What is the grammatical function of a word - Word и Excel - помощь в работе с программами

Andy Parkinson/Nature Picture Library/Getty Image

Grammatical function is the syntactic role played by a word or phrase in the context of a particular clause or sentence. Sometimes called simply function.

In English, grammatical function is primarily determined by a word’s position in a sentence, not by inflection (or word endings).

Examples and Observations

«The five elements of clause structure, namely subject, verb, object, complement, and adverbial, are grammatical functions. In addition, we distinguish predicator as the function carried by the main verb in a clause, and predicate as the function assigned to the portion of a clause excluding the subject.
«Within phrases, certain types of units can function as modifiers, more specifically as premodifiers or postmodifiers.
«There is no one-to-one correspondence between functions and their possible formal realizations. Thus the functions of subject and direct object are often realized by a noun phrase, but can also be realized by a clause.» (Bas Aarts, Sylvia Chalker, and Edmund Weiner, «The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar,» 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2014.)

Linguistic Context and Grammatical Function

«The production and interpretation of an utterance act is anchored to the constitutive parts of language: syntax, morphology, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics. While syntax is composed of structural units, for instance, constituents in traditional grammar, phrases in functional grammar and generative grammar, groups in systemic functional grammar or constructions in construction grammar, it is the linear ordering of the individual parts within a hierarchically structured sequence which constitutes their grammatical function. The adverb really, for instance, realizes the grammatical function of a sentence adverbial with wide scope if positioned initially or finally, as is the case in the utterance really, Sarah is sweet. If the adverb really is positioned medially, it is assigned the grammatical function of the adverbial of subjunct with narrow scope, as in Sarah is really sweet. Or, the proper noun Mary can realize the grammatical function of object in Sally kissed Mary, and it can realize the grammatical function of subject in Mary kissed Sally. Thus, it is not the grammatical construction as such which is assigned a grammatical function. Rather, it is the positioning of a grammatical construction within a hierarchically structured sequence which assigns it a grammatical function.» (Anita Fetzer, «Contexts in Interaction: Relating Pragmatic Wastebaskets.» «What Is a Context?: Linguistic Approaches and Challenges,» ed. by Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer, and Petra B. Schumacher. John Benjamins, 2012.)

The Grammatical Functions of Subjects

«The most complex grammatical function is that of subject. Consider the example in (1).
(1) The tigers hunt prey at night.
Tigers precedes the verb. It agrees with the verb in number, as becomes clear when it is made singular: The tiger hunts its prey at night. In the active construction, it is never marked by any preposition. The corresponding full passive clause … is Prey is hunted by the tigers at night; in the passive clause, the subject of (1), the tigers, turns up inside the prepositional phrase by the tigers.
«The above criteria—agreement in number with the verb, never being preceded by a preposition, occurring in the by phrase in the passive—are grammatical, and the noun they pick out in a given clause is the grammatical subject of that clause.» (Jim Miller, «An Introduction to English Syntax.» Edinburgh University Press, 2002.)

The Grammatical Functions of Direct Objects and Indirect Objects

«In traditional grammatical descriptions, the grammatical function borne by her in the English example in (41) has sometimes been called the ‘indirect object,’ and the book has been called the ‘direct object’:
(41) He gave her a book.
The phrase the book is also traditionally assumed to be the direct object in examples like (42):
(42) He gave a book to her.
The classification of the book as a direct object in both (41) and (42) may have a semantic rather than a syntactic basis: there may be a tendency to assume that the book must bear the same grammatical function in each instance because its semantic role does not change. … [T]he LFG [lexical-functional grammar] view differs: in example (41), the phrase her bears the OBJ [object] function, while in example (42), the phrase a book is the OBJ.
«Within the transformational tradition, evidence for the LFG classification for English came from certain formulations of the rule of passivization, which applies uniformly to ‘transform’ an object into a subject.» (Mary Dalrymple, «Lexical Functional Grammar.» Emerald Group, 2001.)

Источник

Proceeding
from the differences in linguistic signs we claim that word-signs be
subdivided into two principal groups: lexical words and grammatical
words.

Lexical
words
are the linguistic signs which possess denotative
ability. They are denotators of extralingual objects and phenomena,
objective and subjective: a
window, a country, to judge,
etc. Their function consists in nominating or designating the denoted
objects and phenomena. The nominative character of denotative words,
which correlate with notions and have full denotative content, helps
to distinguish

nominative
words
from
non-nominative ones. Lexical
words in contrast to “grammatical words’’are nominative units
which function as lingual nominators of denoted referents.

The
term “notional”, however acceptable it might be, is not probably
exact because, in fact, all words, this way or another, correlate
with notions. But the correlative notions may be different, and the
ways of correlation may differ too. The term seems somewhat
misleading. Grammar resorts to it but interprets it conventionally as
a designation of denotative units only.

Grammatical
words are
also linguistic signs but they possess significative ability.
They
are
significators of general conceptual notions.

They
do not designate or nominate them as the word “significate”
itself
does.

They
may or may not have reference to objective reality.If they have any,
grammatical words are said to possess certain referential and
reflective ability. The significative character of the main stock of
grammatical words is obvious. This results from their function of
signification, i.e. the representation of general conceptual notions
(categories) not in the way of nominating but by signifying or
marking them grammatically. Hence, it is the way of lingual
representation and the nature of conceptual referents, significative
generic notions or categories, that predetermine the specific
lingual function of signification. Nomination and signification
are correlative and distinctive they lie at the basis of
differentiating lexical words from grammatical ones.

Since
grammatical words are devoid of nominative power they can be
characteristically qualified as “function-words”, i. e. words
attributed with particular functional design such as to signify
conceptual categories, to form up language units in their
function and relationships or to provide orientation in speech
situations. The functionality of grammatical words makes it
necessary to regard them together with other grammatical devices of
linguistic means of expression. Both types of words are bilateral
entities having their content and expression sides.

The
notion of ‘grammatical meaning’.

The word
combines in its semantic structure two meanings – lexical and
grammatical. Lexical
meaning
is the individual meaning of the word (e.g. table).
Grammatical
meaning
is the meaning of the whole class or a subclass. For example, the
class of nouns has the grammatical meaning of thingness.
If we take a noun (table)
we may say that it possesses its individual lexical meaning (it
corresponds to a definite piece of furniture) and the grammatical
meaning of thingness
(this is the meaning of the whole class). Besides, the noun ‘table’
has the grammatical meaning of a subclass – countableness.
Any verb combines its individual lexical meaning with the grammatical
meaning of verbiality – the ability to denote actions or states. An
adjective combines its individual lexical meaning with the
grammatical meaning of the whole class of adjectives –
qualitativeness – the ability to denote qualities. Adverbs possess
the grammatical meaning of adverbiality – the ability to denote
quality of qualities.

There are some classes of
words that are devoid of any lexical meaning and possess the
grammatical meaning only. This can be explained by the fact that they
have no referents in the objective reality. All function words belong
to this group – articles, particles, prepositions, etc.

Types of grammatical
meaning.

The
grammatical meaning may be explicit and implicit. The implicit
grammatical
meaning is not expressed formally (e.g. the word table
does
not contain any hints in its form as to it being inanimate). The
explicit
grammatical
meaning is always marked morphologically – it has its marker. In
the word cats
the
grammatical meaning of plurality is shown in the form of the noun;
cat’s
–
here the grammatical meaning of possessiveness is shown by the form
‘s;
is
asked –
shows the explicit grammatical meaning of passiveness.

The
implicit grammatical meaning may be of two types – general and
dependent. The general
grammatical meaning is the meaning of the whole word-class, of a part
of speech (e.g. nouns – the general grammatical meaning of
thingness). The dependent
grammatical meaning is the meaning of a subclass within the same part
of speech. For instance, any verb possesses the dependent grammatical
meaning of transitivity/intransitivity,
terminativeness/non-terminativeness, stativeness/non-stativeness;
nouns have the dependent grammatical meaning of
contableness/uncountableness and animateness/inanimateness. The most
important thing about the dependent grammatical meaning is that it
influences the realization of grammatical categories restricting them
to a subclass. Thus the dependent grammatical meaning of
countableness/uncountableness influences the realization of the
grammatical category of number as the number category is realized
only within the subclass of countable nouns, the grammatical meaning
of animateness/inanimateness influences the realization of the
grammatical category of case, teminativeness/non-terminativeness —
the category of tense, transitivity/intransitivity – the category
of voice.

GRAMMATICAL
MEANING

EXPLICIT
IMPLICIT

GENERAL
DEPENDENT

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

Источник

Computational Analysis and Understanding of Natural Languages: Principles, Methods and Applications

Venkat N. Gudivada, … Amogh R. Gudivada, in Handbook of Statistics, 2018

3.4 Stop Words, Accents, Case Folding, and Language Identification

Stop words are grammatical function words—for example, a, an, and, be, int, not, of, off, over, out, to, the, and under. Early IR system discarded stop words as they carry no content and exist only to meet grammatical requirements. If stop words are removed, phrases such as “to be, not to be, that is the question” do not get indexed correctly. Furthermore, for phrase queries (Section 6), presence of stop words contributes to better recall. Current IR systems including web search engines do not exclude stop words from indexing.

Accents and diacritics may be ignored in English text, but they can be quite significant for retrieval in other languages such as Spanish. Case folding is another normalization task. Beginning of the sentence words can be lowercased without retrieval implications. However, terms in the middle of a sentence should be left capitalized. Similar issues arise with acronyms. For applications such as web search engines, lowercasing everything is a pragmatic solution since users hardly use capitalization in their queries.

Writing systems of languages also pose problems for token extraction. In some writing systems, one reads from left to right, in others, right to left, and mixed (both left to right and right to left) yet in others. Though most documents on the web are written in English, of late, web documents written in other languages are becoming prevalent. In such cases, the first task is to identify the language of the document—Language Identification (LID). Short character sequences serve as distinctive signature patterns for the LID task. The LID problem has been solved with high degree of accuracy as a classification problem using supervised machine learning approaches. However, mixed-language documents, where a small fraction of words from another language are mixed, can create challenges to LID.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169716118300245

Adverbial Clauses

B. Kortmann, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

Adverbial clauses constitute a major class of subordinate clauses in all theories of grammar. Their grammatical function is that of an adverbial, i.e., they provide information on the circumstances of the state of affairs depicted in the main clause. Given the large spectrum of possible circumstances, adverbial clauses represent the most diverse semantically and, from the point of view of their interpretation, most challenging class of subordinate clauses. Among the most widely known adverbial clauses are temporal, locative, modal, causal, conditional, and concessive clauses. Beyond the complex sentence they form part of, adverbial clauses have a crucial function in the creation of a coherent discourse, and are thus a prominent feature, especially of written texts. Adverbial clauses can be found in all languages of the world. In many languages, though, they may look different from the prototypical adverbial clauses known from the major Indo-European languages. In the light of recent crosslinguistic research, adverbial clauses will be discussed with regard to their structure, the range and levels of their meanings, structural properties influencing their interpretation, and their functions in written and spoken discourse.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767029727

Logical Grammar

Glyn Morrill, in Philosophy of Linguistics, 2012

5 Why Might Grammar and Processing be Logical?

The formalisms we have considered have particular empirical and/or technical characteristic features. LFG: grammatical functions; GPSG: context-freeness; HPSG: heads and feature logic; CCG: combinators; TLCG: type logic. We have traced a path leading from each to the next. Young science does not readily renounce treasured key concepts, but our own ‘ logical conclusion’ of logical grammar, indeed formal grammar, is enrichment of non-commutative intuitionistic linear logic. This latter was already in existence at the time of Syntactic Structures in the form of the Lambek calculus.

One may question whether formal grammar is a good linguistic program at all. All grammars leak, and logical semantics has little to say about allegory, metaphor, or poetry. But that is not to say that grammaticality and truth conditions are not real. It seems to me that formal grammar has been tried but not really tested: after an initial euphoria, the going got heavy. But we have an opportunity to develop linguistic formalism in the paradigm of modern mathematical logic.

We conclude by considering why it might have been expected that grammar would take the form of a logic and processing would take the form of deduction. We consider the engineering perspective of language engineering and the scientific perspective of cognitive science.

On the engineering perspective, linguistic formalisms can be seen as construction kits for building formal languages which are like, or resemble, fragments of natural language. The charting of natural language syntax and semantics is then a massive information engineering task. It seems likely that logic would be a helpful tool/organisational principle for this. Indeed, if the mapping strategy were not logical, on what basis could it succeed?

