DOCSLIB.ORG

Lexical-Functional Grammar: a Formal System For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

LexicalFunctional Grammar A Formal System for Grammatical Representation Ronald M Kaplan and Joan Bresnan In learning their native language children develop a remarkable set of capabilities They acquire knowledge and skills that enable them to pro duce and comprehend an indenite number of novel utterances and to make quite subtle judgments ab out certain of their prop erties The ma jor goal of psycholinguistic research is to devise an explanatory account of the mental op erations that underlie these linguistic abilities In pursuing this goal wehave adopted what wecallthe Competence Hypothesis as a metho dological principle Weassumethatanexplana tory mo del of human language p erformance will incorp orate a theoreti cally justied representation of the nativespeakers linguistic knowledge a grammar as a comp onent separate b oth from the computational mech anisms that op erate on it a processor and from other nongrammatical pro cessing parameters that might inuence the pro cessors b ehavior To a certain extentthevarious comp onents that we p ostulate can b e studied indep endently guided where appropriate bythewellestablished metho ds and evaluation standards of linguistics computer science and exp erimen tal psychologyHowever the requirement that the various comp onents ultimately must t together in a consistent and coherent mo del imp oses even stronger constraints on their structure and op eration This pap er originally app eared in The Mental Representation of Grammatical Rela tions ed Joan Bresnan Cambridge MA The MIT Press Kaplan ab gives an early version of the Comp etence Hyp othesis and discusses some ways in which the grammatical and pro cessing comp onents mightinteract Also see Ford Bresnan and Kaplan Formal Issues in LexicalFunctional Grammar edited by Mary Dalrymple Ronald M Kaplan John T Maxwell I I I Annie Zaenen c Copyright Stanford University Ronald M Kaplan and Joan Bresnan This pap er presents a formalism for representing the native sp eakers syntactic knowledge In keeping with the Comp etence Hyp othesis this formalism called lexicalfunctional grammar LFG has b een designed to serve as a medium for expressing and explaining imp ortant general izations ab out the syntax of human languages and thus to serveasa vehicle for indep endent linguistic research Of equal signicance it is a restricted mathematically tractable notation for which simple psycholog ically plausible pro cessing mechanisms can b e dened Lexicalfunctional grammar has evolved b oth from previous research within the transforma tional framework eg Bresnan and from earlier computational and psycholinguistic investigations Wo o ds Kaplan a Wanner and Maratsos The fundamental problem for a theory of syntax is to characterize the mapping b etween semantic predicateargument relationships and the sur face word and phrase congurations bywhich they are expressed This mapping is suciently complex that it cannot b e characterized in a simple unadorned phrase structure formalism a single set of predicateargument relations can b e realized in many dierent phrase structures eg ac tive and passive constructions and a single phrase structure can express several dierent semantic relations as in cases of ambiguity In lexical functional grammar this corresp ondence is dened in two stages Lexical entries sp ecify a direct mapping b etween semantic arguments and con gurations of surface grammatical functions Syntactic rules then iden tify these surface functions with particular morphological and constituent structure congurations Alternative realizations may result from alter native sp ecications at either stage of the corresp ondence Moreover grammatical sp ecications imp ose wellformedness conditions on b oth the functional and constituent structures of sentences The present pap er is concerned with the grammatical formalism it self its linguistic computational and psychological motivation are dealt with in separate pap ers In the next several sections weintro duce the formal ob jects of our theory discuss the relationships among them and dene the notation and op erations for describing and manipulating them Illustrations in these and later sections show p ossible LFG solutions to various problems of linguistic description Section considers the func tional requirements that strings with valid constituent structures must satisfy Section summarizes arguments for the indep endence of the con stituent functional and semantic levels of representation In Section weintro duce and discuss the formal apparatus for characterizing long distance grammatical dep endencies Weleave to the end the question of our systems generativepower Weprove in Section that despite their AFormal System for Grammatical Representation linguistic expressiveness lexicalfunctional grammars are not as p owerful as unrestricted rewriting systems Constituent structures and functional structures A lexicalfunctional grammar assigns two levels of syntactic description to every sentence of a language Phrase structure congurations are represented in a constituent structure A constituent structure or c structure is a conventional phrase structure tree a wellformed lab eled bracketing that indicates the sup ercial arrangementofwords and phrases in the sentence This is the representation on which phonological interpre tation op erates to pro duce phonetic strings Surface grammatical func tions are represented explicitly at the other level of description called functional structure The functional structure fstructure provides a precise characterization of such traditional syntactic notions as sub ject understo o d sub ject ob ject complement and adjunct The fstructure is the sole input to the semantic comp onent whichmay either translate the fstructure into the appropriate formulas in some logical language or provide an immediate mo deltheoretic interpretation for it Constituent structures are formally quite dierent from functional structures Cstructures are dened in terms of syntactic categories ter minal strings and their dominance and precedence relationships whereas fstructures are comp osed of grammatical function names semantic forms and feature symbols Fstructures and cstructures are also distinct from semantic translations and interpretations in which for example quantierscop e ambiguities are resolved By formally distinguishing these levels of representation our theory attempts to separate those gram matical phenomena that are purely syntactic involving only cstructures and fstructures from those that are purely lexical involving lexical en tries b efore they are inserted into cstructures and fstructures or se mantic for example involving logical inference Our framework thus facilitates an empirically motivated division of lab or b etween the lexical syntactic semantic and phonological comp onents of a grammar A cstructure is determined by a grammar that characterizes all p os sible surface structures for a language This grammar is expressed in a slightly mo died contextfree formalism or a formally equivalent sp eci cation such as a recursive transition network Wo o ds Kaplan For example the ordinary rewriting pro cedure for contextfree grammars would assign the cstructure to the sentence given the rules in a S NP VP b NP Det N c VP VNPNP Ronald M Kaplan and Joan Bresnan A girl handed the babya toy S NP VP Det N V NP NP Det N Det N A girl handed the baby a toy We emphasize that cstructure no des can b e derived only by phrase struc ture rules such as abc There are no deletion or movement op erations which could for example form the doubleNP sequence from a phrase structure with a to prep ositional phrase Suchmechanisms are unneces sary in LFG b ecause we do not map b etween semantically and phonolog ically interpretable levels of phrase structure Semantic interpretation is dened on functional structure not on the phrase structure representation that is the domain of phonological interpretation The functional structure for a sentence enco des its meaningful gram matical relations and provides sucient information for the semantic com p onent to determine the appropriate predicateargumentformulas The fstructure for would indicate that the girl noun phrase is the gram matical sub ject handed conveys the semantic predicate the baby NP is the grammatical ob ject and toy serves as the second grammatical ob ject The fstructure represents this information as a set of ordered pairs eachof which consists of an attribute and a sp ecication of that attributes value for this sentence An attribute is the name of a grammatical function or feature subj pred obj num case etc There are three primitive typ es of values a Simple symbols b Semantic forms that govern the pro cess of semantic interpre tation c Subsidiary fstructures sets of ordered pairs representing com plexes of internal functions A fourth typ e of value sets of symb ols semantic forms or fstructures is also p ermitted We will discuss this typ e when we consider the gram matical treatment of adjuncts AFormal System for Grammatical Representation Given p ossibility c an fstructure is in eect a hierarchyofat tributevalue pairs We write an fstructure by arranging its pairs verti cally inside square brackets with the attribute and value of a single pair placed on a horizontal line The following is a plausible fstructure for sentence spec a num sg subj pred girl tense past pred hand h subj obj obji spec the num sg obj pred baby spec a num sg obj pred toy In this
Recommended publications
  • The Structure of Reflexive Clauses in Michif: a Relational Grammar Approach

