Publication details
A case of collision in principles of language description?
| Title in English | A case of collision in principles of language descriptio? |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2014 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/pralin-2014-0008 |
| Field | Linguistics |
| Keywords | functional generative description; modified valency theory; reflexives; valency frame; valency dictionary |
| Attached files | |
| Description | In the article, I deal with an apparent case of incoherence within the framework of Functional Generative Description (FGD) in treating certain reflexive constructions. According to the principle that differences between valency frames are constitutive for establishing different lexical units (e. g., Žabokrtský and Lopatková, 2007), the occurrences of vnímat in (i) Vnímá syna jako soka and (ii) Sám se vnímá jako síla ochraňující divadlo have to be assigned to two different lexical units, as there is a difference in the formal marking of the Effect-argument (jako+accusative case in (i), jako+nominative case in (ii)). On the basis of the commutation test (e. g., Panevová, 2008) which identifies the reflexive clitic se in (ii) as an object-clitic, both occurrences of vnímat have to be, however, assigned to the same lexical unit as the only difference between vnímá syna in (i) and vnímá se in (ii) consists in the lexical filling of the object position. In the main part of the text, I review two different strategies to remedy the conflict between the two principles. I point out certain implications of both strategies and conclude by pleading for a solution within the framework of Modified Valency Theory (Karlík, 2000). |