Twentieth Century Linguistics at Closing Time

2021 ◽  
pp. 261-300
Author(s):  
Randy Allen Harris
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Formal Models ◽  
Closing Time ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Conceptual Metaphor Theory ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Relational Grammar ◽  
Metaphor Theory

This chapter appraises the state of linguistics at the end of the twentieth century in the wake of the Generative/Interpretive Semantics episode. The period saw a huge upswing in Noam Chomsky’s influence with the dominance of his Government and Binding/Principles and Parameters model, but also the development of multiple other competing and intersecting formal models, all of which did away with Chomsky’s totemic concept, the transformation: Relational Grammar (RG), Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG), and so many more that Frederick Newmeyer tagged the lot of them Alphabet Grammars (AGs). Alongside these frameworks came George Lakoff’s most far-reaching and influential development, with philosopher, Mark Johnson, “Conceptual Metaphor Theory” (a label the author rejects).

scholarly journals Morphology in Lexical-Functional Grammar and Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar

2018 ◽  
pp. 211-243
Author(s):  
Louisa Sadler ◽  
Rachel Nordlinger
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Morphological Theory

Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) are both lexicalist, non-transformational, constraint-based grammatical frameworks. While they differ in many respects, they share a number of fundamental principles relevant to morphological theory and analysis, which guide the overall architecture of the grammar. The two frameworks also share a common commitment to being fully explicit and implementable, with strong links to computational implementations. This chapter provides an overview of the general approaches to morphology and the morphology-syntax interface taken by researchers working within these frameworks, illustrating the relevant aspects of each framework through discussion of morphological phenomena such as multiple exponence, auxiliaries, case stacking, morphotactics and clitics.

scholarly journals A linear approach to negative prominence

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Borsley
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Negative Element ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Linear Approach

Languages often require negation to be realized in a prominent position. A well known example is Italian, which seems to require a pre-verbal realization of negation. Some other languages require negation to be in a prominent position but do not require it to be pre-verbal. An example is Swedish. Working within Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), Sells (2000) proposes that Swedish requires a negative element which is not inside VP and that Italian has the same constraint. Similar facts are found in the VSO language Welsh. However, Sells’s approach cannot be applied to Welsh. Borsley and Jones (2005) develop a selectional approach to Welsh, in which certain verbs require a negative complement. This works well for Welsh but cannot be applied to Swedish or Italian. A similar approach to all three languages is possible within the linearization-based version of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) developed by Kathol (2000). It seems, then, that a linear approach is preferable to both a structural and a selectional approach.

Phrase Structure

2019 ◽  
pp. 300-334
Author(s):  
Robert D. Borsley
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Prepositional Phrases ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Central Concern ◽  
Verb Phrases ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Unbounded Dependency

The phrase structure of English has been a central concern for most approaches to syntax, including various forms of Transformational Grammar, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Lexical Functional Grammar, and the earlier Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar framework. They have developed detailed analyses of verb phrases, nominal phases, clauses of various kinds, including unbounded dependency clauses and elliptical clauses, and adjective phrases and prepositional phrases, and coordinate structures. There are similarities and differences between the various approaches in all these areas. They differ in whether or not they are confined to binary branching, whether or not they assume that all phrases are headed, and in the extent to which they assume heads which are phonologically empty. More generally they vary in how complex they take phrase structures to be and in how much variety they see in the local trees that they consist of.

scholarly journals На кръстопътя на езиковите теории: глаголната комбинаторика

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 122-138
Author(s):  
Цветомира [TSvetomira] Венкова [Venkova]
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Systemic Functional Grammar ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Original Theory ◽  
Verb Phrase ◽  
Head Element

At the crossroads of linguistic theories: Verb combinatoricsThis paper discusses the limitations of syntactic research conducted within a single theoretical framework. The basic claim is that theories have both distinctive and common features, which can be taken into consideration and some interesting results and ideas can be encoded in terms of the original theory. The discussion of the theory interactions is focused around a particular linguistic issue – the head element of the simple verb phrase. Three basic syntactic models are analyzed in regard to their treatment of the head element in the verb phrase: Phrase Structure Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Systemic Functional Grammar. The analysis shows some variations within the frameworks and similarities across them. In general, it is an attempt to point out that the modern linguist can build bridges between theoretical frameworks if the postulates of the original framework are not violated. Na skrzyżowaniu teorii językowych. Kombinatoryka czasownikowaArtykuł poświęcony jest omówieniu ograniczeń analizy syntaktycznej, dokonywanej w ramach jednej teorii składniowej. Autorka stoi na stanowisku, że poszczególne teorie zawierają zarówno elementy specyficzne (dystynktywne), jak i ogólne, wspólne wszystkim teoriom. Ta inspekcja może przynieść ciekawe rezultaty, które nadają się do wbudowania w oryginalną teorię. Problem przedstawiono na konkretnym przykładzie – elementu nadrzędnego frazy werbalnej. Pod uwagę wzięto trzy teorie syntaktyczne, w ramach których przeanalizowano charakterystykę funkcjonowania głównego elementu frazy werbalnej: Phrase Structure Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar oraz Systemic Functional Grammar. Analiza wykazała pewną wariantywność wbudowaną w ramy pojedynczej teorii, jak i podobieństwa między poszczególnymi teoriami.Artykuł ma na celu zwrócenie uwagi na fakt, że współczesny lingwista ma prawo próbować przerzucać mosty pomiędzy różnymi teoriami, oczywiście jeśli nie narusza zasadniczych ram oryginalnej teorii.

scholarly journals Adding an Annotation Layer to the Hindi/Urdu Treebank

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Hautli ◽  
Sebastian Sulger ◽  
Miriam Butt
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Additional Layer ◽  
Dependency Relations ◽  
Predicate Argument Structure

This paper proposes an additional layer of annotation for the recently established Hindi/Urdu Treebank. Despite the fact that the treebank already features a number of annotation layers such as phrase structure, dependency relations and predicate-argument structure, we see potential for the inclusion of a dependency layer generated from Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) f-structures with relations that we believe are crucial for a deep analysis of Urdu/Hindi. The suggestions are based on theoretical and computational investigations into Urdu/Hindi in the context of the Urdu ParGram grammar, through which we can automatically create the additional annotation layer.

Dispositional Properties of Metaphor

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam K. Fetterman ◽  
Brian P. Meier ◽  
Michael D. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Positive Affect ◽  
Food Preferences ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Taste Preferences ◽  
Conceptual Metaphor Theory ◽  
Prosocial Motivation ◽  
Sweet Food ◽  
Metaphor Theory ◽  
Sweet Foods ◽  
Dispositional Properties

Abstract. Metaphors often characterize prosocial actions and people as sweet. Three studies sought to explore whether conceptual metaphors of this type can provide insights into the prosocial trait of agreeableness and into daily life prosociality. Study 1 (n = 698) examined relationships between agreeableness and food taste preferences. Studies 2 (n = 66) and 3 (n = 132) utilized daily diary protocols. In Study 1, more agreeable people liked sweet foods to a greater extent. In Study 2, greater sweet food preferences predicted a stronger positive relationship between daily prosocial behaviors and positive affect, a pattern consistent with prosocial motivation. Finally, Study 3 found that daily prosocial feelings and behaviors varied positively with sweet food consumption in a manner that could not be ascribed to positive affect or self-control. Altogether, the findings encourage further efforts to extend conceptual metaphor theory to the domain of personality processes, in part by building on balance-related ideas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document