DOCSLIB.ORG

The Syntax of Natural Language: an Online Introduction Using the Trees Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Syntax of Natural Language: an Online Introduction Using the Trees Program The syntax of natural language: An online introduction using the Trees program Beatrice Santorini Anthony Kroch Citation: Santorini, Beatrice, and Anthony Kroch. 2000. The syntax of natural language: An online introduction using the Trees program. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook. © 2000 Beatrice Santorini and Anthony Kroch Last modified: 4 February 2004. Table of contents, detailed (short version) Titlepage 1 Foundational issues Prescriptive versus descriptive grammar Rule formation in language acquisition Rule-based word formation Question formation Structure dependence Intuitions about words belonging together Structural ambiguity Universal Grammar Formal universals Recursion Parameters Generative grammar Elementary trees and substitution Grammaticality Grammar versus language Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Expletive elements in English Modals and auxiliary verbs in English 2 Constituent structure Tests for constituenthood Substitution Movement Questions and sentence fragments It cleft focus Some caveats Mismatches between syntax and prosody Phrasal versus lexical constituents Verb phrases Representing constituenthood Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Node relations Verbs 3 Some basic linguistic relations Argumenthood Semantic valency Transitivity Modification Predication Expletive it Aristotelian versus Fregean predicates Expletive there Some special cases Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Grammatical relations Reference and related notions Thematic roles Verbs 4 Introducing the X' schema of phrase structure The X' schema for elementary trees Transitive elementary trees The X' schema in general Intransitive elementary trees Deriving simple sentences Deriving complex sentences The adjunct relation Modification is different The need for an adjunction operation A typology of syntactic dependents More on the distinction between complements and adjuncts Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Modals and auxiliary verbs in English Reference and related notions Thematic roles 5 Extending the X' schema Noun phrases Parallels and differences between noun phrases and sentences Noun phrases as DPs More on determiners Modification and related issues Adjective phrases Prepositional phrases Crosslinguistic variation in headedness Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Nouns 6 The verb movement parameter Verb raising: V movement to I The French future tense The order of adverbs and verbs in French Tense lowering: I movement to V The order of adverbs and verbs in English Do support in English Cues for the acquisition of verb raising Verb raising and related issues in the history of English The loss of verb raising A change in the status of not The emergence of do support The emergence of modals Remnants of verb raising in modern English Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Modals and auxiliary verbs in English Node relations 7 VP shells Double-object sentences The structure of ordinary causative sentences Parallels between causative sentences and double-object sentences Abstract verb movement Double-complement sentences Give and send Put Persuade The causative alternation Manner of motion verbs Get Further issues Locality constraints on idioms Small clauses revisited Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Thematic roles 8 Case theory A first look at case The basic purpose of case Case government Synthetic versus analytic case marking Case features Case licensing Spec-head licensing Head-spec licensing Head-comp licensing Nonstructural conditions on case licensing The dative-accusative distinction Case agreement (coming eventually...) Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Grammatical relations 9 Nonfinite clausal complements Selectional restrictions Subject control Evidence for two clauses Deriving subject control sentences Raising A detour Nonthematic subject positions Deriving raising sentences Tend and occur Promise Object control More nonthematic subjects Subject idiom chunks Weather it Summary Notes Exercises and problems 10 Passive Characteristics of the passive A movement analysis Object idiom chunks Analysis The passive and nonfinite complementation Structural versus inherent case Exercises and problems 11 Wh- movement: Ross's island constraints Evidence for a movement analysis of questions Complementation Why a silent complementizer? Case checking Direct wh- questions The island constraints The apparent unboundedness of wh- movement A typology of islands Other instances of wh- movement Wh- relative clauses That relative clauses Doubly marked relative clauses Zero relative clauses Topicalization Notes Exercises and problems 12 Wh- movement: Subjacency and the ECP Subjacency Two possible derivations for long-distance wh- movement IP as a barrier to wh- movement DP as a barrier to wh- movement The coordinate structure constraint revisited The Empty Category Principle (ECP) Antecedent government Lexical government Further issues and refinements Is subjacency an independent principle? Movement out of ECM complements Movement out of DP Exercises and problems Supplementary material Node relations 13 The verb-second (V2) phenomenon V2 in German The linear position of the finite verb The structural position of the finite verb Movement to C as adjunction Verb movement to C in declaratives V2 in the history of English V2 in Middle English A remnant of V2 in modern English Notes Exercises and problems 14 Binding theory: Syntactic constraints on the interpretation of noun phrases Coreference and coindexing Hellan 1988 The co-argument condition The predication condition The tensed IP condition Strict vs. non-strict co-arguments Extending Hellan's binding theory to English The co-argument condition The predication condition The tensed IP condition Chomsky 1981 Principle A Principle B Principle C Notes Exercises and problems (to be added) Glossary List of supplementary material Expletive elements in English Grammatical relations Modals and auxiliary verbs in English Node relations Questions Reference and related notions Thematic roles Verbs References General literature and reference works Technical literature and sources Other textbooks 1 Foundational issues Prescriptive versus descriptive grammar Rule formation in language acquisition A thought experiment Rule-based word formation Question formation More evidence for syntactic structure Intuitions about words belonging together Structural ambiguity Universal Grammar Formal universals Recursion Parameters Generative grammar Elementary trees and substitution Grammaticality Grammar versus language Notes Exercises and problems Supplementary material Expletive elements in English Modals and auxiliary verbs in English This book is an introduction to generative grammar from a Chomskyan perspective. By the time you finish this chapter, you will have a clearer understanding of what we mean by this sentence, and by the time you finish the entire book, your understanding of it should be clearer and deeper still. But for now, you have probably gained the impression that this book is about grammar of some sort. And right there, we have a problem. The problem is that there is an everyday sense of the term 'grammar' and a quite different sense in which the term is used in linguistics. Prescriptive versus descriptive grammar In the everyday sense, 'grammar' refers to a collection of rules concerning what counts as socially acceptable and unacceptable language use. Some of these rules, like the ones in (1), make reference to particular words and apply to both spoken and written language. (1) a. Don't use ain't. b. Don't use seen as the past tense of see (as in I seen him at the party last night). But mainly, the rules in question concern the proper composition of sentences in written language, and you probably recall being taught rules like those in (2) at school. (2) a. Don't start a sentence with a conjunction. b. Don't use contractions. c. Don't use sentence fragments. d. Don't end a sentence with a linking verb. e. Don't use dangling participles. f. Don't end a sentence with a preposition. g. Don't use an object pronoun for a subject pronoun in a conjoined noun phrase. h. Don't use a plural pronoun to refer back to a singular noun like everyone, no-one, someone, and the like. i. Don't split infinitives. j. Use whom, not who, as the object of a verb or preposition. Someone who composes sentences in accordance with rules like those in (2) is said to have good grammar, whereas someone said to have bad grammar doesn't apply the rules when they ought to be applied,1 producing sentences like (3). (3) a. Over there is the guy who I went to the party with. violates (2f), (2j) b. Bill and me went to the store. violates (2g) Now if rules like those in (2) were the only ones that were used to form English sentences, then people who didn't follow them should produce rampantly variable and confusing sentences, leading in extreme cases to a complete breakdown of communication. However, even people who routinely produce sentences like those in (3) do not produce the likes of (4). (4) a. Over there is guy the who I went to party the with. b. Over there is the who I went to the party with guy. c. Bill and me the store to went. The sentences in (3) may be instances of bad grammar in the everyday sense, but they are still English sentences. By contrast, we don't need to rely on school rules to tell us that the examples in (4) are not English sentences - even though they contain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cognate Object Constructions In
    COGNATE OBJECT CONSTRUCTIONS IN MSA A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2017 Safiah A. Y. Madkhali SCHOOL OF ARTS, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………….7 LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………...7 ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………...8 DECLARATION……………………………………………………………..……………9 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT……………………………………………………………10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………...11 GLOSSING CONVENTIONS…………………………………………………………..12 TRANSLITERATION SYMBOLS………………………………………………………13 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 14 1.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….14 1.2. Modern Standard Arabic……………………………………………………...17 1.3. The Data………………………………………………………………………...18 1.4. Cognate Object Constructions………………………………………………..20 1.4.1. Delimitation of the Concept .............................................................................. 20 1.4.1.1 Morphological Criterion ..................................................................... 20 1.4.1.2 Semantic Criteria .................................................................................. 21 1.4.1.3 Syntactic Criteria .................................................................................. 25 1.4.1.4 Categories of Cognate Objects ........................................................... 28 1.4.1.5 Delimitation of the Concept in MSA ................................................. 33 1.4.2.
