of the evaluation procedure). The second group consists of conflicts that are, in contrast, tolerable in the view of OT theorists: inconsistencies between constraints and t |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |