Coordination and grammatical relations

1988 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Constituent Structure ◽  
Syntactic Features

The most serious recent work on the theory of coordination has probably been done in terms of three theories of grammatical structure: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG–see especially Gazdar, 1981; Gazdaret al., 1982; 1985; Saget al., 1985; Schachter & Mordechay, 1983), Categorial Grammar (CG–see especially Steedman, 1985; Dowty, 1985) and Transformational Grammar (TG–notably Williams, 1978, 1981; Neijt, 1979; van Oirsouw, 1985, 1987). Each of these approaches is different in important respects: for instance, according to whether or not they allow deletion rules, and according to the kinds of information which they allow to be encoded in syntactic features. However, behind these differences lies an important similarity: in each case the theory concerned makes two assumptions about grammatical structure in general (i.e. about all structures, including coordinate ones):I The basic syntagmatic relations in sentence-structure are part-whole relations (consituent structure) and temporal order; note that this is true whether or not syntactic structure is seen as a ‘projection’ of lexical properties, since these lexical properies are themselves defined in terms of constituent structure and temporal order.

Svenska nominalfraser och kontext-fri grammatik

1984 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Morphological Features ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Context Free

Swedish noun-phrases of the form (Det) (Adj)* N are examined in the light of recent work in generalized phrase-structure grammar. It is argued that simple generalizations about the phrase-structure of these NPs are lost by trying to account for the precise morphological possibilities by using phrase-structure rules mentioning categories marked with morphological features. What could be accounted for by two rules must be broken down into subcases which need seven rules, thereby obscuring the overall syntactic structure of the NPs. An alternative is suggested which maintains the simple syntax which generates morphologically ill-formed NPs but only allows morphologically well-formed ones to be interpreted. It is suggested that this system can be constrained so as to generate only context-free languages.

scholarly journals Directional serial verb constructions in Thai

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuttanart Muansuwan
Keyword(s):  
Linear Order ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Constituent Structure ◽  
Serial Verb Constructions ◽  
Verb Constructions ◽  
Serial Verb ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Vp Structure

Directional Serial Verb Constructions (Directional SVCs), which are a subset of Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in Thai and involve motion-related verbs, are studied in this paper. According to two syntactic tests, two phrase structural schemata are involved in Thai Directional SVCs, including a recursive VP-over-VP structure and a complementation structure. Thai Directional SVCs also exhibit a dissociation between constituent structure and linear order. With this distinctive syntactic structure, Thai Directional SVCs are not reduceable to previously described SVCs. Nevertheless, within Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, the rich featural specifications of heads and the mechanisms available for the percolation of specific head properties in a default interpretation of the Head Feature Principle allow for a straightforward model of Thai Directional SVCs.

NPs, not DPs: The NP vs. DP debate in the context of dependency grammar

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Osborne
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Frequent Occurrence ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Dependency Grammar ◽  
Nominal Groups

AbstractThis paper considers the NP vs. DP debate from the perspective of dependency grammar (DG). The message is delivered that given DG assumptions about sentence structure, the traditional NP-analysis of nominal groups is preferable over the DP-analysis. The debate is also considered from the perspective of phrase structure grammar (PSG). While many of the issues discussed here do not directly support NP over DP given PSG assumptions, some do. More importantly, one has to accept the widespread presence of null determiner heads for the DP analysis to be plausible on PSG assumptions. The argument developed at length here is that the traditional NP-analysis of nominal groups is both more accurate and simpler than the DP-analysis, in part because it does not rely on the frequent occurrence of null determiners.

Linguistics, Technical Writing, and Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Allen Harris
Keyword(s):  
Technical Writing ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Writing Pedagogy ◽  
Writing Classroom ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Writing Students ◽  
Recent Developments

Linguistics has been largely misunderstood in writing pedagogy. After Chomsky's revolution, it was widely touted as a panacea; now it is widely flogged as a pariah. Both attitudes are extreme. It has a number of applications in the writing classroom, and it is particularly ripe for technical writing students, who have more sophistication with formalism than their humanities counterparts. Moreover, although few scholars outside of linguistics are aware of it, Transformational Grammar is virtually obsolete; most grammatical models are organized around principled aversions to the transformation, and even Chomsky has little use for his most famous innovation these days. Among the more recent developments is Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, a model with distinct formal and pedagogical advantages over Chomsky's early transformational work.