Automated language processing divides mainly into parsing (computing meanings/signifieds from forms/signifiers) and generation (computing forms/signifiers from meanings/signifieds). When grammar is a logic, these computational tasks take the form of parsing-as-deduction and generation-as-deduction. The setting up of grammar as logic and processing as the corresponding deduction seems to augur well for verificaton: the transparency of the correctness of processing with respect to grammar.

We know something of the macroscopic and microscopic physiology of the brain, and where the language faculty is normally located; and it is usual to view cognitive processes as computations, or at least unconscious and automatic cognition such as human language processing. We want to express our cognitive theories in terms of algorithms, representations and processes eventually implemented neuronally. But there is a huge gap in our knowledge of these concepts at the level at which we want to theorise. We do not know how to define algorithms, representations or processes except in ways dependent on arbitrary features of models of computation like neural nets, RAMs, or Turing machines which we have no basis to posit as characteristic of the levels of the higher cognitive functions of our psychological theories.

Surely an eventual understanding of such concepts will come at least partly from logic. As well as with knowledge and semantics, logic has deep relations with computation (Cut-elimination, logic programming, resolution, computation as proof-search, functional programming, computation as proof normalisation). A natural theory of algorithms, representations and processes would be one akin to logic. Pending such theory it seems reasonable to express our models of knowledge of language —grammar— at a logical level of type formulas and proof terms.

As cognitive phenomena, parsing and generation are termed comprehension and production. In TLCG syntactic structures are proofs (of grammaticality) and semantic structures are also proofs: meanings are the way in which grammaticality is proved. So interpreted psychologically, TLCG models production and comprehension as synthesis and analysis of proofs. Not just manipulation of arbitrary or language-specific structures and representations, but the resonance of logic in the dyanamics of words and ideas: grammar and processing as reasoning.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444517470500032

Lexical Functional Grammar

P.K. Austin, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

2 Background

From its inception in the late 1970s LFG has been concerned to be a model that is typologically grounded, computationally implementable, and consistent with psycho-linguistic understanding of language acquisition and comprehension. Bresnan (1982) sets out the original model and describes individual languages.

LFG emphasizes analysis in ‘lexical’ and ‘functional’ terms, rather than purely as phrase structure configurations (and movement of elements from one configurational position to another). Arguments in favor of separating constituency and functional representations (see Bresnan 2000, Carnie 2001, p. 339, Falk 2001) are discussed in Sects 2.1 and 2.2.

2.1 Structure–Function Mismatches

These mismatches occur where there is an imperfect correspondence between constituency and function, e.g., ‘talked about’ requires a Noun Phrase (NP) object and cannot have a tensed complement clause (CP) object:

(1): We talked about [_NP the fact that he was unhappy _NP] for weeks
(2): ^*We talked about [_CP that he was unhappy _CP] for weeks

However, if the CP occurs as a topic in the initial position the sentence is perfectly grammatical:

(3): [_CP That he was unhappy _CP] we talked about for weeks

Transformational models would be required to move the CP from a post-predicate position where it cannot actually occur, while LFG is able to capture the difference in grammaticality in terms of functional differences (topic versus object—see Sect. 2.2).

2.2 Non-configurational Languages

In these languages word order is free and sentences have a ‘flat’ structure: there is no evidence for phrasal constituency asymmetries that distinguish grammatical functions. Non-configurational languages are typically ‘dependent-marking’ (case morphology encodes functional information), or ’head-marking’ (agreement morphology distinguishes functions such as subject and object). Jiwarli (Western Australia) is a dependent-marking non-configurational language: case marking codes function; word order is free and semantically related items can appear discontinuously:

(4)	Juma-ngku	ngatha-nha	nhanya-nyja
	child-erg	1sg-acc	see-past
	ngulu	walhirrkura-lu
	that-erg	naughty-erg
	‘That naughty child saw me’

Here the subject appears split at the beginning and end of the clause (all elements are marked for the same ergative (transitive subject) case); any other ordering or reordering of words is perfectly grammatical in jiwarli, thus:

(5a)	Ngulu	juma-ngku	ngatha-nha
	nhanya-nyja	walhirrkura-lu
(5b)	Ngatha-nha	walhirrkura-lu	nhanya-nyja
	ngulu	juma-ngku
(5c)	Nhanya-nyja	ngatha-nha	ngulu
	juma-ngku	walhirrkura-lu

all mean ‘That naughty child saw me’ (see Austin and Bresnan 1995, Austin 2001). In non-configurational languages constituency and function must be separately represented, unlike configurational languages (such as English) where the Verb Phrase constituent linking Verb and Object (but not Subject) allows function to be expressed in constituency (and word order) terms.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767029557

Syntax

G. Fanselow, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

3 Grammatical Functions

One issue of syntactic theory is whether argument roles can be linked directly to the formal means of encoding, or whether the rules of encoding crucially employ ancillary notions, namely, the grammatical functions ‘subject,’ ‘direct object,’ ‘indirect object,’ etc. Some grammatical models (Relational Grammar, Perlmutter (1983); Lexical Functional Grammar, (Bresnan 1982)) assume that such grammatical relations are indispensable primitive notions of syntax. Other approaches, such as the Standard Theory (Chomsky 1965), or the Government and Binding (GB) framework (Chomsky 1981) take grammatical functions (at best) to be mere classificatory concepts of little explanatory value, which can be defined in terms of structure and hierarchy: a ‘direct object’ is a noun phrase ‘governed’ by the verb, or it is a noun phrase which is a structural sister of the verb.

Thus, Lexical Functional Grammar assumes that sentences are linked to a functional structure, in which, e.g., the verb kill is linked to two abstract grammatical functions, subject and object. How these grammatical relations are spelled out is a function of language-particular rules. In English, grammatical functions are encoded by word order (more precisely, hierarchically)—the direct object has to follow the verb immediately (1). In German (2, 3), the grammatical functions seem encoded by case marking (direct objects bear accusative case). The mapping from argument structure to formal means of expression would thus proceed as in (6):

(6)	kill (role 1, role 2)
	kill (subject, object)
	kill (nominative, accusative)

Lexical Decomposition Grammar (Wunderlich 1997) translates argument hierarchies directly into morphological markings or order relations; that is, the second step in (6) is skipped. The Standard Theory and the GB framework assume that sentences are linked to an abstract ‘deep structure,’ in which the words and phrases combine hierarchically, with argument role hierarchies being reflected by argument expression hierarchies in deep structure, as in (7). Such deep structures are mapped on to audible representations in various ways, e.g., by case marking, reordering, etc.

