tailieunhanh - Constituent Structure - Part 25

Constituent Structure - Part 25 .Cuốn sách này khám phá những khía cạnh thực nghiệm và lý thuyết của cơ cấu thành phần trong cú pháp ngôn ngữ tự nhiên. Nó mô tả các bài kiểm tra truyền thống cho bầu cử và các phương tiện chính thức đại diện cho họ trong cấu trúc ngữ pháp cụm từ, cụm từ ngữ pháp cơ cấu mở rộng, lý thuyết, và thiết lập cấu trúc lý thuyết cụm từ. | 220 CONTROVERSIES each of these in turn. The categories that represent arguments typically nominals such as NP DP PP and various functional items such as number and gender are the topic of the next section. Finally I address the question of how predicational modificational relationships as typically expressed through adverbs and adjectives are expressed in the constituent structure. An orthogonal issue that will run through the chapter concerns the nature of mixed categories or constituents that appear to have the properties of more than one For example in many languages we find cases where there are elements that express relations that we might characterize as verbal and are cognate to verbs but have a syntactic form that is more nominal in character . they take possessive 1 There are two sides to an adequate description of syntactic categories of constituents. Obviously if the categories are syntactic then the description should be based at least partly on syntactic evidence of distribution. For example if we find a context where a word X and not word Yor a phrase headed by X and never by Y we might conclude that X and Y do not belong to the same category. When formalist linguists like myself teach introductory syntax see for example Carnie 2006c we often hold up such an approach as scientiWcally superior to the traditional semantically based descriptions of categories such as a noun is a person place or thing which are vague and rarely helpful in syntactic description. There are problems with a purely distributional system however. Using it one often gets circular argumentation. For example take the criterion of morphological distribution. We might deWne verbs as those things that can take pasttense inflectional morphology such as -ed. But when asked to define the characteristics of a suffix such as -ed we are reduced to the circular characterization that they are the things that attach to verbs. In practical terms we might be able to use such .