By Andrew Carnie
This e-book explores the empirical and theoretical features of constituent constitution in common language syntax. It surveys a large choice of functionalist and formalist theoretical techniques, from dependency grammars and Relational Grammar to Lexical useful Grammar, Head-driven word constitution Grammar, and Minimalism. It describes the normal checks for constituency and the formal skill for representing them in word constitution grammars, prolonged word constitution grammars, X-bar conception, and set theoretic naked word constitution. In doing so it offers a transparent, thorough, and rigorous axiomatic description of the structural homes of constituent timber. Andrew Carnie considers the relevant controversies on constituent constitution. Is it, for instance, a primitive inspiration or may still or not it's derived from relational or semantic shape? Do sentences have a unmarried constituency or a number of constituencies? Does constituency function on unmarried or a number of dimensions? And what precisely is the categorial content material of constituent constitution representations? He identifies issues of commonality in addition to very important theoretical transformations one of the quite a few methods to constituency, and seriously examines the strengths and boundaries of competing frameworks. this can be an amazing creation for graduate scholars and complicated undergraduates. it's also a beneficial reference for theoretical linguists of all persuasions in departments of linguistics, cognitive technology, computational technology, and similar fields.
Read Online or Download Constituent Structure PDF
Similar grammar books
This e-book provides an cutting edge conception of syntactic different types and the lexical periods they outline. It revives the normal concept that those are to be distinctive notionally (semantically). It permits there to be peripheral individuals of a lexical type that may now not evidently comply with the overall definition.
This learn presents the 1st description-oriented, theoretically-unaligned account of wh-clauses in sleek English. the writer employs a data-based method of learn points of either generative and non-generative paintings as regards their relative strengths and weaknesses. Wh-clauses in English: elements of idea and outline is a special mixture of statistical findings and qualitative research.
The essays amassed during this quantity, so much formerly unpublished, tackle a few heavily interconnected concerns raised by way of the comparative syntax of sensible heads in the Principles-and-Parameters method. the final idea of head circulation, the homes of derived buildings created via incorporation, and the parameterization concerned are the most theoretical foci.
Offering a unified answer in the frameworks of building Grammar and body Semantics, Hans Boas develops an account of resultative structures in English by means of grouping them in periods: conventionalized and non-conventionalized. The usage-based version used the following proposes that every specific feel of a verb constitutes a conventionalized mini-construction, that's the most important details for the licensing of arguments.
- Anaphora Resolution (Studies in Language and Linguistics)
- Grammar Express (with Answer Key) (Grammar Plus)
- Selves, Bodies and the Grammar of Social Worlds: Reimagining Social Change (Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse)
- When You Catch an Adjective, Kill It: The Parts of Speech, for Better And/Or Worse
- Editors-in-Chief, Edition: 1st ed
Extra resources for Constituent Structure
We return to the general description of simple dominance in graph theory below. 4 4 The ‘‘except itself ’’ and ‘‘other than itself ’’ parts of these deWnitions will become clear below as we discuss the axioms constraining dominance, but rely on the assumption that dominance is a reXexive relation. 30 preliminaries (b) Terminal node: A node that dominates nothing except itself. (c) Non-terminal node: A node that dominates something other than itself. 2 Axiomization of dominance In an early article on the mathematics of constituent trees, Zwicky and Isard (1963) sketch a series of deWnitions and axioms that specify the properties of structural relations.
This greatly limits the range of possible structures assigned to a given sentence. Take a simple example: (40) The Wsh from the reef ate tuna. If the hierarchical structure of this sentence has the PP from the reef as part of a constituent with Wsh (41a), then this sentence is about Wsh from the reef, not Wsh from the deep ocean. However, if we were to try to make it part of a constituent with the verb (41b), we would get the very odd (and for most speakers of English, unacceptable) meaning where the eating was from the reef, but the Wsh could be from somewhere else.
9). However, let us take as a starting point the compositionality hypothesis as it makes some interesting predictions about how constituent structure is put together. For example, it requires that if one word modiWes another (that is, restricts the meaning of another), then they must be composed together in the constituent structure. This greatly limits the range of possible structures assigned to a given sentence. Take a simple example: (40) The Wsh from the reef ate tuna. If the hierarchical structure of this sentence has the PP from the reef as part of a constituent with Wsh (41a), then this sentence is about Wsh from the reef, not Wsh from the deep ocean.