By Alain PolguŠre, Igor A. Mel'cuk
Dependency in average language / Igor Melʹčuk -- at the prestige of words in head-driven word constitution grammar : representation by means of a completely lexical remedy of extraction / Sylvain Kahane -- developing a list of surface-syntactic family members : valence-controlled surface-syntactic dependents of the verb in French / Lidija Iordanskaja and Igor Melʹčuk -- Linear placement of Serbian clitics in a syntactic dependency framework / Jasmina Milićević
Read or Download Dependency in Linguistic Description PDF
Best nonfiction_2 books
Instantiation concept offers a brand new, basic unification set of rules that's of fast use in development theorem provers and common sense programming structures. Instantiation conception is the learn of instantiation in an summary context that's acceptable to most typically studied logical formalisms. the quantity starts with a survey of basic methods to the learn of instantiation, as present in tree platforms, order-sorted algebras, algebraic theories, composita, and instantiation platforms.
- Some Sunny Day
- BPwin. Methods Guide
- The God Man: The Life, Journeys and Work of Meher Baba
- Maverick Millionaires 2 When He Was Bad...
- Brand Choice: Revealing Customers' Unconscious-Automatic and Strategic Thinking Process
- Eyes and No Eyes1 Wild Life in Woods and Fields
Extra info for Dependency in Linguistic Description
What is known as structural, or empty, words, complicate the picture without affecting the essence of my reasoning: they do not appear in the DSyntS, but they are present in the SSyntS—since they are separate wordforms, and the SSyntS is supposed to represent all the wordforms actually found in the sentence. To keep my formulations as simple as possible I leave the lexical means used in syntactic capacity out of the discussion. 3 The concept of syntactic dependency Let us emphasize that at the very beginning of the D -approach Synt-D was not, and is still not always, rigorously distinguished from Sem-D and Morph-D .
Note that Criterion B1 does not require exact distributional equivalence between the Synt-head of a phrase and the whole phrase, as is the case in some similar approaches. For us, it is sufficient if, in the phrase w1–synt→w2, the wordform w1 contributes to the passive Synt-valence of w1–synt→w2 more than w2 does. Examples (12) a. The passive Synt-valence (= the distribution) of the phrase for decades is fully determined by the preposition; therefore, for–synt→decades. b. , that of a finite, or tensed, verb) rather than that of the past participle escaped or the infinitive escape; therefore, has–synt→escaped, does–synt→escape.
Here again, Criterion B3 applies: shí bàng ròu refers to an instance of meat, not to an instance of pounds, so ròu (meat) is the Synt-governor: shí←synt–bàng←synt–ròu. One can say (with Zwicky 1993: 295-296) that in a two-word phrase the Synt-governor is the syntactic class determinant, or—if there is no such syntactic determinant—the morphological behavior determinant, or—in case both syntactic and morphological determinants are absent—the semantic content determinant. In one word (Bazell 1949: 11), the Synt-governor is more PROMINENT than its Synt-dependent, namely more prominent syntactically, or else morphologically, or at least semantically.