DOCSLIB.ORG

NP X-Bar Theory: NP ¥ I Bought This Big Book of Poems with the Blue Cover

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NP X-Bar Theory: NP ¥ I Bought This Big Book of Poems with the Blue Cover CAS LX 522 Back to the trees: X-bar Theory • Consider our current NP rule: Syntax I – NP: (D) (AdjP+) N (PP+) • This yields a “flat structure” where all of the components of DP c-command each other. NP Week 3. X-bar Theory DNPPAdjP PP thisAdj book P NP PNP big of N with D AdjP N poems the Adj cover blue X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP • I bought this big book of poems with the blue cover. • We can substitute one for book of poems with the blue • You bought this small one. cover, which should mean book of poems with the blue cover is a constituent, but it isn’t in our structure. NP NP DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP thisAdj book P NP PNP thisAdj book P NP PNP big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP • I bought this small one with the red cover. • This suggests a more deeply embedded structure: • We can also substitute one in for book of poems alone, which should thus also be a constituent. NP ? NP ? DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP thisAdj book P NP PNP thisAdj book P NP PNP big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue 1 X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP • We’ll call these “intermediate” nodes of NP N′ (N-bar). • So, our final NP looks like this: • Notice that you can also say I bought this one. NP NP N′ N′ N′ N′ N′ DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP thisAdj book P NP PNP thisAdj book P NP PNP big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: VP • We need to break up our NP rule; instead of – NP: (D) (AdjP+) N (PP+) • The same kind of thing holds of VP as well • We have: as NP. Instead of using one (which stands – NP: (D) N′′′ for N′) we can try doing replacements using – N′′′ : AdjP N′′′ – N′′′ : N′′′ PP do so, and we’ll get a very similar result. – N′′′ : N (PP) • Our old rule generated a flat structure for • Notice that these yield the same results on the surface VP as well (all PPs, NPs, CPs, etc. in a VP (note the recursion and the optionality) but produce c-command each other). different structures (in terms of constituency). • Notice also that under these rules, any node of NP has – VP: (AdvP+) V ({NP/CP}) (PP+) (AdvP+) no more than two daughters (binary branching). X-bar Theory: VP X-bar Theory: VP – VP: (AdvP+) V ({NP/CP}) (PP+) (AdvP+) • Again, it looks like we need to break our rule into parts using V′ (for which do so can substitute). • I quickly left after Mary did so. – VP: (AdvP+) V ({NP/CP}) (PP+) (AdvP+) • I left quickly after Mary did so. • To: • I ate the pizza with gusto and Mary did so – VP: V′′′ ′′′ ′′′ with quiet reserve. – V : AdvP V – V′′′ : V′′′ PP • I ate the pizza with gusto immediately and – V′′′ : V′′′ AdvP Mary did so later. – V′′′ : V ({NP/CP}) • Again, this is the (almost) same on the surface, but yields a different structure. And again, binary. 2 X-bar Theory: VP X-bar Theory: AdjP • Our new rules do not quite make the same • We should now be growing suspicious of our other predictions about the surface strings of VPs, rules, now that we have had to split up NP and VP and ′ ′ however. The old rules had (PP+) before introduce N and V nodes. – The governor was [AdjP very concerned about housing costs ]; (AdvP+), the new rules allow them to the tenants were [ even more so ]. intermingle. AdjP – The studio was [AdjP unusually pleased with its actors and • But that’s actually better: confident of success ]. – John grabbed the book quickly from the table – The first statement was true; the second was less so. triumphantly. • This gives us evidence of ′′′ – John grabbed the book off the table quickly – AdjP: (AdvP) Adj ′′′ with a devilish grin – Adj : Adj (PP) X-bar Theory: PP X-bar theory – The frisbee landed on the roof. • The main idea behind X-bar theory is to – It landed right on the edge. explain the similarity between the rules for – John knocked it right off the roof and into the trashcan. – Mark was at odds with his supervisor. each category. It is an attempt to generalize – Mark was in love and at odds with his supervisor. over the rules we have. ′ • So, this gives us (assuming right is an AdjP): – PP: (AdjP) P′′′ – NP: (D) N′′′ – VP: V′′ ′′′ ′ ′ – PP: (AdjP) P – P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) – N′′′ : AdjP N′′′ – V′′ : AdvP V′′ – P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) – P′′′ : P DP – N′′′ : N′′′ PP – V′′′ : V′′′ PP – P′′′ : P DP – N′′′ : N (PP) – V′′′ : V′′′ AdvP – AdjP: (AdvP) Adj′′′ – V′′′ : V ({NP/CP}) – Adj′′′ : Adj (PP) X-bar theory X-bar theory • The X in X-bar theory is a variable over • The rules all have the following form: categories. When we talk of XP, we mean • XP: ZP X′ X′ : (YP) X′ to be describing any kind of phrase (VP, NP, • X′ : X′ (YP) X′ : X (WP) AdjP, AdvP, PP, TP, CP, …). ′ ′ – PP: (AdjP) P′′′ – NP: (D) N′′′ – VP: V′′ – PP: (AdjP) P′′′ – NP: (D) N′′′ – VP: V′′ ′ ′ ′ ′ – P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) – N′′′ : AdjP N′′′ – V′′ : AdvP V′′ – P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) – N′′′ : AdjP N′′′ – V′′ : AdvP V′′ – P′′′ : P DP – N′′′ : N′′′ PP – V′′′ : V′′′ PP – P′′′ : P DP – N′′′ : N′′′ PP – V′′′ : V′′′ PP – N′′′ : N (PP) – V′′′ : V′′′ AdvP – N′′′ : N (PP) – V′′′ : V′′′ AdvP – AdjP: (AdvP) Adj′′′ – V′′′ : V ({NP/CP}) – AdjP: (AdvP) Adj′′′ – V′′′ : V ({NP/CP}) – Adj′′′ : Adj (PP) – Adj′′′ : Adj (PP) 3 X-bar theory X-bar theory • X-bar theory elevates this to a principle of phrase structure; it hypothesizes that all phrases in a syntactic • Structurally, this looks like this XP tree conform to this template. (of course, there can be any ZP X′ • XP : (ZP) X′′′ number of X′ nodes, here we see – A phrase (XP) consists of optionally another phrase and a bar- YP X′ level projection (X′). three). ′ • X′′′ : YP X′′′ or X′′′: X′′′ YP • Different parts of this structure X YP – A bar-level projection (X′) can consist of another X′ and another are given different names (and XWP phrase (recursive). they act different from one • X′′′ : X (WP) – A bar-level projection (X′) consists of a head of the same another, as we’ll see). category (X) and optionally another phrase. X-bar theory X-bar theory • The phrase which is immediately XP • We have posited a structural NP dominated by XP (designated ZP difference between complements ZP X′ ZP X′ here) is the specifier. (WP here, of which there is only YP X′ YP X′ • A phrase dominated by X′ and one) and adjuncts (YP here, of the sister of X′ is an adjunct. X′ YP which there can be any number), X′ YP • The phrase which is sister to X is X WP and so we should expect to find XWP the complement. that they behave differently. • Consider NP… X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP • The head of this NP is book. • The head of this NP is book. NP NP • The complement is of poems. N′ N′ N′ N′ N′ N′ DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP theAdj book P NP PNP theAdj book P NP PNP big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue 4 X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP • The head of this NP is book. • The head of this NP is book. NP • The complement is of poems. NP • The complement is of poems. N′ • With the blue cover and big are N′ • With the blue cover and big are adjuncts. adjuncts. ′ ′ N N • The is in specifier position. N′ N′ Note: D here is not a phrase; it does not DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP conform to X-bar theory. We will fix theAdj book P NP PNP theAdj book P NP PNPthis soon. big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP • The complement of a head (e.g., of poems in a • An adjunct, on the other hand, feels more “optional” book of poems) tends to feel more intimately – A book on the table related to the head. Compare a book on the table. • X-bar theory allows for any number of adjuncts (not • The complement of N in English is almost always just one, like with complements). introduced by the preposition of. – The book with the blue cover on the third shelf about C++ • Adjuncts can generally be re-ordered freely. • X-bar theory allows for only one complement, and – The book with the blue cover about C++ on the third shelf indeed in NP we cannot have two of-PPs of this – The book about C++ with the blue cover on the third shelf sort: – The book about C++ on the third shelf with the blue cover – *The book of poems of fiction – The book on the third shelf with the blue cover about C++ • Cf.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lisa Pearl LING200, Summer Session I, 2004 Syntax – Sentence Structure
