Vista previa parcial del texto
¡Descarga dementia and language y más Apuntes en PDF de Filología hispánica solo en Docsity!
424 DEIXIS away). All this means that the treatments of deixis in formal semantic theories like that of Montague are hope- lessly inadequate. This has led to new theories, especially Situation Semantics (Barwise and Perry 1983), where a more serious attempt is made to capture the contextual relativity of semantic interpretation. [See also Pragmatics and Contextual Semantics and Semantics.] BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Stephen R.. and Edward L. Keenan. 1985. Deixis. In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3, Grammatical categories and the lexicon, edited by Timothy Shopen, pp. 259-308. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Barwise, Jon, and John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fillmore, Charles J. 1997. Lectures on deixis. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Jarvella, Robert J., and Wolfgang Klein, eds. 1982. Speech, place and action: Studies of deixis and related topics. New York: Wiley. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmarics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing. In Erving Goffman, edited by P. Drew and A. Wootton, pp. 161-227. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Tanz, Christine. 1980, Studies in the acquisition of deictic terms. (Cambridge studies in linguistics, 26.) Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Wales, Roger. 1986. Deixis. In Language acquisition, 2d ed., edited by Paul Fletcher and Michael Garman, pp. 401428. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. STEPHEN C. LEVINSON DELETION. Throughout the history of generative gram- mar (Chomsky 1957 onward), various phenomena have been argued to involve deletion transformations. Deletion rules were invoked to account for the disparity between deep Structures and their syntactically “reduced” surface Strings. For example, Katz and Postal 1964 accounted for the properties of English imperatives by proposin; deletion of an Underlying you will; and Ross 1967 ee posed a set of rules (including VP Deletion, Sluicing and One's Deletion) to delete constituents under identity with an antecedent. Ross also proposed a “ ¿ n pruning” mecha- nism whereby empty nodes could be deleted prior to the surface level. In addition, Rosenbaum 1967 accounted for the interpretation of coreferential complement sub- jects by positing that they were derived from full N[oun] P[hrase]s deleted by Equi NP-Deletion. Postal 1970, 1972 provided a similar account of the interpretation of pro- nouns, arguing that they derived from deep-structure full NPs in which One's Deletion had applied. (For further discussion of early approaches to deletion see Hankamer 1971, Ross 1969, and Grinder and Postal 1971.) Debates concerning the descriptive adequacy of dele- tion rules centered on the interpretation of deleted con- stituents. Thus Jackendoff 1972 noted certain problems in using deletion to account for the interpretation of pronouns and complement subjects; he proposed an al- ternative analysis where both pronouns and empty com- plement subject NPs could be base-generated, and coin- dexed with an appropriate antecedent for interpretation. Wasow 1972 observed analogous problems with a dele- tion account of ellipted VPs; he argued for a similar “interpretive” approach where empty VPs, like empty complement subjects, could be base-generated and coin- dexed with an antecedent (cf. Williams 1977; and sce Sag 1976, Hankamer and Sag 1976 for an alternative analysis). In the late 1970s, the notion that constituents could be generated empty and coindexed with an antecedent was extended to account for the relation of categories derived by movement, ¡.e. traces, to their antecedents. Moreover, Chomsky 1977 observed that certain constraints, apply- ing to the distribution of base-generated empty Catego” ries, also constrain the distribution of trace—and that certain deletion operations can even be argued to be derived by movement. Chomsky argued (contra BresnaN 1973, 1975) that sentences like John is taller than Ron is involve movement rather than deletion. He also dis- carded unconstrained pruning mechanisms in favor of a number of specific deletions typically involving COMP S' Deletion and Complementizer Deletion—which are required for particular grammars (see also Chomsky 1981). Work of the late 1980s continues to reflect the idea of parallel constraints on base-generated empiy categories and traces; thus Zagona 1988 argues oe ellipted VPs, like traces, are subject to Chomsky's 198 Empty Category Principle—a proposal extended ES AE beck 1987 to constrain ellipsis