(7)	[_Infl-Phrase Infl [_VP [the tiger] [killed [the buffalo]]]]

In other words, there is no consensus concerning the status of grammatical functions. It seems fair to say however, that no universally applicable definitional criteria for, e.g., subjecthood, have been found so far. This suggests that grammatical functions must either be considered fuzzy concepts, or that they reflect a grammatical perspective that may be adequate in some languages only.

The nature of grammatical functions has often been discussed in the context of the claim that one type of linking argument expressions to argument places, namely the hierarchical-positional (‘configurational’) one that we find in English, is more fundamental than the others (such as case marking) in the sense that it underlies the grammatical system of all languages: at deep structure level, all languages follow roughly the constructional logic of English. This is the position held by the mainstream version of the GB framework, and has been taken over in the Minimalist program (Chomsky 1995). The contrary view that there are no privileged systems has been a minority position in GB (e.g., Hale 1983), and is the position held by Lexical Functional Grammar and Relational Grammar. Debates in the 1980s primarily contrasted languages with rigid word order and little case marking (English, Chinese) with languages with a relatively elaborate case system and free constituent order (German, Japanese). One outcome is the insight that a strong hierarchy-based configurational component can be identified in the grammar of languages with a fairly rich case marking too (e.g., Haider 1993).

On the other hand, it may also be uncontroversial that polysynthetic languages (such as Mohawk) with a very rich system of verbal agreement have a grammatical system that differs radically from, say, English and Japanese. It appears as if nominal expressions in the polysynthetic languages do not show a grammatical behavior that is even remotely reminiscent of subjects and objects—rather, their grammar is comparable to what holds for adjuncts (like adverbs) in English. Argument linking and other important grammatical factors seem to be dealt with in the morphology only. Why this is so, and whether this means that there are languages without a syntax proper (a position strongly argued against by Baker 1996) is an open issue.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B008043076702948X

Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material

Pierre de Keyser, in Indexing, 2012

The use of stop word lists

Stop words are (small) words that are not taken into account in the indexing process because they are supposed to be meaningless. Several categories of words can be considered to be stop words:

■: Words with only a grammatical function: articles (‘the’, ‘a’, ‘an’), prepositions (‘for’, ‘in’, ‘to’, ‘under’, ‘by’, etc).
■: Words that necessarily have a high frequency in a text and by consequence a very low use in retrieval. It is pointless to search for ‘computer’ in a database on ICT, unless you want to retrieve more than 90% of the records.
■: Short words. In general, short words express basic functions in (Western) languages and are basic verbs, prepositions, etc.: ‘a’, ‘the’, ‘in’ in English; ‘un’, ‘le’, ‘du’, ‘à’ in French or ‘ein’, ‘am’, ‘um’ in German. This of course can be a risky assumption because in scientific literature certain short words are very meaningful, e.g. ‘vitamin A’.
■: Words with a very low frequency in a text are probably also not very essential to the text.

Some of these lists can be set up beforehand, others can only be built as the database grows.

One of the largest full-text newspaper archives in the world, LexisNexis, uses this stop word list – which it calls its ‘noise words’ [2]:

the

and

his

when

there

are

In this list ‘in’ is missing: it is not considered to be a ‘noise word’ because this would make searches like ‘one in a million’ impossible.

Indeed, making a solid stop word list is not as self-evident as it seems. A Dutch stop word list would probably contain prepositions like ‘van’ (English ‘of’ or ‘from’) and ‘in’ (English ‘in’), but this would have as a consequence that the name of one of the most important school book publishers in Flanders, Van In, is not retrievable.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781843342922500039

Morphophonology

S.J. Hannahs, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

1.3 Phonological Feature Spread

Phonological feature spread, similar in certain respects to vowel harmony, involves a phonological feature functioning as a grammatical marker. The difference between vowel harmony and feature spread is that feature spread does not involve a change triggered by a feature already present in the phonological form; the feature has a grammatical function and may occur throughout the word. An example of this is Terena (Arawakan: Brazil), in which the first person singular is marked by nasalization (indicated in the example with a tilde,∼). That is, given a third person singular form containing oral vowels and consonants, the first person form of the same word will exhibit nasalized vowels and consonants (subject to various conditions). Compare the following:

(3)

Thus, a phonological feature—here nasalization—fulfills a grammatical function. In the same language a different feature—palatalization—indicates 2nd person.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767029867

Valency and Argument Structure in Syntax

J.J. Song, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

4 Theoretical Approaches to Valency-changing Operations

Current grammatical theories have proposed different approaches to representation of valency-changing operations; more than one approach may also be possible within one and the same grammatical theory (Brown and Miller 1996). These approaches can be characterized broadly as lexical or syntactic. Lexical Functional Grammar regards valency-changing operations as productive lexical processes giving rise to alternative assignments of grammatical functions (or grammatical relations) to arguments. In mainstream Government and Binding Theory, valency-changing operations are treated as syntactic. In causativization, for instance, the basic verb undergoes movement to combine with the causative affix at an abstract syntactic level. This movement is then claimed to comply with the same principles that are obeyed by other movements in syntax. Relational Grammar invokes revaluation rules to handle valency-changing operations. These revaluation rules are regarded as syntactic, because they operate on grammatical relations between initial and noninitial strata (or different syntactic levels) of the relational structure.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767029612

Writing Process, Psychology of

R.T. Kellogg, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

The psychology of the writing process treats the cognitive and emotional dimensions of expressing private thoughts as public written symbols, including their neural basis and development. The processes underlying the production of extended coherent text involve thinking, language, and memory. In formulating text, writers plan conceptual content and translate their ideas into sentences. As in speech, translation assigns grammatical functions to sentence parts, and positions these in a hierarchical structure. Graphemic representations for spelling must also be specified before motor execution via handwriting or typing may occur. Both before and after execution, production is monitored by reviewing ideas and the text already written. Whereas novice writers simply retrieve an idea from long-term memory and then tell what they know, mature writers often transform their knowledge about a topic through reflection on what to say and how to say it. Planning, sentence generation, and reviewing are juggled in complex patterns, and working memory demands are high when writers use the knowledge-transforming strategy. In children, even motor execution requires attention, detracting working memory resources away from the formulation and monitoring of text. In writer’s block, text production fails because of the cognitive and emotional challenges of disclosing private thoughts as public symbols.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B008043076701562X