    Lisa Pearl LING200, Summer Session I, 2004 Syntax – Sentence Structure I. Syntax A. Gives us the ability to say something new with old words. Though you have seen all the words that I’m using in this sentence before, it’s likely you haven’t seen them put together in exactly this way before. But you’re perfectly capable of understanding the sentence, nonetheless. A. Structure: how to put words together. A. Grammatical structure: a way to put words together which is allowed in the language. a. I often paint my nails green or blue. a. *Often green my nails I blue paint or. II. Syntactic Categories A. How to tell which category a word belongs to: look at the type of meaning the word has, the type of affixes which can adjoin to the word, and the environments you find the word in. A. Meaning: tell lexical category from nonlexical category. a. lexical – meaning is fairly easy to paraphrase i. vampire ≈ “night time creature that drinks blood” i. dark ≈ “without much light” i. drink ≈ “ingest a liquid” a. nonlexical – meaning is much harder to pin down i. and ≈ ?? i. the ≈ ?? i. must ≈ ?? a. lexical categories: Noun, Verb, Adjective, Adverb, Preposition i. N: blood, truth, life, beauty (≈ entities, objects) i. V: bleed, tell, live, remain (≈ actions, sensations, states) i. A: gory, truthful, riveting, beautiful (≈ property/attribute of N) 1. gory scene 1. riveting tale i. Adv: sharply, truthfully, loudly, beautifully (≈ property/attribute of V) 1. speak sharply 1. dance beautifully i. P: to, from, inside, around, under (≈ indicates path or position w.r.t N) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Logophoricity in Finnish
    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • CAS LX 522 Syntax I
    It is likely… CAS LX 522 IP This satisfies the EPP in Syntax I both clauses. The main DPj I′ clause has Mary in SpecIP. Mary The embedded clause has Vi+I VP is the trace in SpecIP. V AP Week 14b. PRO and control ti This specific instance of A- A IP movement, where we move a likely subject from an embedded DP I′ clause to a higher clause is tj generally called subject raising. I VP to leave Reluctance to leave Reluctance to leave Now, consider: Reluctant has two θ-roles to assign. Mary is reluctant to leave. One to the one feeling the reluctance (Experiencer) One to the proposition about which the reluctance holds (Proposition) This looks very similar to Mary is likely to leave. Can we draw the same kind of tree for it? Leave has one θ-role to assign. To the one doing the leaving (Agent). How many θ-roles does reluctant assign? In Mary is reluctant to leave, what θ-role does Mary get? IP Reluctance to leave Reluctance… DPi I′ Mary Vj+I VP In Mary is reluctant to leave, is V AP Mary is doing the leaving, gets Agent t Mary is reluctant to leave. j t from leave. i A′ Reluctant assigns its θ- Mary is showing the reluctance, gets θ roles within AP as A θ IP Experiencer from reluctant. required, Mary moves reluctant up to SpecIP in the main I′ clause by Spellout. ? And we have a problem: I vP But what gets the θ-role to Mary appears to be getting two θ-roles, from leave, and what v′ in violation of the θ-criterion.
    [Show full text]
  • Romani Syntactic Typology Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras
    Romani Syntactic Typology Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras To cite this version: Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras. Romani Syntactic Typology. Yaron Matras; Anton Tenser. The Palgrave Handbook of Romani Language and Linguistics, Springer, pp.187-227, 2020, 978-3-030-28104- 5. 10.1007/978-3-030-28105-2_7. halshs-02965238 HAL Id: halshs-02965238 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02965238 Submitted on 13 Oct 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Romani syntactic typology Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras 1. State of the art This chapter presents an overview of the principal syntactic-typological features of Romani dialects. It draws on the discussion in Matras (2002, chapter 7) while taking into consideration more recent studies. In particular, we draw on the wealth of morpho- syntactic data that have since become available via the Romani Morpho-Syntax (RMS) database.1 The RMS data are based on responses to the Romani Morpho-Syntax questionnaire recorded from Romani speaking communities across Europe and beyond. We try to take into account a representative sample. We also take into consideration data from free-speech recordings available in the RMS database and the Pangloss Collection.
