Stephens (1990) : Différence entre versions

De Arbres
Aller à : navigation, rechercher
(Page créée avec « * Stephens, J. 1990. ‘Non-finite Clauses in Breton’, ''Celtic Linguistics: Readings in the Brythonic Languages'', Ball, Fife, Poppe, Rowland, ''Celtic… »)
 
 
(10 révisions intermédiaires par 2 utilisateurs non affichées)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
* [[Stephens (1990)|Stephens, J. 1990]]. ‘Non-finite Clauses in Breton’, ''Celtic Linguistics: Readings in the Brythonic Languages'', Ball, Fife, Poppe, Rowland, ''Celtic Linguistics: Readings in the Brythonic Languages'' Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 68, Benjamins, 151-166.
+
* Stephens, J. 1990. 'Non-finite Clauses in Breton', Ball, Fife, Poppe, Rowland (éds.), ''Celtic Linguistics: Readings in the Brythonic Languages, Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins'', Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 68, Benjamins, 151-166.
  
 +
 +
  Introduction:
 +
  "This paper examines the order of constituents in infinitival clauses which occur both as [[embedded clauses]] and [[independent clauses]]. Although Breton is a [[VSO]] language ([[Stephens (1982)|Stephens 1982]], [[Borsley & Stephens (1989)|Borsley & Stephens 1989]]), the paper will show that the order of [[constituents]] in infinitival clauses is [[VSO|SVO]].
 +
 
 +
  I shall argue, as Sproat (1985) does for Welsh, that the [[Government and Binding theory]] (hence GB) of Chomsky (1981) provides a natural explanation for the difference in surface word order in finite and non-finite clauses. The paper is organised as follows. The aspects of GB relevant to the analysis are presented in section 1, followed by a presentation of the data in section 2. In section 3, I shall examine the order of constituents in three types of embedded clauses:
 +
 
 +
  i) complement clauses introduced by a prepositional [[complémenteur|complementizer]],
 +
  ii) clauses complement to [[control verb]], and
 +
  iii) complement clauses with [[ECM|exceptional case-marking]].
 +
 
 +
  Section 4 deals with the analysis of non-finite independent clauses, those introduced by ''[[da]]'' and those introduced by ''[[C.ha(g)|ha]]''. Section 5 is a summary of the discussion and concludes that, in Breton, finite and non-finite clauses have a different word order: [[VSO]] and [[SVO]] respectively."
  
 
[[Category:ouvrages de recherche|Categories]]
 
[[Category:ouvrages de recherche|Categories]]

Version actuelle datée du 29 juillet 2020 à 11:02

  • Stephens, J. 1990. 'Non-finite Clauses in Breton', Ball, Fife, Poppe, Rowland (éds.), Celtic Linguistics: Readings in the Brythonic Languages, Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 68, Benjamins, 151-166.


 Introduction:
 "This paper examines the order of constituents in infinitival clauses which occur both as embedded clauses and independent clauses. Although Breton is a VSO language (Stephens 1982, Borsley & Stephens 1989), the paper will show that the order of constituents in infinitival clauses is SVO.
 
 I shall argue, as Sproat (1985) does for Welsh, that the Government and Binding theory (hence GB) of Chomsky (1981) provides a natural explanation for the difference in surface word order in finite and non-finite clauses. The paper is organised as follows. The aspects of GB relevant to the analysis are presented in section 1, followed by a presentation of the data in section 2. In section 3, I shall examine the order of constituents in three types of embedded clauses:
 
 i) complement clauses introduced by a prepositional complementizer,
 ii) clauses complement to control verb, and
 iii) complement clauses with exceptional case-marking.
 
 Section 4 deals with the analysis of non-finite independent clauses, those introduced by da and those introduced by ha. Section 5 is a summary of the discussion and concludes that, in Breton, finite and non-finite clauses have a different word order: VSO and SVO respectively."