    [Show full text]
  • CLIPP Christiani Lehmanni Inedita, Publicanda, Publicata Pleonasm and Hypercharacterization
    CLIPP Christiani Lehmanni inedita, publicanda, publicata titulus Pleonasm and hypercharacterization huius textus situs retis mundialis http://www.uni-erfurt.de/ sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/ Hypercharacterization.pdf dies manuscripti postremum modificati 23.02.2006 occasio orationis habitae 11. Internationale Morphologietagung Wien, 14.-17.02.2004 volumen publicationem continens Booij, Geert E. & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005. Heidelberg: Springer annus publicationis 2005 paginae 119-154 Pleonasm and hypercharacterization Christian Lehmann University of Erfurt Abstract Hypercharacterization is understood as pleonasm at the level of grammar. A scale of strength of pleonasm is set up by the criteria of entailment, usualness and contrast. Hy- percharacterized constructions in the areas of syntax, inflection and derivation are ana- lyzed by these criteria. The theoretical basis of a satisfactory account is sought in a holis- tic, rather than analytic, approach to linguistic structure, where an operator-operand struc- ture is formed by considering the nature of the result, not of the operand. Data are drawn from German, English and a couple of other languages. The most thorough in a number of more or less sketchy case studies is concerned with German abstract nouns derived in -ierung (section 3.3.1). This process is currently so productive that it is also used to hy- percharacterize nouns that are already marked as nominalizations. 1 1. Introduction Hypercharacterization 2 (German Übercharakterisierung) may be introduced per ostensionem: it is visible in expressions such as those of the second column of T1. T1. Stock examples of hypercharacterization language hypercharacterized basic surplus element German der einzigste ‘the most only’ der einzige ‘the only’ superlative suffix –st Old English children , brethren childer , brether plural suffix –en While it is easy, with the help of such examples, to understand the term and get a feeling for the concept ‘hypercharacterization’, a precise definition is not so easy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cognate Accusative in the Holy Quran and the Methods of Compensation* المفعول المطلق في القرآن الكريم وأساليب اإلحاطة بالشكل والمضمون
    An - Najah Univ. J. Res. (Humanities). Vol. 30(10), 2016 The Cognate Accusative in the Holy Quran and the Methods of Compensation* المفعول المطلق في القرآن الكريم وأساليب اﻹحاطة بالشكل والمضمون Wala’a Ya’aqbah وﻻء يعاقبة Language Center, Arab American University, Jenin, Palestine E-mail: [email protected] Received: (20/11/2015), Accepted: (12/5/2016) Abstract This study discusses the problem of translating the cognate accusative (CA) from Arabic into English. It also studies whether the translations studied achieve the optimal pragmatic meaning and force. It attempts to discover how cognate accusatives in the Holy Qur'an have been dealt with in translations done by a number of professional translators. In this study, the researcher will compare the different translations done by different translators, as Mohammad Muhsin Khan, Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall and Zaid Shakir. The aim is to discover how the cognate accusative has been dealt with; hence, the study will be involved in the basis of direct and indirect translation approaches to show how the translators manage to semantically and pragmatically render the source cognate accusative in the target language, the ensuing loss of meaning and ways of compensation. The study is to be empirical, analytical, and comparative, in the sense that it intends to observe the translators' decision-making in rendering the source text in the target language, whether they follow the direct or indirect translations to render the meaning in the target language. It also * This paper is submitted to the conference titled “Translation a Tool for Connection or Separation”. ”...... The Cognate Accusative in the“ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ 2058 studies whether the translations achieve the optimal meaning and force, both linguistically and pragmatically.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking
    Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6006 Janskerkhof 13 fax: +31 30 253 6406 3512 BL Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration: detail of Polderland by Hennie de Swart (2004) ISBN 978-90-78328-39-1 NUR 616 Copyright c 2007: Peter de Swart. All rights reserved. The work in this dissertation has been funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), grant 220-70-003. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking een wetenschappelijke proeve op het gebied van de Letteren Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J.J. Kortmann, volgens besluit van het College van Decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 21 november 2007 om 10.30 uur precies door Petrus Jacobus Franciscus de Swart geboren op 23 augustus 1981 te Nijmegen Promotor: Prof. dr. P.C. Muysken Copromotor: Mw. dr. H. de Hoop Manuscriptcommissie: Mw. prof. dr. J. Aissen (University of California at Santa Cruz) Mw. prof. dr. A.C.M. van Kemenade Mw. prof. dr. B. Primus (Universit¨atzu K¨oln) Acknowledgements Being a fan of the genre of acknowledgements, I am hesitant to add my contribution to it. Although the work of a single person, this thesis could not have been written without the support and friendship of others. I would like to single out a few of them. This project could not have been carried out without the financial support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to the PIONIER Project Case Cross-linguistically [grant 220-70-003] which is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • MISCELANEA 53.Indb
    ON THE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF COGNATE OBJECT CONSTRUCTIONS IN PRESENT- DAY BRITISH ENGLISH. A PRELIMINARY CORPUS- BASED ANALYSIS1 BEATRIZ RODRÍGUEZ ARRIZABALAGA Universidad de Huelva [email protected] 81 1. Introduction The present paper focuses on English cognate object constructions (COC, henceforward) of the type illustrated in the following examples: (1) He fought a last furious fight and finally gave in. (BNC: H9Y 2985) (2) Do not disturb this sleep unless there are other indications that the child is not sleeping a peaceful, healing sleep. (BNC: B1R 6651) (3) They have begun to dance a strange dance. (BNC: H8R 773) Present in almost any descriptive grammar of English since the publication in 1891 of Sweet’s seminal work on English Grammar (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985; Halliday 1987; Downing and Locke 1992; Huddleston and Pullum 2002, among others), English COCs seem to be of special linguistic interest due to their particular and controversial syntactico-semantic and pragmatic status. Nevertheless, the research carried out around English cognate objects has not paid the same attention to their syntactico-semantic and pragmatic behaviour. Whereas the former has been widely discussed in the literature (e.g. Baron 1971; Jones 1988; Rice 1988; Massam 1990; Dixon 1991; Downing and Locke 1992; Macfarland 1995; Huddleston and Pullum 2002; Nakajima 2006; Iwasaki 2007; Mirto 2007; Höche 2009; Ogata 2011), the latter has gone almost unnoticed miscelánea: a journal of english and american studies 53 (2016): pp. 81-105 ISSN: 1137-6368 Beatriz Rodríguez Arrizabalaga (e.g. Jones 1988; Rice 1988; Massam 1990; Macfarland 1995; Mittwoch 1998; Pereltsvaig 1999; Felser and Wanner 2001; Kuno and Takami 2004; Höche 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Dream a Little Dream of Me: Cognate Predicates in English*