    [Show full text]
  • II Levels of Language
    II Levels of language 1 Phonetics and phonology 1.1 Characterising articulations 1.1.1 Consonants 1.1.2 Vowels 1.2 Phonotactics 1.3 Syllable structure 1.4 Prosody 1.5 Writing and sound 2 Morphology 2.1 Word, morpheme and allomorph 2.1.1 Various types of morphemes 2.2 Word classes 2.3 Inflectional morphology 2.3.1 Other types of inflection 2.3.2 Status of inflectional morphology 2.4 Derivational morphology 2.4.1 Types of word formation 2.4.2 Further issues in word formation 2.4.3 The mixed lexicon 2.4.4 Phonological processes in word formation 3 Lexicology 3.1 Awareness of the lexicon 3.2 Terms and distinctions 3.3 Word fields 3.4 Lexicological processes in English 3.5 Questions of style 4 Syntax 4.1 The nature of linguistic theory 4.2 Why analyse sentence structure? 4.2.1 Acquisition of syntax 4.2.2 Sentence production 4.3 The structure of clauses and sentences 4.3.1 Form and function 4.3.2 Arguments and complements 4.3.3 Thematic roles in sentences 4.3.4 Traces 4.3.5 Empty categories 4.3.6 Similarities in patterning Raymond Hickey Levels of language Page 2 of 115 4.4 Sentence analysis 4.4.1 Phrase structure grammar 4.4.2 The concept of ‘generation’ 4.4.3 Surface ambiguity 4.4.4 Impossible sentences 4.5 The study of syntax 4.5.1 The early model of generative grammar 4.5.2 The standard theory 4.5.3 EST and REST 4.5.4 X-bar theory 4.5.5 Government and binding theory 4.5.6 Universal grammar 4.5.7 Modular organisation of language 4.5.8 The minimalist program 5 Semantics 5.1 The meaning of ‘meaning’ 5.1.1 Presupposition and entailment 5.2
    [Show full text]
  • A More Perfect Tree-Building Machine 1. Refining Our Phrase-Structure
    Intro to Linguistics Syntax 2: A more perfect Tree-Building Machine 1. Refining our phrase-structure rules Rules we have so far (similar to the worksheet, compare with previous handout): a. S → NP VP b. NP → (D) AdjP* N PP* c. VP → (AdvP) V (NP) PP* d. PP → P NP e. AP --> (Deg) A f. AdvP → (Deg) Adv More about Noun Phrases Last week I drew trees for NPs that were different from those in the book for the destruction of the city • What is the difference between the two theories of NP? Which one corresponds to the rule (b)? • What does the left theory claim that the right theory does not claim? • Which is closer to reality? How did can we test it? On a related note: how many meanings does one have? 1) John saw a large pink plastic balloon, and I saw one, too. Let us improve our NP-rule: b. CP = Complementizer Phrase Sometimes we get a sentence inside another sentence: Tenors from Odessa know that sopranos from Boston sing songs of glory. We need to have a new rule to build a sentence that can serve as a complement of a verb, where C complementizer is “that” , “whether”, “if” or it could be silent (unpronounced). g. CP → C S We should also improve our rule (c) to be like the one below. c. VP → (AdvP) V (NP) PP* (CP) (says CP can co-occur with NP or PP) Practice: Can you draw all the trees in (2) using the amended rules? 2) a. Residents of Boston hear sopranos of renown at dusk.
