LEADER 05826nam 2200721 450 001 9910789251403321 005 20230803202214.0 010 $a90-272-7055-4 035 $a(CKB)3710000000097416 035 $a(EBL)1659972 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001132158 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11610981 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001132158 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11154168 035 $a(PQKB)11012633 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1659972 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1659972 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10853339 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL589515 035 $a(OCoLC)875292455 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000097416 100 $a20140412h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 04$aThe evidential basis of linguistic argumentation /$fedited by Andra?s Kerte?sz, Csilla Ra?kosi 210 1$aAmsterdam, Netherlands ;$aPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d2014. 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (326 p.) 225 1 $aStudies in Language Companion Series,$x0165-7763 ;$vVolume 153 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-5918-6 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and indexes. 327 $aThe 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 327 $a2.4 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 327 $a1. 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 327 $aReferencesChapter 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 E?rtelmezo? Ke?ziszo?ta?r (Concise Explanatory Dictionary of Hungarian) (Pusztai 2003); 2.2 Magyar Grammatika (Hungarian grammar) (Keszler 2000); 2.3 Lexical-functional grammar (Komlo?sy 1994); 2.4 A generative syntactic analysis (To?th 2001); 2.5 The evaluation of the starting p-context 327 $a3. 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 327 $aAcknowledgements 330 $aThis chapter provides a survey about the most frequent methods of inconsistency resolution in Optimality Theory. With the help of the p-model, inconsistencies in OT are divided into two main groups. The first group includes conflicts that are deemed to be fatal and are solved usually by the modification of the theory: namely, clashes between "linguistic data" (acceptability judgements) and applications of the model (results of the evaluation procedure). The second group consists of conflicts that are, in contrast, tolerable in the view of OT theorists: inconsistencies between constraints and t 410 0$aStudies in language companion series ;$vVolume 153. 606 $aLinguistic models$xData processing 606 $aLinguistic analysis (Linguistics) 606 $aLinguistics$xResearch$xMethodology 606 $aCorpora (Linguistics) 606 $aComputational linguistics 615 0$aLinguistic models$xData processing. 615 0$aLinguistic analysis (Linguistics) 615 0$aLinguistics$xResearch$xMethodology. 615 0$aCorpora (Linguistics) 615 0$aComputational linguistics. 676 $a410.1 702 $aKerte?sz$b Andra?s 702 $aRa?kosi$b Csilla 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910789251403321 996 $aThe evidential basis of linguistic argumentation$93717927 997 $aUNINA