Hidden Structure and Function in the Lexicon

Philippe Vincent-Lamarre, … Stevan Harnad, in Cognitive Approach to Natural Language Processing, 2017

5.1 Introduction

Dictionaries catalogue and define the words of a language¹. In principle, since every word in a dictionary is defined, it should be possible to learn the meaning of any word through verbal definitions alone [BLO 13]. However, in order to understand the meaning of the word that is being defined, we have to understand the meaning of the words used to define it. If not, we have to look up the definition of those words too. However, if we have to keep looking up the definition of each of the words used to define a word, and then the definition of each of the words that define the words that define the words, and so on, we will eventually come full circle, never having learned a meaning at all.

This is the symbol grounding problem: the meanings of all words cannot be learned through definitions alone [HAR 90]. The meanings of some words, at least, have to be “grounded” by some means other than verbal definitions. That other means is direct sensorimotor experience with the referent of the word [HAR 10, PÉR 16], but the learning of categories from sensorimotor experience is not the subject of this paper. Here, we ask only how many words need to be grounded by some means other than verbal definition such that all the rest can be learned via definitions composed out of only those already grounded words — and how do those grounding words differ from the rest?

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781785482533500056

Источник

Скачать материал

Сейчас обучается 268 человек из 64 регионов

Сейчас обучается 396 человек из 63 регионов

Описание презентации по отдельным слайдам:

1 слайд

GRAMMATICAL MEANING
OF THE WORD
2 слайд

1. The problem of word definition.
2. The notion of the word-form.
3. The notion of «grammatical meaning».
4. Types of grammatical meaning.
5. The notion of «grammatical category».
6. The notion of «opposition».

3
3 слайд

1.The Problem of Word Definition

The word is considered to be the central (though not the only) linguistic unit of language.
3
4 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

In the written language words are clearly identified by spaces between them.

3
5 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

In the spoken language the problem cannot be solved this way.
↓
If we listen to an unfamiliar language, we find it difficult to divide up the speech into single words.

3
6 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

Approaches
to the problem of word definition:
the word is a semantic unit, a unit of meaning;
the word is a marked phonological unit;
the word is an indivisible unit.

3
7 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

Semantic definition of the word:
“…a unit of a particular meaning with a particular complex of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment».
↓
The word is a linguistic unit that has a single meaning.

3
8 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

BUT:

heavy smoker ≠ heavy and
smoker
criminal lawyer;
the King of England’s hat.

3
9 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

The problem:

the word is not always a single unit.

3
10 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

A phonological criterion

that stuff that’s tough
a nice cakean ice cake
grey day Grade A
↓

3
11 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

It is hard to distinguish the real meaning without a proper context.
3
12 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

The word as an indivisible unit

“The word is a minimum free form“
(L. Bloomfield)
↓
The word is the smallest unit of speech that can occur in isolation.

3
13 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

BUT:
a or the

3
14 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

Thus,
the word is a linguistic unit larger than a morpheme but smaller than a phrase.

3
15 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

In this case the word can be defined as:

• An orthographic word (something written with white spaces at both ends but no white space in the middle).

3
16 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

• A phonological word (something pronounced as a single unit).

3
17 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

• A lexical item, or lexeme, (a dictionary word).

3
18 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

• A grammatical word-form (GWF) (or morphosyntactic word) (any one of the several forms which a lexical item may assume for grammatical purposes).

3
19 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

The item ice cream is:
two orthographic words,
but
— a single phonological word (it is pronounced as a unit),
— a single lexical item (it has its own entry in a dictionary),
— a single GWF (indeed, it hardly has another form unless you think the plural ice cream is good English).

3
20 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

The singular dog and the plural dogs:
— a single orthographic word,
— a single phonological word,
a single GWF,
but they both
— represent the same lexical item (only one entry in the dictionary).

3
21 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

???
take, takes, took, taken, is taking:

3
22 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

take, takes, took, taken and is taking:

— five orthographic words,
— five phonological words,
five GWFs (at least),
but only
— one lexical item.

3
23 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

???
the contraction hasn’t

3
24 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

The contraction hasn’t is:

— a single orthographic word,
a single phonological word,
— two lexical items (have and not),
— two GWFs (has and not).

3
25 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

???
The phrasal verb make up (as in She made up her face)

3
26 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

The phrasal verb make up (as in She made up her face):
— two orthographic words,
— two phonological words,
— one lexical item (because of its unpredictable meaning, it must be entered separately in the dictionary).
— has several GWFs (make up, makes up, made up, making up).

3
27 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

???
make up
(She made up a story)

3
28 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

make up (She made up a story):
— a different lexical item from the preceding one (a separate dictionary entry is required),
but
— this lexical item exhibits the same orthographic, phonological and grammatical forms as the first.

3
29 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

So,
the word is not a clearly definable linguistic unit.

3
30 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

For the sake of linguistic description, we will proceed from the following statements:
— the word is a meaningful unit differentiating word-groups at the upper level and integrating morphemes at the lower level;

3
31 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

— the word is the main expressive unit of human language, which ensures the thought-forming function of language;

3
32 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

the word It is also the basic nominative unit of language with the help of which the naming function of language is realized;

3
33 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

in the structure of language the word belongs to the upper stage of the morphological level;

3
34 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

the word is a unit of the sphere of «language» and it exists only through its speech actualization;

3
35 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

one of the most characteristic features of the word is its indivisibility.

3
36 слайд

The Problem of Word Definition

the word is a bilateral entity

concept
WORD = ———————
sound image

3
37 слайд

2. The Notion of the Word -Form

The term «word-form“ shows that the word is a carrier of grammatical information.
E.g.: speaks — the present tense third
person singular
speak, spoke, is speaking
↓
Here the relational property of grammatical meaning is revealed.