    Dream a little dream of me: Cognate Predicates in English* Ignazio Mauro Mirto1 Università di Palermo Abstract Three constructions of English are under scrutiny: in the first, the post-verbal noun (PVN) is a Cognate Object (CO, e.g. They all sighed a little sigh of relief); in the second, it is a Reaction Object (RO, e.g. She rattled out a painful laugh), whilst in the third it is a Measure Phrase (MP, e.g. This case weighs 20 kilos). COs, ROs, and MPs are analysed as noun predicates combining with a support (light) verb. COs and ROs may differ from MPs with regard to the (surface) grammatical relation they bear: in CO sentences, the PVN is a predicate surfacing as an argument, as in the RO construction; on the other hand, in It weighs 20 kilos the MP is a predicate throughout the structure. This paper offers a solution to the long-standing problem concerning the nature (argument vs. complement) of COs and MPs. In the proposed analysis, the verbs occurring with COs, ROs, and MPs have both plain and support uses rather than an alternating valence like that found with verbs such as eat (He ate fruit – He ate) or break (He broke the window – The window broke). Two types of support verbs are set apart: one, with or without descriptive content, works as an auxiliary, the other has descriptive content and is unergative. Keywords : Cognate object, complément interne, measure phrase, light verb, reaction object 1. Introduction In the case of unmarked word-order, sentences such as (1), an instance of the Cognate Object (CO) construction, contain a post-verbal noun (PVN), the analysis of which oscillates between two possible interpretations: (1) Bill sighed a weary sigh.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Cognate Objects with Unaccusative And
    ABSTRACT COGNATE OBJECTS WITH UNACCUSATIVE AND UNERGATIVE VERBS IN ARABIC The study examines the function and properties of the cognate object (CO) in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). The analysis of the Arabic cognate object supports the argument that the cognate objects with unaccusative and unergative verbs occupy the adjunct position because they are adverbs, not arguments, so they don’t compete with the superficial subject (that originated as an object) for the complement position. The cognate object in Arabic has traditionally been known as the absolute object among Arab grammarians and syntacticians. Even though the absolute object is an adjunct, it looks like an argument due to word order and case marking. The behavior of cognate objects in Arabic unaccusatives is linked to the fact that accusative case is inherent case. I will show that the traditional analysis is wrong in treating the Arabic cognate object as a complement (argument) in the unaccusative and unergative structures. I will argue in favor of the adverbial analysis. Mohammed Al-Sammak May 2012 COGNATE OBJECTS WITH UNACCUSATIVE AND UNERGATIVE VERBS IN ARABIC by Mohammed Al-Sammak A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics in the College of Arts and Humanities California State University, Fresno May 2012 APPROVED For the Department of Linguistics: We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the
    [Show full text]
  • On Cognate Objects in Sason Arabic
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 23 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 40th Annual Penn Article 2 Linguistics Conference 2017 On Cognate Objects in Sason Arabic Faruk Akkuş University of Pennsylvania Balkız Öztürk Boğaziçi University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Akkuş, Faruk and Öztürk, Balkız (2017) "On Cognate Objects in Sason Arabic," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 23 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol23/iss1/2 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol23/iss1/2 For more information, please contact [email protected]. On Cognate Objects in Sason Arabic Abstract This paper investigates the patterns of cognate objects (COs) associated with unergatives and unaccusatives in Sason Arabic. We propose that COs of both unergatives and unaccusatives are not true arguments, as evinced by their highly productive and unrestricted use, but constitute rhematic complements in the sense of Ramchand (2008), therefore cannot be used as diagnostics for unergative-unaccusative distinction in the language. This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol23/iss1/2 On Cognate Objects in Sason Arabic Faruk Akkuş and Balkız Öztürk 1 Introduction This paper investigates the patterns of cognate objects (COs) associated with unergatives and unac- cusatives in Sason Arabic, an endangered Arabic dialect spoken in eastern Turkey (Jastrow 2006, Akkuş 2016). We propose that COs of both unergatives and unaccusatives are not true arguments, but consti- tute rhematic complements in the sense of Ramchand (2008), therefore cannot be used as a diagnos- tics for unergative-unaccusative distinction in the language.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognate Objects in Arabic a Structural and Functional Analysis of Data from the Qur’An and from Modern Written Arabic
    Cognate objects in Arabic A structural and functional analysis of data from the Qur’an and from Modern Written Arabic Empirical studies on cognate objects (further CO/COs) in different languages show that CO-constructions form a heterogeneous group both in terms of their syntax and their semantics (cf. Pereltsvaig (2002) on Hebrew, Nakajima (2006) and Kim & Lim (2012) on English, Glaude & Zribi-Hertz (2014) on Haitian Creole, and Akkuş & Öztürk (2017) on Sason Arabic). It has been pointed out that in contrast to earlier approaches, COs cannot be considered either only as arguments or exclusively as adjuncts (for COs as arguments in English and French cf. Macfarland (1995), in English and Japanese cf. Matsumoto (1996) and for COs as adjuncts in English cf. Jones (1988), in English and German cf. Moltmann (1989)). The question of the status of COs as arguments or adjuncts is accompanied by the discussion whether only intransitive verbs enter CO-constructions and if among the intransitive verbs only unergative verbs or also unaccusative verbs license COs (cf. Levin & Hovav (1995), Nakajima (2006)). Pereltsvaig (2002) and Kim & Lim (2012) (i.a.) argue that both ap- proaches (COs as arguments vs. adjuncts) are compatible by adopting two types of COs ((a) ‘arguments’ or ‘referential-COs’ vs. (b) ‘adjuncts’ or ‘eventive-COs’) and claim that languages differ in whether they allow only CO-type (a) or both. In my talk I will discuss the syntactic and semantic properties of COs based on data from Qur’an (Classical Arabic) and from Modern Written Arabic
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Word-Formation and the Morphology-Syntax Interface
    Complex Word-Formation and the Morphology-Syntax Interface Susanna Padrosa Trias PhD Dissertation Supervisors: Dr Anna Bartra Kaufmann Dr Jaume Mateu Fontanals Tutor: Dr Montserrat Capdevila Batet Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona May 2010 1 2 To my parents, Josep and Mª Dolors, To my husband, David, and to our son, Dídac, For all they mean to me. 3 4 Table of Contents Table of Contents i Acknowledgments v Abstract vii List of Tables ix List of Abbreviations x Chapter 1. The Morphology-Syntax Interface 1 1.1 Jackendoff’s (1990, 1997, 2002) tripartite parallel model 1 1.2 Looking inside the syntactic component 15 1.2.1 Morphology and syntax: one component or two? 15 1.3 Compounds in morphology 24 1.3.1 Ackema & Neeleman’s (2004) competition model 24 1.3.1.1 English 28 1.3.1.2 Catalan and Spanish 37 1.4 Compounds in syntax 46 1.4.1 Distributed Morphology (DM): the essentials 47 1.4.2 Compounds in DM: Harley (2004, 2008b) 59 1.4.2.1 Assumptions 59 1.4.2.2 Synthetic modifier compounds 60 1.4.2.3 Synthetic argument compounds 64 1.4.3 Discussion: debatable questions in DM 71 1.5 Conclusions 79 Chapter 2. Germanic and Romance compounding: the case of English and Catalan 82 2.1 Some remarks on the notion of ‘head’ 82 2.1.1 Heads in morphology 83 2.1.2 Against heads in morphology 89 2.1.2.1 Zwicky (1985) 90 i 2.1.2.2 Bauer (1990) 91 2.1.2.3 Anderson (1992) 92 2.2 What are compounds and how to classify them 96 2.2.1 The raw material of compounds 96 2.2.2 Which is the classification of compounds? 