    The Structure of Reflexive Clauses in Michif: a Relational Grammar Approach

    University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects 12-1984 The trS ucture of Reflexive Clauses in Michif: A Relational Grammar Approach Larry Lee Lovell Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/theses Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Lovell, Larry Lee, "The trS ucture of Reflexive Clauses in Michif: A Relational Grammar Approach" (1984). Theses and Dissertations. 903. https://commons.und.edu/theses/903 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STRUCTURE OF REFLEXIVE CLAUSES IN MICHIF: . ' i ' A RELATIONAL GRAMMAR APPROACH ) I by Larry Lee Lovell Bachelor of icience, Middle Tennessee State University, 1982 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Grand Forks, North Dakota December · 1984 This thesis submitted by Larry Lee Lovell in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of M.A. in Linguistics from the University of North Dakota is hereby approved by the Faculty Advisory Committee under whom the work has been done. 0. This thesis meets the standards for appearance and conforms to the style and format requirements of the Graduate School of the University of North Dakota, and is hereby approved. ; I ! i - ii - ' . Title THE STRUCTURE OF REFLEXIVE CLAUSES IN MICHIF: A RELATIONAL GRAMMAR APPROACH Department Linguistics Degree Master of Arts In presenting this thesis in ~artial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate degree from the University of North Dakota, I agree that the Library of this University shall make it freely available for inspection.
  • A Relational Grammar Approach to Kera Syntax Janet K

