User talk:Bibliophileb/project
Hey all! I added some possible sections I thought we might want to include in our article. I'm not sure what you think of these; it's really rudimentary, so feedback is appreciated. --Bibliophileb (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
conflicting analyses of inalienable possession: ‘interpenetration’ view (need to look at syntax, semantics, and pragmatics all together to explain inalienable possession) vs. analyses that explain it using only one of these "linguistic levels"
Kliffer, M. D. (1984). Interpenetration of linguistic levels: French inalienable possession. Lingua, 62(3), 187-208. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/85462606?accountid=14656 --Bibliophileb (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]As you develop your entries, you should be aiming to minimally cover the following points:
1. A brief introduction (2-3 sentences) where you define & exemplify the phenomenon that your entry is examining.
2. Data section where you present examples that illustrate the distribution of the phenomenon that your entry is examining. (Depending on the king of problem you're looking at this could involve (i) one set of examples from English, along with examples from a representative set of languages. (ii) if the phenomenon doesn't occur in English, then only examples from other languages; (iii) if the phenoemeno only occurs in English, then a full set of examples from English
3. Theory section where you present (at least two) competing analyses within generative grammar.
Of course sections 2 & 3 should have subsections.
some notes
[edit]Nice work so far! It's great that you have been using sandbox; next is to move it to the talk page of the article soon! I've informed RM that your article is not a stub and needs incorporation (I saw you've done some). Just have several suggestions after reading it.
- Definition: inalienable possession as a notion vs. obligatory possession; the two should be teased apart
- Comparison to alienable possession: the English example, which is to demonstrate optional use of syntactic inalienable possession might be moved to somewhere else for a clear illustration of inalienable vs. alienable contrast (the French example belongs to morphological and obligatory type). Or, to remark that languages differ in whether they show this distinction linguistically and place English properly.
- Gloss: Language data other than English should have one-to-one glosses, i.e., to give word-by-word translation under the first line
- Morphological properties section looks good; one thing is to check if the strategy used in Igbo is deletion or covert marking, as the former is syntactic but not morphological.
- Syntactic properties: one type is external possession, where the possessor appears outside the noun phrase that contains the possessed noun and is case-marked like an argument. Try to search references with external possession and possessor raising; Guéron's paper has a review on the analyses to this issue.
- Section titles: As the second section is to present how languages express inalienable possession, maybe rename Morphological/Syntactic/Semantic Properties as Morphological/Syntactic/Semantic Strategies or something similar