3
38 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

Grammatical meanings of a word-form are very abstract and general.
They are peculiar of a whole class of words, unite it so that each word of the class expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning together with its individual, concrete semantics.

3
39 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

E.g.:
the meaning of the plural is rendered by the regular plural suffix –(e)s, phonemic interchange and a few lexeme-bound suffixes.

3
40 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

Due to the generalized character of the plural, we say that different groups of nouns «take» this form with strictly defined variations in the mode of expression.
The variations can be of more systemic (phonological conditioning) and less systemic (etymological conditioning) nature.

3
41 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

Cf.: faces, branches, matches, judges;
books, rockets, boats, chiefs, proofs;
dogs, beads, films, stones, hens;
lives, wives, thieves, leaves;
oxen, children, brethren;
swine, sheep, deer;
men, women, feet, teeth, geese, mice, lice;
formulae, antennae;
data, errata, strata, addenda, memoranda;
radii, genii, nuclei;
crises, bases, analyses, axes;
phenomena, criteria.

3
42 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

The lexical meaning of the word is irrelevant for the detection of the type of the word-form.

3
43 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

A word-form may be analytical by structure. In this case it is equivalent to one word as it expresses one unified content of a word, both from the point of view of grammatical and lexical meaning.
E.g.: has spoken

3
44 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

Words (as well as morphemes) are directly observable units by nature as they are characterized by a definite material structure of their own.

They can be registered and enumerated in any language.

3
45 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

The system of morphological units is a closed system. It means that all its items are on the surface and can be embraced in an inventory of forms.

3
46 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

Every word is a unit of grammar as a part of speech.

3
47 слайд

The Notion of the Word -Form

Parts of speech are usually considered a lexico-grammatical categories since:
they show lexical groupings of words;
these groupings present generalized classes, each with a unified, abstract meaning of its own.

3
48 слайд

3. The Notion of Grammatical Meaning

Notional words combine two meanings in their semantic structure:
lexical;
grammatical.

3
49 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Meaning
Lexical meaning is the individual meaning of the word
E.g.: table — a definite piece of furniture with a flat top supported by one or more upright legs,
speak – to express thoughts aloud, using the voice.

3
50 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Meaning
Grammatical (morphological) meaning is not individual.
↓
It is the meaning of the whole class or a subclass
E.g.: table (grammatical meaning of the class of nouns (thingness / substance) and the grammatical meaning of a subclass – countableness).

3
51 слайд

?

What are grammatical meanings of:
— verbs;
adjectives;
adverbs?

3
52 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Meaning

There are some classes of words that are devoid of any lexical meaning and possess the grammatical meaning only.

3
54 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Meaning

Function words

3
55 слайд

4.Types of Grammatical Meaning

The grammatical meaning may be:

explicit;
implicit.
3
56 слайд

Types of Grammatical Meaning
The implicit grammatical meaning is not expressed formally

E.g.: table (the meaning of inanimate object)

3
57 слайд

Types of Grammatical Meaning
The explicit grammatical meaning is always marked morphologically
E.g.: -s in cats (the grammatical meaning of plurality);
‘s in cat’s (the grammatical meaning of possessiveness);
is …ed in is asked (the grammatical meaning of passiveness)

3
58 слайд

Types of Grammatical Meaning
Types of the implicit grammatical meaning:
general
dependent

3
59 слайд

Types of Grammatical Meaning
general (the meaning of the whole word-class, of a part of speech)
E.g.: thingness of nouns

3
60 слайд

Types of Grammatical Meaning
dependent (the meaning of a subclass within the same part of speech)
E.g.: the verb (transitivity/ intransitivity,
terminativeness / non-terminativeness,
stativeness / non-stativeness);
the noun (countableness / uncountableness,
animateness / inanimateness)

3
61 слайд

Types of Grammatical Meaning
The dependent grammatical meaning influences the realization of grammatical categories restricting them to a subclass.
E.g.: the number category for the subclass of countable nouns;
the category of case for the subclass of animated nouns;
the category of voice for transitive verbs, etc.

3
62 слайд

Types of Grammatical Meaning

3
63 слайд

5. The Notion of Grammatical Category

A grammatical category is a linguistic category which has the effect of modifying the forms of some class of words in a language.

3
64 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category
Its structure displays two or more forms applied to a definite class of words and used in somewhat different grammatical circumstances.
↓↓

3
65 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category
Grammatical categories are made up by the unity of identical grammatical meanings that have the same form and meaning
E.g. singular : plural

3
66 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category
Due to dialectal unity of language and thought, grammatical categories correlate, on the one hand, with the conceptual categories and, on the other hand, with the objective reality:

3
67 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category
Thus,
grammatical categories are references of the corresponding objective categories.
E.g.: the objective category of time →
the grammatical category of tense,
the objective category of quantity → the grammatical category of number.

3
68 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category

Grammatical categories that have references in the objective reality are referential.
Objective correlate
↓
Lingual correlate

3
69 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category
Grammatical categories that do not correspond to anything in the objective reality and correlate only with conceptual matters are significational. They are few (e.g. the categories of mood and degree).
Conceptual correlate
↓
Lingual correlate

3
70 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category
Classifications of Gr. Categories

According to the referent relation:
immanent;
— reflective.
3
71 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category
Immanent gr. categories are:
1) innate for a given lexemic class, organically connected with its functional nature
E.g.: the number category of nouns,
the substantive-pronominal person
2) closed within a word-class
E.g.: the tense category of verbs,
the comparison of adjectives and adverbs

3
72 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category

Reflective gr. categories are of a secondary, derivative semantic value
E.g.: the number category of verbs,
the verbal person

3
73 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category
2. According to the changeability of the exposed feature
— unchangeable / derivational (constant feature categories)
E.g.: the gender category of nouns represented by the system of the 3rd person pronouns
— changeable / demutative (variable feature categories)
E.g.: the number category of nouns,
the degrees of comparison

3
74 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category

NB:
1. The notion of grammatical category applies to the plane of content of morphological paradigmatic units;

3
75 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category

2. It refers to grammatical meaning as a general notion;

3
76 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category

3. It does not nominate things but expresses relations, that is why it has to be studied in terms of oppositions;

3
77 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category

4. Grammatical categories of language represent a realization of universal categories produced by human thinking in a set of interrelated forms organized as oppositions;

3
78 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category

5. Grammatical categories are not uniform, they vary in accordance with the part of speech they belong to and the meaning they express;

3
79 слайд

The Notion of Grammatical Category

6. The expression of grammatical categories in language is based upon close interrelation between their forms and the meaning they convey.