    A Relational Grammar Approach to Kera Syntax Janet K

    Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session Volume 28 Article 1 1984 A relational grammar approach to Kera syntax Janet K. Camburn SIL-UND Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers Recommended Citation Camburn, Janet K. (1984) "A relational grammar approach to Kera syntax," Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 28 , Article 1. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol28.01 Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol28/iss1/1 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A RELATIOIAL GRAMMAR APPROACH TO KERA SIITAX Janet K. Camburn 1 Introduction 2 Introduction to Relational Grammar 3 Kera syntax 3T1 Tone 3.2 Kera verbs 3.3 Terms and term marking 3~4 Oblique markings 4 Advancements 4.1 Passive 4~2 3 advancement 4~3 Ben-3 advancement 4.4 Summary 5 Multiple depencencies 5.1 Pro-Replacement 5.2 Equi-Erasure and Equi-Subject Union 5.3 Equi-Erasure 5~4 Equi-Subject Union 6 The proper formulation of the Stem Agreement Rule 6~1 Summary 7 Ascensions 7,1 Ascensions out of 2-host 7~2 Ascensions out of a 1-host 7.3 Ascensions and unaccusatives 8 Possessor ascension 8.1 The possessive construction in Kera 8.2 Possessor ascension to 2 8.3 Possessor ascension to 3 8.4 Summary 1 Introduction Kera is an Afroasiatic language belonging to the Chadic family of languages.
  • Chapter 30 HPSG and Lexical Functional Grammar Stephen Wechsler the University of Texas Ash Asudeh University of Rochester & Carleton University

    Chapter 30 HPSG and Lexical Functional Grammar Stephen Wechsler the University of Texas Ash Asudeh University of Rochester & Carleton University

    Chapter 30 HPSG and Lexical Functional Grammar Stephen Wechsler The University of Texas Ash Asudeh University of Rochester & Carleton University This chapter compares two closely related grammatical frameworks, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) and Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG). Among the similarities: both frameworks draw a lexicalist distinction between morphology and syntax, both associate certain words with lexical argument structures, both employ semantic theories based on underspecification, and both are fully explicit and computationally implemented. The two frameworks make available many of the same representational resources. Typical differences between the analyses proffered under the two frameworks can often be traced to concomitant differ- ences of emphasis in the design orientations of their founding formulations: while HPSG’s origins emphasized the formal representation of syntactic locality condi- tions, those of LFG emphasized the formal representation of functional equivalence classes across grammatical structures. Our comparison of the two theories includes a point by point syntactic comparison, after which we turn to an exposition ofGlue Semantics, a theory of semantic composition closely associated with LFG. 1 Introduction Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar is similar in many respects to its sister framework, Lexical Functional Grammar or LFG (Bresnan et al. 2016; Dalrymple et al. 2019). Both HPSG and LFG are lexicalist frameworks in the sense that they distinguish between the morphological system that creates words and the syn- tax proper that combines those fully inflected words into phrases and sentences. Stephen Wechsler & Ash Asudeh. 2021. HPSG and Lexical Functional Gram- mar. In Stefan Müller, Anne Abeillé, Robert D. Borsley & Jean- Pierre Koenig (eds.), Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook.
  • Syntax III Assignment I (Team B): Transformations Julie Winkler

    Syntax III Assignment I (Team B): Transformations Julie Winkler

    Syntax III Assignment I (Team B): Transformations Julie Winkler, Andrew Pedelty, Kelsey Kraus, Travis Heller, Josue Torres, Nicholas Primrose, Philip King A layout of this paper: I. Transformations! An Introduction a. What b. Why c. What Not II. A-Syntax: Operations on Arguments Pre-Surface Structure III. Morphology: Form and Function a. Lexical assumptions: b. VP Internal Subject Raising Hypothesis c. Form Rules d. Morpho-Syntactic Rules: e. Further Questions IV. A-Bar Syntax a. Not A-Syntax: Movement on the Surface. b. Islands c. Features & Percolation: Not Just for Subcats d. Successive Cyclic Movement V. Where Do We Go From Here? a. Summary 1 I. Introduction Before going into the specifics of transformational syntax as we've learned it, it behooves us to consider transformations on a high level. What are they, how do they operate, and, very importantly, why do we have them? We should also make a distinction regarding the purpose of this paper, which is not to provide a complete or authoritative enumeration of all transformational operations (likely an impossible endeavour), but rather to investigate those operations and affirm our understanding of the framework in which they exist. I. a. What What are transformations? A transformation (Xn) takes an existing syntactic structure and renders a new construction by performing one or more of the following three operations upon it: movement, deletion, or insertion. These operations are constrained by a number of rules and traditionally adhered-to constraints. Furthermore, it has been mentioned that semi- legitimate syntactic theories have eschewed certain of these operations while retaining sufficient descriptive power.
  • Introduction to Transformational Grammar

