- Title Pages
- Notes on contributors
- List of figures and tables
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Resolving alignment conflicts: A competing motivations approach
- 3 Animate object fronting in Dutch: A production study
- 4 Patterns in competing motivations and the interaction of principles
- 5 Why move? How weight and discourse factors combine to predict relative clause extraposition in English
- 6 A statistical model of competing motivations affecting relative clause extraposition in German
- 7 Competition in argument interpretation: Evidence from the neurobiology of language
- 8 Competition all the way down: How children learn word order cues to sentence meaning
- 9 Competing motivations in children's omission of subjects? The interaction between verb finiteness and referent accessibility
- 10 Competing cues in early syntactic development
- 11 Conflicting vs. convergent vs. interdependent motivations in morphology
- 12 On system pressure competing with economic motivation
- 13 Apparently competing motivations in morphosyntactic variation
- 14 Formal vs. functional motivations for the structure of self‐repair in German
- 15 Six competing motives for repetition
- 16 Motivating competitions
- 17 Competing motivation models and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations?
- 18 Where do motivations compete?
- 19 Politeness distinctions in personal pronouns: A case study on competing motivations
- 20 <i>Or</i> constructions: Monosemy vs. polysemy
- 21 Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: Two competing domains?
- 22 Conclusions: Competition across time
Where do motivations compete?
Where do motivations compete?
- (p.299) 18 Where do motivations compete?
- Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage
Frederick J. Newmeyer
- Oxford University Press
This chapter is devoted to analyzing the locus of competing functional motivations. There are, broadly speaking, two positions on this issue, called “direct competition” (DC) and “indirect competition” (IC). In DC, there is direct synchronic linkage between properties of particular grammars and functional motivations for those properties. In IC, there is no direct linkage. Several arguments lead to the conclusion that IC is correct. In a nutshell, we can pinpoint parsing ease, iconicity, etc. as motivating factors for grammatical structure, even though, contra DC, there is no hope of identifying parsing or iconicity as motivators for particular structures or rules in particular languages.
Keywords: competing motivations, conventionality, direct competition, emergent grammar, functional explanation, iconicity, indirect competition, lexical government, Optimality Theory, preposition‐stranding, processing
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.