    [Show full text]
  • ENIGMA X Aka SPARKLE Enclosure Manual Ver 7 012017
    ENIGMA-X / SPARKLE* ENCLOSURE SHOWER ENCLOSURE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS IMPORTANT DreamLine® reserves the right to alter, modify or redesign products at any time without prior notice. For the latest up-to-date technical drawings, manuals, warranty information or additional details please refer to your model’s web page on DreamLine.com MODEL #s MODEL #s SHEN-6134480-## SHEN-6134720-## SHEN-6134600-## ##=finish *The SPARKLE model name designates an option with MirrorMax patterned glass. 07- Brushed Stainless Steel The installation is identical to the Enigma-X. 08- Polished Stainless Steel Right Hand Return panel installation shown 18- Tuxedo For more information about DreamLine® Shower Doors & Tub Doors please visit DreamLine.com ENIGMA-X / SPARKLE Enclosure manual Ver 7 01/2017 This model is treated with DreamLine’s exclusive ClearMaxTM Glass technology. This is a specially formulated coating that prevents the build up of soap and water spots. Install the surface with the ClearMaxTM label towards the inside of the shower. Please note that depending on the model, the glass may be coated on either one or both surfaces. For best results, squeegee the glass after each use and dry with a soft cloth. ENIGMA-X / SPARKLE Enclosure manual Ver 7 01/2017 2 B B A A C ! E IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF THIS SHOWER DOOR D PANEL DOOR F Right hand door installation shown as an example A Guide Rail Brackets must be firmly D Roller Guards must be postioned and attached to the wall. Installation into a secured within 1/16” of Upper Guide Rail. stud is strongly recommended.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns
    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns Mark Baker Rutgers University April 2018 Abstract: I argue that indexical shift is more like logophoricity and complementizer agreement than most previous semantic accounts would have it. In particular, there is evidence of a syntactic requirement at work, such that the antecedent of a shifted “I” must be a superordinate subject, just as the antecedent of a logophoric pronoun or the goal of complementizer agreement must be. I take this to be evidence that the antecedent enters into a syntactic control relationship with a null operator in all three constructions. Comparative data comes from Magahi and Sakha (for indexical shift), Yoruba (for logophoric pronouns), and Lubukusu (for complementizer agreement). 1. Introduction Having had an office next to Lisa Travis’s for 12 formative years, I learned many things from her that still influence my thinking. One is her example of taking semantic notions, such as aspect and event roles, and finding ways to implement them in syntactic structure, so as to advance the study of less familiar languages and topics.1 In that spirit, I offer here some thoughts about how logophoricity and indexical shift, topics often discussed from a more or less semantic point of view, might have syntactic underpinnings—and indeed, the same syntactic underpinnings. On an impressionistic level, it would not seem too surprising for logophoricity and indexical shift to have a common syntactic infrastructure. Canonical logophoricity as it is found in various West African languages involves using a special pronoun inside the finite CP complement of a verb to refer to the subject of that verb.
    [Show full text]
  • Percent R, X and Z Based on Transformer KVA
    SHORT CIRCUIT FAULT CALCULATIONS Short circuit fault calculations as required to be performed on all electrical service entrances by National Electrical Code 110-9, 110-10. These calculations are made to assure that the service equipment will clear a fault in case of short circuit. To perform the fault calculations the following information must be obtained: 1. Available Power Company Short circuit KVA at transformer primary : Contact Power Company, may also be given in terms of R + jX. 2. Length of service drop from transformer to building, Type and size of conductor, ie., 250 MCM, aluminum. 3. Impedance of transformer, KVA size. A. %R = Percent Resistance B. %X = Percent Reactance C. %Z = Percent Impedance D. KVA = Kilovoltamp size of transformer. ( Obtain for each transformer if in Bank of 2 or 3) 4. If service entrance consists of several different sizes of conductors, each must be adjusted by (Ohms for 1 conductor) (Number of conductors) This must be done for R and X Three Phase Systems Wye Systems: 120/208V 3∅, 4 wire 277/480V 3∅ 4 wire Delta Systems: 120/240V 3∅, 4 wire 240V 3∅, 3 wire 480 V 3∅, 3 wire Single Phase Systems: Voltage 120/240V 1∅, 3 wire. Separate line to line and line to neutral calculations must be done for single phase systems. Voltage in equations (KV) is the secondary transformer voltage, line to line. Base KVA is 10,000 in all examples. Only those components actually in the system have to be included, each component must have an X and an R value. Neutral size is assumed to be the same size as the phase conductors.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quotient Rule Integration by Parts Formula Jennifer Switkes ([email protected]), California State Polytechnic Univer- Sity, Pomona, CA 91768
    A Quotient Rule Integration by Parts Formula Jennifer Switkes ([email protected]), California State Polytechnic Univer- sity, Pomona, CA 91768 In a recent calculus course, I introduced the technique of Integration by Parts as an integration rule corresponding to the Product Rule for differentiation. I showed my students the standard derivation of the Integration by Parts formula as presented in [1]: By the Product Rule, if f (x) and g(x) are differentiable functions, then d f (x)g(x) = f (x)g(x) + g(x) f (x). dx Integrating on both sides of this equation, f (x)g(x) + g(x) f (x) dx = f (x)g(x), which may be rearranged to obtain f (x)g(x) dx = f (x)g(x) − g(x) f (x) dx. Letting U = f (x) and V = g(x) and observing that dU = f (x) dx and dV = g(x) dx, we obtain the familiar Integration by Parts formula UdV= UV − VdU. (1) My student Victor asked if we could do a similar thing with the Quotient Rule. While the other students thought this was a crazy idea, I was intrigued. Below, I derive a Quotient Rule Integration by Parts formula, apply the resulting integration formula to an example, and discuss reasons why this formula does not appear in calculus texts. By the Quotient Rule, if f (x) and g(x) are differentiable functions, then ( ) ( ) ( ) − ( ) ( ) d f x = g x f x f x g x . dx g(x) [g(x)]2 Integrating both sides of this equation, we get f (x) g(x) f (x) − f (x)g(x) = dx.