3
80 слайд

6. The Notion of Opposition

The concept of opposition is that it distinguishes something.

↓
3
81 слайд

The Notion of Opposition
One thing can be distinguished from another only if it can be contrasted with something else or opposed to it.

3
82 слайд

The Notion of Opposition

Any grammatical category must be represented by at least two grammatical forms
E.g. the grammatical category of number: singular and plural forms.

3
83 слайд

The Notion of Opposition
Thus,
the relation between two grammatical forms that differ in meaning and external signs is called opposition.

3
84 слайд

The Notion of Opposition
The most widely known opposition is the binary «privative» opposition.

In it one member of the contrastive pair is characterized by the presence of a certain feature which the other member lacks

3
85 слайд

The Notion of Opposition
E.g. table::tables
↓ ↓
“unmarked” “marked”
(weak) member (strong) member
↓ ↓
non-plural plural
↓ ↓
more general and abstract more particular and
concrete
(used in a wider range of contexts)

3
86 слайд

The Notion of Opposition
FYI:
Some scholars, however, hold the opinion that oppositions can be
gradual (different degree of a feature)
E.g.: big — bigger — biggest
equipollent (different positive features)
E.g.: am — is — are.

3
87 слайд

The Notion of Opposition

NB:
A grammatical category is definable only on the basis of oppositions.

3
88 слайд

The Notion of Opposition

Means of realization of grammatical categories:
synthetic (near — nearer);
analytical (beautiful — more beautiful).

3

Найдите материал к любому уроку, указав свой предмет (категорию), класс, учебник и тему:

6 210 049 материалов в базе

Выберите категорию:
Выберите учебник и тему

Выберите класс:
Тип материала:
- Все материалы
- Статьи
- Научные работы
- Видеоуроки
- Презентации
- Конспекты
- Тесты
- Рабочие программы
- Другие методич. материалы

Найти материалы

Другие материалы

27.12.2020
4749
2

27.12.2020
4947
11

27.12.2020
5785
13

27.12.2020
5022
9

27.12.2020
4057
1

27.12.2020
3882
0

27.12.2020
3905
1

27.12.2020
3300
4

Вам будут интересны эти курсы:

Курс повышения квалификации «Основы местного самоуправления и муниципальной службы»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Организация и предоставление туристских услуг»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Клиническая психология: организация реабилитационной работы в социальной сфере»
Курс повышения квалификации «Организация практики студентов в соответствии с требованиями ФГОС педагогических направлений подготовки»
Курс повышения квалификации «Этика делового общения»
Курс повышения квалификации «Маркетинг в организации как средство привлечения новых клиентов»
Курс повышения квалификации «Правовое регулирование рекламной и PR-деятельности»
Курс повышения квалификации «Финансы предприятия: актуальные аспекты в оценке стоимости бизнеса»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Управление ресурсами информационных технологий»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Организация деятельности помощника-референта руководителя со знанием иностранных языков»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Организация деятельности секретаря руководителя со знанием английского языка»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Управление сервисами информационных технологий»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Эксплуатация и обслуживание общего имущества многоквартирного дома»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Техническая диагностика и контроль технического состояния автотранспортных средств»
Курс профессиональной переподготовки «Организация маркетинговой деятельности»

Источник

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tree diagram of English functions

In linguistics, grammatical relations (also called grammatical functions, grammatical roles, or syntactic functions) are functional relationships between constituents in a clause. The standard examples of grammatical functions from traditional grammar are subject, direct object, and indirect object. In recent times, the syntactic functions (more generally referred to as grammatical relations), typified by the traditional categories of subject and object, have assumed an important role in linguistic theorizing, within a variety of approaches ranging from generative grammar to functional and cognitive theories.^[1] Many modern theories of grammar are likely to acknowledge numerous further types of grammatical relations (e.g. complement, specifier, predicative, etc.). The role of grammatical relations in theories of grammar is greatest in dependency grammars, which tend to posit dozens of distinct grammatical relations. Every head-dependent dependency bears a grammatical function.

Grammatical categories are assigned to the words and phrases that have the relations. This includes traditional parts of speech like nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., and features like number and tense.

In traditional grammar[edit]

The grammatical relations are exemplified in traditional grammar by the notions of subject, direct object, and indirect object:

Fred gave Susan the book.

The subject Fred performs or is the source of the action. The direct object the book is acted upon by the subject, and the indirect object Susan receives the direct object or otherwise benefits from the action. Traditional grammars often begin with these rather vague notions of the grammatical functions. When one begins to examine the distinctions more closely, it quickly becomes clear that these basic definitions do not provide much more than a loose orientation point.

What is indisputable about the grammatical relations is that they are relational. That is, subject and object can exist as such only by virtue of the context in which they appear. A noun such as Fred or a noun phrase such as the book cannot qualify as subject and direct object, respectively, unless they appear in an environment, e.g. a clause, where they are related to each other and/or to an action or state. In this regard, the main verb in a clause is responsible for assigning grammatical relations to the clause «participants».

Defining the grammatical relations[edit]

Most grammarians and students of language intuitively know in most cases what the subject and object in a given clause are. But when one attempts to produce theoretically satisfying definitions of these notions, the results are usually less than clear and therefore controversial.^[2] The contradictory impulses have resulted in a situation where most theories of grammar acknowledge the grammatical relations and rely on them heavily for describing phenomena of grammar but at the same time, avoid providing concrete definitions of them. Nevertheless, various principles can be acknowledged that attempts to define the grammatical relations are based on.

Thematic criteria[edit]

The thematic relations (also known as thematic roles, and semantic roles, e.g. agent, patient, theme, goal) can provide semantic orientation for defining the grammatical relations. There is a tendency for subjects to be agents and objects to be patients or themes. However, the thematic relations cannot be substituted for the grammatical relations, nor vice versa. This point is evident with the active-passive diathesis and ergative verbs:

Marge has fixed the coffee table.

The coffee table has been fixed (by Marge).

The torpedo sank the ship.

The ship sank.