across categories IM gen eral (see also Chao 1988). Lasnik and Saito 1984 ei a general rule of Affect (move or delete) alpha, Le can result in the deletion of a trace in the syntax 0 Líogical) F(orm). Deletion of traces is also possible in Chomsky's 1995 Minimalist framework, as is deletion of features, at Píhonological) Form) or at LF. Other work in the 1990s brought a resurgence of interest in ellipsis as deletion. Tancredi 1992 proposes that VP Ellipsis involves PF deletion of a deaccented VP, a position also taken by Chomsky and Lasnik 1993. [See also Clause; Control; Coordination; Ellipsis; Prin- ciples and Parameters; Recoverability; and Traces.] BIBLIOGRAPHY Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause Con- struction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4.275-343. Bresnan, Joan. 1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformation. Linguistic Analysis 1.2574. Chao, Wynn. 1988. On ellipsis. New York: Garland. Chomsky, Noam. 1957, Syntactic structures. (Janua linguarum, Series minor, 4.) The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wH-movement, In Formal syntax, edited by Peter Culicover et al., pp. 71-132. New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. (Studies in generative grammar, 9.) Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Synfax: An international hand- book of contemporary research, vol. 1, edited by Joachim Jacobs et al., pp. 506-569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Grinder, John, and Paul Postal. 1971. Missing antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 2.269-312. Hankamer, Jorge. 1971. Constraints on deletion in syntax. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University dissertation. Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan A. Sag. 1976. Deep and surface ánaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7.391-428. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. (Studies in limguistics series, 2.) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Katz, Jerrold J., and Paul M. Postal. 1964. An integrated iheory Of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of Proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15.235-290. ; Lobeck, Anne C, 1987. Syntactic constraints on VP ellipsis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Posa, Paul M. 1970. On coreferential complement subject psicton. Linguistic Inquiry 1.439-500. : . stal, Paul M. 1972. Some further limitations of interprelivo E ries of anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 3.349-37 da da Osenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English pred Cate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass: SS. Bos, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Came dee, Mass.: MIT dissertation. Published as Infinite yni2% wood, N.J.: Ablex, 1986. DEMENTIA AND LANGUAGE — 425 Sag, lvan A. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation. Published, New York: Garland, 1979. Tancredi, Chris. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting, and presupposi- tion. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation. Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Cam- bridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation. Revised as Anaphora in generative grammar (Ghent: Story-Scientia, 1979). Williams, Edwin S. 1977, Discourse and Logical Form. Lin- guistic Inquiry 8.103-139. Zagona, Karen. 1988. Proper government of antecedentless VP in English and Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.95-128. ANNE LOBECK DEMENTIA AND LANGUAGE. apor refers to cognitive loss resulting from n cara eg. peana disease, or from other biolog- ical states, e.g. malnutrition or depression. Changes in language use are characteristic of the syndromes of dementia, as are memory sea behavioral changes, if in simple problem-solving. p prono pr traditionally associated with dementia includes naming disturbance, mos speech, press of speech (logorrhea), repetitions (ec . _ and palilalia), and muteness. For most of is past = centuries, demented behavior was conside - a ». atric disorder, and attempls were made to Pe ¿ se linguistic manifestations in relation to bag ol «chiatric disturbances (e.g. Séglas 1892). ca ud the 1970s increasing Western medical study me resulted in clearer understanding of , le agas £ dementia. Some of these involve primar? pr eg- Afizheimer's] D[emential, Picks ' ixinfarct dementia; others involve pri- eg. the dementia seen in jents with Parkinson's disease. In de j i sotor performance is prim: pp ra nano (festination) of ole ing; i tas, e = ible handwriting: in the cortical dementl pci tected. (For reference, see sformance is afecte 2. e 197% Bayles and Kaszniak 