    Introduction to Transformational Grammar

    Introduction to Transformational Grammar Kyle Johnson University of Massachusetts at Amherst Fall 2004 Contents Preface iii 1 The Subject Matter 1 1.1 Linguisticsaslearningtheory . 1 1.2 The evidential basis of syntactic theory . 7 2 Phrase Structure 15 2.1 SubstitutionClasses............................. 16 2.2 Phrases .................................... 20 2.3 Xphrases................................... 29 2.4 ArgumentsandModifiers ......................... 41 3 Positioning Arguments 57 3.1 Expletives and the Extended Projection Principle . ..... 58 3.2 Case Theory and ordering complements . 61 3.3 Small Clauses and the Derived Subjects Hypothesis . ... 68 3.4 PROandControlInfinitives . .. .. .. .. .. .. 79 3.5 Evidence for Argument Movement from Quantifier Float . 83 3.6 Towards a typology of infinitive types . 92 3.7 Constraints on Argument Movement and the typology of verbs . 97 4 Verb Movement 105 4.1 The “Classic” Verb Movement account . 106 4.2 Head Movement’s role in “Verb Second” word order . 115 4.3 The Pollockian revolution: exploded IPs . 123 4.4 Features and covert movement . 136 5 Determiner Phrases and Noun Movement 149 5.1 TheDPHypothesis ............................. 151 5.2 NounMovement............................... 155 Contents 6 Complement Structure 179 6.1 Nouns and the θ-rolestheyassign .................... 180 6.2 Double Object constructions and Larsonian shells . 195 6.3 Complement structure and Object Shift . 207 7 Subjects and Complex Predicates 229 7.1 Gettingintotherightposition . 229 7.2 SubjectArguments ............................. 233 7.2.1 ArgumentStructure ........................ 235 7.2.2 The syntactic benefits of ν .................... 245 7.3 The relative positions of µP and νP: Evidence from ‘again’ . 246 7.4 The Minimal Link Condition and Romance causatives . 254 7.5 RemainingProblems ............................ 271 7.5.1 The main verb in English is too high .
  • Can Participate in Syntactic Operations; the Law Means That Any Oblique Which Appears in a Sentence Must Bear That Oblique Relation in the Ini Tial Level

    Can Participate in Syntactic Operations; the Law Means That Any Oblique Which Appears in a Sentence Must Bear That Oblique Relation in the Ini Tial Level

    0SU WPL # 26 (1982) 93-101. A Note on the Oblique Law* Brian D. Joseph Perlmutter and Postal (1978a: 15) posit the following "law" within the framework of Relational Grammar : (1) We say that Bis a Ci arc if Bis an arc one of whose coordinates is Ci. Then: if A is an oblique arc , A is a C1 arc. This law is known as the Oblique Law because it constrains the extent to which oblique nominals, i.e. those bearing the nonterm core grammatical rel ations1 such as benefactive, temporal, circumstantial, locative, etc. can participate in syntactic operations; the law means that any oblique which appears in a sentence must bear that oblique relation in the ini tial level. The original intent of this law as indicated by Perlmutter and Postal ' s discussion (p. 15) of it, was to rule out advancements or demotions2 to any oblique grammatical relation. However, as it is currently formulated , it is more general than that and rules out ascensions (i. e . raisings) to an oblique relation as well. The purpose of this note is to show that at best, only the more restricted interpretation of the Oblique Law is valid, because there is a construction in Modern Greek which provides a counter- example to the broader interpretation, as well as other facts which might bear on even the more narrow version of the law. The Greek construction in question is the one called Raising-to-Oblique in Joseph (1979), and involves the circumstantial preposition me ' with' .3 Me can govern simple nominal complements, as in (2), or clausalcomplements, as in (3) : (2) me t6so 66rivo, aen borusa na aulepso with so-much noise/ACC not could/SG VBL PART work/1 SG ' With so much noise, I couldn't work.' (3) me to na stekete eki etsi with NOMINALIZER VBL PART stand/3 S~ there thus o Yanis, tlen borusa na dulepso John/NOM ' With John standing there like that, I couldn' t work.' The evidence against the Oblique Law comes from a construction which is a variant of (3), in which the subject of the clausal object of me is raised to become itself the object of me.
  • Processing English with a Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