109 2.3 English and Catalan compounding 129 2.3.1 English 132 2.3.1.1 Nominal compounds 134 2.3.1.2 Verbal compounds 155 2.3.1.3 Adjectival compounds 168 2.3.2 Catalan 180 2.3.2.1 Nominal compounds 184 2.3.2.2 Verbal compounds 220 2.3.2.3 Adjectival compounds 231 2.4 Discussion and conclusion 245 Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Automatic Tripartite Classification of Intransitive Verbs
    Automatic Tripartite Classification of Intransitive Verbs Nitesh Surtani, Soma Paul Language Technologies Research Centre IIIT Hyderabad Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500032 [email protected], [email protected] Abstract nominative subject for all kinds of intransitive verbs whereas Hindi uses ergative case marker ‘ne’ on In this paper, we introduce a tripartite scheme subject when the verb is unergative and in perfect for the classification of intransitive verbs for tense whereas unaccusative doesn’t as exemplified Hindi and claim it to be a more suitable model of classification than the classical binary unac- in (1a) and (1b) respectively. cusative/unergative classification. We develop a multi-class SVM classifier based model for (1) a. English: Ram ran a lot. automatic classification of intransitive verbs raam-ne khub dauRaa. into proposed tripartite classes. We rank the Hindi: unaccusative diagnostic tests for Hindi based Ram-erg very much run-3 pft on their authenticity in attesting an intransi- The glass broke. tive verb under unaccussative class. We show b. English: that the use of the ranking score in the fea- Hindi: glaas TuT-aa. ture of the classifier improves the efficiency Glass break-3 pft of the classification model even with a small amount of data. The empirical result illus- Classifying intransitive verbs of (1a) and (1b) into trates the fact that judicious use of linguistic knowledge builds a better classification model subclasses can result in producing right case mark- than the one that is purely statistical. ing on the subject in the target language Hindi. In parsing, identifying the subclass of the intransitive verb helps in predicting the position of the subject 1 Introduction in the Phrase structure tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Ke Ti Zu. (٢٠٠٩). Jian Bo Wen Xian Yu Yan Yan Jiu = the Li
    "Dzhangar". Jian bo wen xian yu yan yan jiu = The linguistic studies of the bamboo slips and the .(٢٠٠٩) .Jian bo wen xian yu yan yan jiu" ke ti zu" silk manuscripts. Beijing Shi, She hui ke xue wen xian chu ban she. .Islams and modernities. London, Verso .(٢٠٠٩) .A*º*mah, A. z** .Pu*shto lugh*at. Lor*al*a&#x٠٢bc;*i, Quetta, Pu*shto Adab*i Malgar*i .(٢٠٠٩) .Amir, A. a.-K. i. and Pu*shto Adab*i Malgar*i** Athar al-qir*a**at al-Qur**an*iyah f*i al-fahm al-lughaw*i : dir*asah ta*tb*iq*iyah f*i s*urat .(٢٠٠٩) .Isá, M. h. M. u. A. i. H** al-Baqarah. al-Q*ahirah, D*ar al-Sal*am lil-*Tib*a*ah wa-al-Nashr wa-al-Tawz*i* wa-al-Tarjamah. .Ta(l)king English phonetics across frontiers. Newcastle, Cambridge Scholars .(٢٠٠٩) ubrovi**, B. and T. Paunovic** Dir*as*at f*i al-tarjamah wa-naqdih*a. Bayr*ut, Lubn*an, al-Mu*assasah al-*Arab*iyah lil-Dir*as*at .(٢٠٠٩) .A*sf*ur, M. h* wa-al-Nashr. Lahjat Tam*im f*i qir*a&#x٠٢bc;at Ab*i *Amr : dir*asah na*hw*iyah wa-*sarf*iyah. Makkah .(٢٠٠٩) .A*t*iyah, M. a* .;al-Mukarramah, D*ar *Taybah al-Kha*dr*a&#x٠٢bc al-Qur**an al-Kar*im wa-al-qir*a*ah al-*had*ath*iyah : dir*asah ta*hl*il*iyah naqd*iyah li-ishk*al*iyat .(٢٠٠٩) .Abb*aq*i, a.-H* al-na*s*s *inda Mu*hammad Ark*un.
    [Show full text]