1987, Kempl pra 90 opresivo decline involved in AD, «goto? in, papito tests decrease, and Pa pe . sp tically farther from the targel; comprel i ¡ written materials deteriorates, especia or more complex materials; an creasingly devoid of content. However, 426 DEMENTIA AND LANGUAGE syntactic production are relatively spared, as is the ability to read aloud. Automatic speech tasks—e.g. reciting known series, such as the days of the week—soon show omissions or additions. Certain pragmatic abilities are spared until late in the course of dementia, e.g. use of social formulas; others decline early, e.g. appreciating inference. Metalinguistic abilities appear to decline; one cannot engage patients in the tasks. A stage model of progressive decline has proven useful in projecting the language changes of the cortical demen- tias, especially AD. In the early stages, patients resemble anomic aphasics; by the middle stages, they closely resemble those with Wernicke's aphasia or transcortical sensory aphasia (most strikingly with regard to empty speech, logorrhea, and poor comprehension). By the later stages, we find echolalia, then palilalia, then muteness; and other non-language behavioral deficits render con- fusion with aphasia unlikely. Distinguishing the linguistic performance of early- and mid-stage AD from that of certain aphasic syndromes is difficult; thus the question arises as to whether the lin- guistic disturbance results from damage to brain areas associated with language, or whether language similar to that in aphasia can result from damage to areas respon- sible for non-language cognitive abilities, such as idea- tion, memory, attention, and self-monitoring. Bayles and Kaszniak 1987 argue that disturbance of semantic memory accounts for the breakdown of lan- guage and communication in AD; others (e.g. Obler and Albert 1985) maintain that the predilection for cellular damage to frontal and temporal areas of the brain in AD makes the language areas particularly vulnerable to def- icit, especially in conjunction with the decline in the other non-language cognitive mechanisms listed above. The lexicon is the linguistic level that has received the most experimental study in the dementias. Evidence exists to show primary breakdown in lexical access, with sec- ondary breakdown in lexical representation, and also in visual identification of the objects to be named. The ev- idence for breakdown at the stage of lexical access orrecall comes from naming studies which find that demented pa- tients make errors related semantically to the target—or use circumlocutions to explain what the object to be named does, instead of naming it. Such responses suggest that knowledge of what the item is remains intact. However, problems with subordinate categories, as compared to su- perordinate information, argue for a degree of semantic or conceptual breakdown as well. In “semantic dementia” they are paramount (see Garrard and Hodges 1999). The relation of age at the onset of dementia to the degree and pace (but not the type) of linguistic impair- ment, remains controversial. Presenile AD, with onset prior to age sixty-five, appears to show earlier and more severe linguistic disturbance than does senile AD. In the rare cases of strong familial AD, with onset in the thirties and forties, language/communication disturbance appears strikingly early in the course of decline. Lay belief assumes that the behavioral changes of dementia simply represent normal or accelerated aging (“senility”); however, certain admittedly infrequent be- haviors—e.g. “klang”-association, i.e. compulsive pho- nologically motivated response to phonological cues on a naming task—are seen only in the language of de- mented patients. Pragmatic breakdown, too, can be quite severe in dementia (e.g., demented bilinguals” inappro- priate choice of language or code-switching with a mono- lingual interlocutor). [See also Aphasia; Bilingualism and Multilingualism: and Neurolinguistics.] BIBLIOGRAPHY Au, Rhoda, et al. 1988. The relation of aphasia to dementia. Aphasiology 2.161-173. Bayles, Kathryn A., and Alfred W. Kaszniak. 1987. Commu- nication and cognition in normal aging and dementia. Bos- ton: Little, Brown. Garrard, Peter, and John Hodges. 1999. Semantic dementia: Implications for the neural basis of language and meaning. Aphasiology 13.609-623. Kempler, Daniel, and Elizabeth M. Zelinski. 1994. Language in dementia and normal aging. In Dementia and normal aging, edited by F. A. Huppert et al., pp. 331-365. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Obler, Loraine K., and Martin L. Albert. 1985. Language skills across adulthood. In Handbook on the psychology of aging, 2d ed., edited by James E. Birren and K. Warner Schaie, pP- 463-473. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Séglas, Jules. 1892, Des troubles du langage chez les aliénés. Paris: Rueff. LORAINE K. OBLER DEMONSTRATIVES. See Deixis; Discourse; Philos- ophy of Language; Pragmatics and Contextual Semantics; Semantics; and Typology and Universals. DENOTATION. See Semantics and Philosophy of Lan- guage. DEONTIC MODALITY,. See Modality. DERIVATIONAL MORPHOLOGY. The theory of derivational morphology is empirically based on Dferivational] affixes, ¡.e. morphemes which are bound and placed before I[nflectional] affixes, in cases where ibe lexical category requires inflection. (For general ref- erence, see Motsch 1988, 1999.) 1. Definitions. Derivational morphology rests on the following abstract system of definitions: (a) Aword form is a word plus one or more Faffixes. (0) A word is (i) a root, (ii) a root plus a D-affix, (iii) a root plus a root, (iv) a word plus a D-affix, or (v) a word plus a word. In addition, a root ora word which is aco-constituent of a D-affix is called a base. In this definition, Laffix, D-affix, and root are prim- itive terms, empirically motivated by restrictions On Or- dering (Laffixes vs. words) or occurrence (affixes vS. 100ls). If we assume that l-affixes, D-affixes, and roots are separate categories of word structure, then I norphology, D-morphology, and compounding may be considered as different branches of morphology, deal- ing respectively with three separate types of systematic relations between words and Jraffixes, between bases and D-aflixes, and between words within a word. How- ter, there are several problems with this distinction. For instance, it has been argued that both E "orphology and D-morphology require the same sort ol formal processes (cf. Lieber 1980). Acategory-based distinction between root and D-affix, nd consequently a fundamental difference between D- Morphology and compounding, is argued explicitly by Selirk 1982, but has been denied by Húhle 1982. How- St, there is a widely shared view that the distinction een prefix and suffix is not a categorial one; prefix- son and suffixation are assumed to be governed by the Sane types of rules, '*Testriction of D-morphology to D-affixes presup- buses an essential difference between affixation and other o involved in morphological processes, such as mv o ablaut, and reduplication. These techniques, ¿ES differ only in the way in which semantic pro- 5% of the same kind are realized linguistically (See a 1977). e - 0 And productivity. From a grammatical dra A erivatives are essentially considered to be US Of rules. This is in keeping with the general Pon that complex linguistic forms of a language Flor Teduced to units and rules of some tyPe- Word] Imation] Klule]s, then, are rules that combine word units to form new complex words. Complex DERIVATIONAL MORPHOLOGY 427 words typically serve to enrich the permanent vocabulary of a language. Other functions are recategorization (e.g. pure nominalization in languages like English, German, or Russian), and stylistic variation (such as diminutives). As a result of the first function, the vocabulary of a language includes many derived words from earlier pe- riods of the language, which are related to rules only in arather limited way. Such limited regularities are covered by the concept of Rledundancy] rules. R=rules of the kind proposed by Jackendoff 1975 allow for explicit description of the dependent information, Le. of (sub)regularities, in the representation of the lexical en- tries which are part of the permanent lexicon of a lan- guage. Such rules account for all types of restrictions which run counter to full regularity. Asa borderline case, these rules may be identical to those which form new derivatives, ¡.e. to WFRs which involve affixes. 4 The study of WERs is concerned only with that part we the lexicon which is covered by Rerules which pom to WFRs, and ad-hoc formations in texts which are resumably the products of WFRs. On one hand, the ale of lexicalized complex words presupposes e j ¡es of WFRs; On study oli 2. — abre relevant the other, it goes beyond the 1ypes of regulari to the grammar. AN Characteristic of many D-processes pen po hoyos pra Jesser restrictions on the class of base WO! ps op to a given process (cf. nosmeci ac possible to restrict the class USINg only i . “ morphological categories. In some a nn cd ssible even 10 find a proper non-ac” ae ¡20 Figo There is another peculiarity. assanta ductivity of a certain type of D-process; cai predicted by a tentative sii pa á entries with the same kind of depel inst ací peso pq made to account for rete 0 Górska 1982, Dressler el al. y off , il be a mere A ed is frequently considered to Y 