    Processing English with a Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

    PROCESSING ENGLISH WITH A GENERALIZED PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAMMAR Jean Mark Gawron, Jonathan King, John Lamping, Egon Loebner, Eo Anne Paulson, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow Computer Research Center Hewlett Packard Company 1501 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 ABSTRACT can be achieved without detailed syntactic analysis. There is, of course, a massive This paper describes a natural language pragmatic component to human linguistic processing system implemented at Hewlett-Packard's interaction. But we hold that pragmatic inference Computer Research Center. The system's main makes use of a logically prior grammatical and components are: a Generalized Phrase Structure semantic analysis. This can be fruitfully modeled Grammar (GPSG); a top-down parser; a logic and exploited even in the complete absence of any transducer that outputs a first-order logical modeling of pragmatic inferencing capability. representation; and a "disambiguator" that uses However, this does not entail an incompatibility sortal information to convert "normal-form" between our work and research on modeling first-order logical expressions into the query discourse organization and conversational language for HIRE, a relational database hosted in interaction directly= Ultimately, a successful the SPHERE system. We argue that theoretical language understanding system wilt require both developments in GPSG syntax and in Montague kinds of research, combining the advantages of semantics have specific advantages to bring to this precise, grammar-driven analysis of utterance domain of computational linguistics. The syntax structure and pragmatic inferencing based on and semantics of the system are totally discourse structures and knowledge of the world. domain-independent, and thus, in principle, We stress, however, that our concerns at this highly portable.
  • 3 Derivation and Representation in Modern Transformational Syntax

    3 Derivation and Representation in Modern Transformational Syntax

    62 Howard Lasnik 3 Derivation and Representation in Modern Transformational Syntax HOWARD LASNIK 0 Introduction The general issue of derivational vs. representational approaches to syntax has received considerable attention throughout the history of generative gram- mar. Internal to the major derivational approach, transformational grammar, a related issue arises: are well-formedness conditions imposed specifically at the particular levels of representation1 made available in the theory, or are they imposed “internal” to the derivation leading to those levels? This second question will be the topic of this chapter. Like the first question, it is a subtle one, perhaps even more subtle than the first, but since Chomsky (1973), there has been increasing investigation of it, and important argument and evidence have been brought to bear. I will be examining a range of arguments, some old and some new, concerning (i) locality constraints on movement, and (ii) the property forcing (overt) movement, especially as this issue arises within the “minimalist” program of Chomsky (1995b). 1 Locality of Movement: Subjacency and the ECP The apparent contradiction between unbounded movement as in (1) and strict locality as in (2) has long played a central role in syntactic investigations in general and studies of the role of derivation in particular: (1) Who do you think Mary said John likes (2) ?*Who did you ask whether Mary knows why John likes Based on the unacceptability of such examples as (2), Chomsky (1973), reject- ing earlier views (including the highly influential Ross 1967a) proposed that Derivation and Representation 63 long distance movement is never possible. (1) must then be the result of a series of short movements, short movements that are, for some reason, not available in the derivation of (2).
  • 66 EMPTY CATEGORIES in TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES Abstract

    66 EMPTY CATEGORIES in TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES Abstract

    JL3T Journal of Linguistics, Literature & Language Teaching EMPTY CATEGORIES IN TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES Ruly Adha IAIN Langsa [email protected] Abstract There are three theories that are always developed in any study of language, namely theory of language structure, theory of language acquisition, and theory of language use. Among those three theories, theory of language structure is regarded as the most important one. It is assumed that if someone knows the structure of language, he/she can develop theories about how language is acquired and used. It makes Chomsky interested in developing the theory of language structure. Chomsky introduced a theory of grammar called Transformational Generative Grammar or Transformational Syntax. Transformational Syntax is a method of sentence fomation which applies some syntactic rules (or also called transformational rules). Transformational rules consist of three types, namely movement transformation, deletion transformation, and substitution transformation. When those transformational rules are applied in a sentence, they will leave empty categories. Empty categories can be in the form of Complementizer (Comp), Trace, and PRO. The objectives of this article are to elaborate those empty categories; to show their appearance in the transformational rules; and to describe the characteristics of each empty category. Comp, Trace, and PRO can be found in movement and deletion transformation. In this article, tree diagram and bracketing are used as the methods of sentence analysis. Keywords Empty Categories, Transformational Rules, Comp, Trace, PRO JL3T. Vol. V, No. 1 June 2019 66 JL3T Journal of Linguistics, Literature & Language Teaching INTRODUCTION Chomsky (in Radford, 1988) states that there are three inter-related theories which any detailed study of language ultimately seeks to develop, namely: 1.
  • F I Rrrrrrrrr N Rr