    [Show full text]
  • A Noun Phrase Parser of English Atro Voutilainen H Elsinki
    A Noun Phrase Parser of English Atro Voutilainen H elsinki A bstract An accurate rule-based noun phrase parser of English is described. Special attention is given to the linguistic description. A report on a performance test concludes the paper. 1. Introduction 1.1 Motivation. A noun phrase parser is useful for several purposes, e.g. for index term generation in an information retrieval application; for the extraction of collocational knowledge from large corpora for the development of computational tools for language analysis; for providing a shallow but accurately analysed input for a more ambitious parsing system; for the discovery of translation units, and so on. Actually, the present noun phrase parser is already used in a noun phrase extractor called NPtool (Voutilainen 1993). 1.2. Constraint Grammar. The present system is based on the Constraint Grammar framework originally proposed by Karlsson (1990). A few characteristics of this framework are in order. • The linguistic representation is based on surface-oriented morphosyntactic tags that can encode dependency-oriented functional relations between words. • Parsing is reductionistic. All conventional analyses are provided as alternatives to each word by a context-free lookup mechanism, typically a morphological analyser. The parser itself seeks to discard all and only the contextually illegitimate alternative readings. What 'survives' is the parse.• • The system is modular and sequential. For instance, a grammar for the resolution of morphological (or part-of-speech) ambiguities is applied, before a syntactic module is used to introduce and then resolve syntactic ambiguities. 301 Proceedings of NODALIDA 1993, pages 301-310 • The parsing description is based on linguistic generalisations rather than probabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic
    INTRODUCTIONTOLOGIC Lecture 2 Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic. Dr. James Studd Logic is the beginning of wisdom. Thomas Aquinas Outline 1 Syntax vs Semantics. 2 Syntax of L1. 3 Semantics of L1. 4 Truth-table methods. Examples of syntactic claims ‘Bertrand Russell’ is a proper noun. ‘likes logic’ is a verb phrase. ‘Bertrand Russell likes logic’ is a sentence. Combining a proper noun and a verb phrase in this way makes a sentence. Syntax vs. Semantics Syntax Syntax is all about expressions: words and sentences. ‘Bertrand Russell’ is a proper noun. ‘likes logic’ is a verb phrase. ‘Bertrand Russell likes logic’ is a sentence. Combining a proper noun and a verb phrase in this way makes a sentence. Syntax vs. Semantics Syntax Syntax is all about expressions: words and sentences. Examples of syntactic claims ‘likes logic’ is a verb phrase. ‘Bertrand Russell likes logic’ is a sentence. Combining a proper noun and a verb phrase in this way makes a sentence. Syntax vs. Semantics Syntax Syntax is all about expressions: words and sentences. Examples of syntactic claims ‘Bertrand Russell’ is a proper noun. ‘Bertrand Russell likes logic’ is a sentence. Combining a proper noun and a verb phrase in this way makes a sentence. Syntax vs. Semantics Syntax Syntax is all about expressions: words and sentences. Examples of syntactic claims ‘Bertrand Russell’ is a proper noun. ‘likes logic’ is a verb phrase. Combining a proper noun and a verb phrase in this way makes a sentence. Syntax vs. Semantics Syntax Syntax is all about expressions: words and sentences. Examples of syntactic claims ‘Bertrand Russell’ is a proper noun.
    [Show full text]