Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures

This paper discusses the notion of grammatical well-formedness in the light of certain optimality approaches to syntactic phenomena (e.g.,Pesetsky 1998; Grimshaw 1997; Grimshaw & Samek-Lodovici 1995; Costa 1998). Such approaches adhere to assumptions that lead to the following
 theor...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Sergio de Moura Menuzzi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina 2008-04-01
Series:Ilha do Desterro
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7381
id doaj-2a75cda3a3f640e0baeac15a7f1f7bf6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2a75cda3a3f640e0baeac15a7f1f7bf62020-11-24T22:45:10ZengUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaIlha do Desterro 0101-48462175-80262008-04-01047129168Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicaturesSergio de Moura MenuzziThis paper discusses the notion of grammatical well-formedness in the light of certain optimality approaches to syntactic phenomena (e.g.,Pesetsky 1998; Grimshaw 1997; Grimshaw & Samek-Lodovici 1995; Costa 1998). Such approaches adhere to assumptions that lead to the following
 theorem: a linguistic representation may violate a rammatical constraint and still be well-formed if and only if all other alternative candidates also violate some grammatical constraint. The point the paper makes is: if well-formedness is the theoretical correlate of full acceptability, this theorem
 is in trouble. The arguments come from the analysis of two marked constructions of English: logophoric reflexives (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993) and peculiar passives (Davison, 1980). The paper argues that these phenomena
 arise as a result of a Gricean implicature triggered by violations of grammatical constraints, and that conversational implicatures cannot be characterized as the result of competition among grammatical constraints. This paper discusses the notion of grammatical well-formedness in the light of certain optimality approaches to syntactic phenomena (e.g.,Pesetsky 1998; Grimshaw 1997; Grimshaw & Samek-Lodovici 1995; Costa 1998). Such approaches adhere to assumptions that lead to the following
 theorem: a linguistic representation may violate a rammatical constraint and still be well-formed if and only if all other alternative candidates also violate some grammatical constraint. The point the paper makes is: if well-formedness is the theoretical correlate of full acceptability, this theorem
 is in trouble. The arguments come from the analysis of two marked constructions of English: logophoric reflexives (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993) and peculiar passives (Davison, 1980). The paper argues that these phenomena
 arise as a result of a Gricean implicature triggered by violations of grammatical constraints, and that conversational implicatures cannot be characterized as the result of competition among grammatical constraints. http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7381English LanguageEnglish
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sergio de Moura Menuzzi
spellingShingle Sergio de Moura Menuzzi
Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures
Ilha do Desterro
English Language
English
author_facet Sergio de Moura Menuzzi
author_sort Sergio de Moura Menuzzi
title Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures
title_short Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures
title_full Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures
title_fullStr Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures
title_full_unstemmed Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures Non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? Logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures
title_sort non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures non-conflicting violations of grammatical constraints? logophoric reflexives, peculiar passives, and gricean implicatures
publisher Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
series Ilha do Desterro
issn 0101-4846
2175-8026
publishDate 2008-04-01
description This paper discusses the notion of grammatical well-formedness in the light of certain optimality approaches to syntactic phenomena (e.g.,Pesetsky 1998; Grimshaw 1997; Grimshaw & Samek-Lodovici 1995; Costa 1998). Such approaches adhere to assumptions that lead to the following
 theorem: a linguistic representation may violate a rammatical constraint and still be well-formed if and only if all other alternative candidates also violate some grammatical constraint. The point the paper makes is: if well-formedness is the theoretical correlate of full acceptability, this theorem
 is in trouble. The arguments come from the analysis of two marked constructions of English: logophoric reflexives (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993) and peculiar passives (Davison, 1980). The paper argues that these phenomena
 arise as a result of a Gricean implicature triggered by violations of grammatical constraints, and that conversational implicatures cannot be characterized as the result of competition among grammatical constraints. This paper discusses the notion of grammatical well-formedness in the light of certain optimality approaches to syntactic phenomena (e.g.,Pesetsky 1998; Grimshaw 1997; Grimshaw & Samek-Lodovici 1995; Costa 1998). Such approaches adhere to assumptions that lead to the following
 theorem: a linguistic representation may violate a rammatical constraint and still be well-formed if and only if all other alternative candidates also violate some grammatical constraint. The point the paper makes is: if well-formedness is the theoretical correlate of full acceptability, this theorem
 is in trouble. The arguments come from the analysis of two marked constructions of English: logophoric reflexives (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993) and peculiar passives (Davison, 1980). The paper argues that these phenomena
 arise as a result of a Gricean implicature triggered by violations of grammatical constraints, and that conversational implicatures cannot be characterized as the result of competition among grammatical constraints.
topic English Language
English
url http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7381
work_keys_str_mv AT sergiodemouramenuzzi nonconflictingviolationsofgrammaticalconstraintslogophoricreflexivespeculiarpassivesandgriceanimplicaturesnonconflictingviolationsofgrammaticalconstraintslogophoricreflexivespeculiarpassivesandgriceanimplicatures
_version_ 1725689834033381376