Marge is the agent in the first pair of sentences because she initiates and carries out the action of fixing, and the coffee table is the patient in both because it is acted upon in both sentences. In contrast, the subject and direct object are not consistent across the two sentences. The subject is the agent Marge in the first sentence and the patient The coffee table in the second sentence. The direct object is the patient the coffee table in the first sentence, and there is no direct object in the second sentence. The situation is similar with the ergative verb sunk/sink in the second pair of sentences. The noun phrase the ship is the patient in both sentences, although it is the object in the first of the two and the subject in the second.

The grammatical relations belong to the level of surface syntax, whereas the thematic relations reside on a deeper semantic level. If, however, the correspondences across these levels are acknowledged, then the thematic relations can be seen as providing prototypical thematic traits for defining the grammatical relations.

Configurational criteria[edit]

Another prominent means used to define the syntactic relations is in terms of the syntactic configuration. The subject is defined as the verb argument that appears outside of the canonical finite verb phrase, whereas the object is taken to be the verb argument that appears inside the verb phrase.^[3] This approach takes the configuration as primitive, whereby the grammatical relations are then derived from the configuration. This «configurational» understanding of the grammatical relations is associated with Chomskyan phrase structure grammars (Transformational grammar, Government and Binding and Minimalism).

The configurational approach is limited in what it can accomplish. It works best for the subject and object arguments. For other clause participants (e.g. attributes and modifiers of various sorts, prepositional arguments, etc.), it is less insightful, since it is often not clear how one might define these additional syntactic functions in terms of the configuration. Furthermore, even concerning the subject and object, it can run into difficulties, e.g.

There were two lizards in the drawer.

The configurational approach has difficulty with such cases. The plural verb were agrees with the post-verb noun phrase two lizards, which suggests that two lizards is the subject. But since two lizards follows the verb, one might view it as being located inside the verb phrase, which means it should count as the object. This second observation suggests that the expletive there should be granted subject status.

Morphological criteria[edit]

Many efforts to define the grammatical relations emphasize the role inflectional morphology. In English, the subject can or must agree with the finite verb in person and number, and in languages that have morphological case, the subject and object (and other verb arguments) are identified in terms of the case markers that they bear (e.g. nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, ergative, absolutive, etc.). Inflectional morphology may be a more reliable means for defining the grammatical relations than the configuration, but its utility can be very limited in many cases. For instance, inflectional morphology is not going to help in languages that lack inflectional morphology almost entirely such as Mandarin, and even with English, inflectional morphology does not help much, since English largely lacks morphological case.

Prototypical traits[edit]

The difficulties facing attempts to define the grammatical relations in terms of thematic or configurational or morphological criteria can be overcome by an approach that posits prototypical traits. The prototypical subject has a cluster of thematic, configurational, and/or morphological traits, and the same is true of the prototypical object and other verb arguments. Across languages and across constructions within a language, there can be many cases where a given subject argument may not be a prototypical subject, but it has enough subject-like traits to be granted subject status. Similarly, a given object argument may not be prototypical in one way or another, but if it has enough object-like traits, then it can nevertheless receive the status of object.

This third strategy is tacitly preferred by most work in theoretical syntax. All those theories of syntax that avoid providing concrete definitions of the grammatical relations but yet reference them often are (perhaps unknowingly) pursuing an approach in terms of prototypical traits.^{[clarification needed]}

Heads and dependents[edit]

In dependency grammar (DG) theories of syntax,^[4] every head-dependent dependency bears a syntactic function.^[5] The result is that an inventory consisting of dozens of distinct syntactic functions is needed for each language. For example, a determiner-noun dependency might be assumed to bear the DET (determiner) function, and an adjective-noun dependency is assumed to bear the ATTR (attribute) function. These functions are often produced as labels on the dependencies themselves in the syntactic tree, e.g.

The tree contains the following syntactic functions: ATTR (attribute), CCOMP (clause complement), DET (determiner), MOD (modifier), OBJ (object), SUBJ (subject), and VCOMP (verb complement). The actual inventories of syntactic functions will differ from the one suggested here in the number and types of functions that are assumed. In this regard, this tree is merely intended to be illustrative of the importance that the syntactic functions can take on in some theories of syntax and grammar.

Notes[edit]

^ Butler, Christopher, S. (2012). «Syntactic functions in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar: an evaluative comparison». Language Sciences. Elsevier. 34 (4): 480–490. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.002.
^ Napoli (199326, 46ff., 91ff.) provides an insightful discussion of notions such as ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’.
^ See for instance Chomsky (1965), Bach (1974:39), Cowper (1992:40), Culicover (1997:167f.), Carnie (2007:118–120).
^ The most comprehensive source on DG is Ágel et al. (2003/6).
^ See Mel’čuk (1988:22, 69).

References[edit]

Ágel, V., Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Heringer, and Hennig Lobin (eds.) 2003/6. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bach, E. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Carnie, A. 2007. Syntax: A generative introduction, 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cowper, E. 2009. A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and Parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford University Press.
Mel’čuk, I. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: SUNY Press.
Napoli, D. 1993. Syntax: Theory and problems. New York: Oxford University Press.

Источник

Examples and Observations

Linguistic Context and Grammatical Function

The Grammatical Functions of Subjects

The Grammatical Functions of Direct Objects and Indirect Objects

Computational Analysis and Understanding of Natural Languages: Principles, Methods and Applications

3.4 Stop Words, Accents, Case Folding, and Language Identification

Adverbial Clauses

Logical Grammar

5 Why Might Grammar and Processing be Logical?

Lexical Functional Grammar

2 Background

2.1 Structure–Function Mismatches

2.2 Non-configurational Languages

Syntax

3 Grammatical Functions

Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material

The use of stop word lists

Morphophonology

1.3 Phonological Feature Spread

Valency and Argument Structure in Syntax

4 Theoretical Approaches to Valency-changing Operations

Writing Process, Psychology of

Hidden Structure and Function in the Lexicon

5.1 Introduction

Описание презентации по отдельным слайдам:

Найдите материал к любому уроку, указав свой предмет (категорию), класс, учебник и тему:

Другие материалы

Вам будут интересны эти курсы:

In traditional grammar[edit]

Defining the grammatical relations[edit]

Thematic criteria[edit]

Configurational criteria[edit]

Morphological criteria[edit]

Prototypical traits[edit]

Heads and dependents[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]