Ellipsis in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

2018 ◽  
pp. 74-121
Author(s):  
Jonathan Ginzburg ◽  
Philip Miller
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Semantic Information ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Argument Ellipsis ◽  
Alternative Version ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Syntactic Constraints ◽  
Broad Consensus

The chapter provides an overview of the types of analyses of elliptical phenomena that have been proposed in the literature on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). First, it explains the central insights behind the analyses, which have concentrated on three classes of phenomena: (i) non-sentential utterances, (ii) argument or predicate ellipsis, and (iii) constructions involving unpronounced syntactic structure. HPSG is crucially non-modular. Constraints involving various levels can be easily stated, which benefits the framework for the analysis of ellipsis, because it allows one to express simultaneous semantic and syntactic constraints on ellipsis (explaining for instance the connectivity effects among non-sentential utterances) and provides means to integrate non-semantic information-information about the realization of utterances-into context. A more detailed discussion of the theory then follows. The chapter provides a more technically precise account of the syntax of argument ellipsis, an area which has received a considerable amount of analysis in HPSG, for which there is a broad consensus. Subsequently, more recent developments are introduced and a detailed analysis of non-sentential utterances is provided. In particular, we introduce an alternative version of HPSG, which allows the grammar to directly interface with dialogue context as conceived in the framework of KoS.

scholarly journals Grammatical Planning Units During Real-Time Sentence Production in Speakers With Agrammatic Aphasia and Healthy Speakers

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 1182-1194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiyeon Lee ◽  
Masaya Yoshida ◽  
Cynthia K. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Sentence Production ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Advanced Planning ◽  
Agrammatic Aphasia ◽  
Competing Models ◽  
Simple Sentences

PurposeGrammatical encoding (GE) is impaired in agrammatic aphasia; however, the nature of such deficits remains unclear. We examined grammatical planning units during real-time sentence production in speakers with agrammatic aphasia and control speakers, testing two competing models of GE. We queried whether speakers with agrammatic aphasia produce sentences word by word without advanced planning or whether hierarchical syntactic structure (i.e., verb argument structure; VAS) is encoded as part of the advanced planning unit.MethodExperiment 1 examined production of sentences with a predefined structure (i.e., “The A and the B are above the C”) using eye tracking. Experiment 2 tested production of transitive and unaccusative sentences without a predefined sentence structure in a verb-priming study.ResultsIn Experiment 1, both speakers with agrammatic aphasia and young and age-matched control speakers used word-by-word strategies, selecting the first lemma (noun A) only prior to speech onset. However, in Experiment 2, unlike controls, speakers with agrammatic aphasia preplanned transitive and unaccusative sentences, encoding VAS before speech onset.ConclusionsSpeakers with agrammatic aphasia show incremental, word-by-word production for structurally simple sentences, requiring retrieval of multiple noun lemmas. However, when sentences involve functional (thematic to grammatical) structure building, advanced planning strategies (i.e., VAS encoding) are used. This early use of hierarchical syntactic information may provide a scaffold for impaired GE in agrammatism.

Structural priming supports grammatical networks

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Network Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Dependency Structure ◽  
Language Structure ◽  
Theory Of Language

AbstractAs Branigan & Pickering (B&P) argue, structural priming has important implications for the theory of language structure, but these implications go beyond those suggested. Priming implies a network structure, so the grammar must be a network and so must sentence structure. Instead of phrase structure, the most promising model for syntactic structure is enriched dependency structure, as in Word Grammar.

scholarly journals Pragmatic and Syntactic Features of Topics in American Sign Language

2002 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 502-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Janzen
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Narrative Texts ◽  
Syntactic Features

Abstract American Sign Language (ASL) sentences are understood as constructed around a topic-comment, rather than a subject-predicate, relation, but topic constituents are not well understood. This study examines topic-marked constituents in the context of discourse negotiation, suggesting that there are two sources for semantic material that is coded as topics in ASL. These are first, pragmatic contexts that are external to the discourse event, and second, the syntactic structure of the discourse itself. This study is based on two ASL narrative texts which were coded for topic and non-topic constituents and seeks to familiarized the interpreter with the grammatical structure of ASL. This way, the interpreter has a better grasp of the signer's perspective on the information coded both by topics and non-topics in the discourse.

scholarly journals Evaluating theories: Counting nodes and the question of constituency

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Müller
Keyword(s):  
Final Section ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Dependency Grammar ◽  
General Validity ◽  
Theory Evaluation

This paper is a reply to Timothy Osborne’s paper Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure that appeared 2018 in Language under Discussion. This paper discusses how constituent tests work and why it is no problem if they are not applicable. It is argued that Osborne’s claims regarding simplicity of Dependency Grammar (DG) in comparison to Phrase Structure Grammar (PSG) are unwarranted and that DG models that include semantics make use of auxiliary structure that is equivalent to the nodes assumed in PSG. A final section of the paper discusses the general validity of counting nodes for theory evaluation and the assumption of empty elements vs. specialized phrasal rules.

scholarly journals ‘Transforma zdaniowa’ – próba interpretacji

LingVaria ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (26) ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Topolińska
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Separate Type

‘Sentential Transform’ / ‘Transformed (Reduced) Sentence’ – an Attempt at InterpretationThe author analyses a series of Polish sentences, including those utterances which grammatically do not belong to the basic structures of their respective sentences. Her goal is to prove that so-called sentential transform is not a separate type of grammatical structure, but any sentence and/or noun phrase structure that has been transformed in order to be incorporated into another sentence structure The transformation is usually morphological in character, and applied to constitutive members of the respective sentence and/or noun phrase.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document