    F I Rrrrrrrrr N Rr

    fI 1 1 3 rrrrrrrrr1822 00070 n rr8354 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA San Diego The Relational Structure of Turkish Syntax A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Inci Zilhra Ozkaragoz Committee in charge: Professor Sandra Chung, Chairperson Professor Edward Klima Professor Margaret Langdon Professor David Jordan Professor Michael Meeker 1986 Copyright 1986 by Inci• Zuhra•• Ozkaragoz•• - The dissertation of Inci. Zuhra.. .Ozkaragoz .. is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm: I /.- &l a--,_ .. /<Zx-v-·/ ·· Chairperson University of California, San Diego 1986 iii Table of Contents Page List of Abbreviations . vii Acknowledgements ................................ viii Vita, Publications and Fields of Study .......... x Abstract . xi Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 1 Relational Grammar ........................... 6 1 • 1 Introduction .............................. 6 1 . 2 Clause Structure .......................... 7 1 • 3 Typology of Strata and Some Defined Concepts ......................... 1 1 1 • 4 Well-formedness Conditions ................ 1 3 2 Aspects of Turkish Grammar ................... 1 4 2. 1 Introduction .............................. 1 4 2.2 Word Order ................................ 1 4 2.3 Nominal Morphology ........................ 16 2. 3. 1 Case Marking and Articles ................. 1 6 2.3.2 Pronouns .................................. 29 2.4 Verbal
  • Transformational Grammar and Problems of Syntactic Ambiguity in English

    Transformational Grammar and Problems of Syntactic Ambiguity in English

    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses 1968 Transformational Grammar and Problems of Syntactic Ambiguity in English Shirlie Jeanette Verley Central Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Liberal Studies Commons, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons Recommended Citation Verley, Shirlie Jeanette, "Transformational Grammar and Problems of Syntactic Ambiguity in English" (1968). All Master's Theses. 976. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/976 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR AND PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY IN ENGLISH A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty Central Washington State College In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Education by Shirlie Jeanette Verley August, 1968 uol3u:qsa A'\ '8.mqsuau3 a80110J •ne1s UO:i)}U'.1_Sllh\ f!:UlUC>J ~PJ ~ NOU!J3TIO:) i'4133dS APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ________________________________ D. W. Cummings, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN _________________________________ Lyman B. Hagen _________________________________ Donald G. Goetschius ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank, first, my chairman, Dr. D. W. Cummings for his assistance and guidance in the writing of this thesis. Next, I wish to thank Dr. Lyman Hagen and Dr. Don Goetschius for their participation on the committee. Last, my very personal thanks to my family, Gene, Sue, Steve and Shane for their patience. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I.
  • The Syntactic Power of Transformational Rules in Shona

    The Syntactic Power of Transformational Rules in Shona

    Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-8435 An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.20, 2016 The Syntactic Power of Transformational Rules in Shona Isaac Mhute Faculty of Arts and Education, Department of Language and Media studies, Zimbabwe Open University, Masvingo Regional Campus Abstract The paper ventures into the Linguistic branch of syntax with the goal of finding out how much power transformational rules possess in Shona sentences. Focus is on the effects that application of various transformational rules may have on the various components of the sentences. It has been realised that transformational rules have the power to rearrange, delete or add some words into sentences. In the process forms of the words may also be altered for various reasons. It was also demonstrated that at times one finds himself bound to apply certain rules or risk making people draw various implications in response. Keywords: Shona, syntactic, transformation, power, linguistic, rules Introduction and Brief Literature Review Fowler (1971) asserts that the grammarian’s task is to describe sentences in such a way as to account for what native mature speakers of the language know about those sentences. Fowler further observes that one kind of generative grammar that performs these tasks particularly well is called a transformational grammar. Transformational grammar is a grammar that recognizes deep structure and surface structure distinction in syntax and employs certain formally distinctive kinds of linguistic rules linking the two distinct levels. Fowler (ibid) also describes transformational rules as rules that relate sentences to each other adding that this is done by relating partially overlapping derivations.