a dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics

uil-a4;cl:,

?t ,,?razl:c1:.cl-.e):ea'-'

- r \ t

sCCsc-e

A Dictionary ofGrammatical Terms in

Linguistics

ccccceeecccCe

l-^

IIIIIIIIIIII

I

ci2c) )-

G'c-

a''

xl

xiii

I

3 l l

e'12tQl- lelc1c1clcl. le1clCr

e,ei

t

Giel6 i- l€i6i

- t

,^-l

;l

Contents

Acknoh'ledgemenLs

Lbt of abbreviotions

Guide b prcnuncittion

A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics

e.e.e.e.c-e-e-Q-e-e-Crc-Ct-e-c-e,.e.€:

C-,:e-_ei))

5

ea€i€-

fr:l:-l:r:ru

Mace tx

Preface

This dictionary is intended pdmarily for studenb and teache.s oflinguistics, though I hope ir may also prove us€firl to othe6 whosomettmes want to look up unfamiliar or half-remembered grammad-cal terms, Unlike other dictionaries of linguistics, this one coocen-trates exclusively on the terminology of gammar _ mainly on syDtax(sentence structure)j bul also to some extent on morphology (wordstructure).

Naturaly, !o keep this book down ro a manageable siza, I have hadto make a selection from the lhousaods of terms whicb mate anappearanc€ somewhere in the grammatical literature. However- the1,5m or so t€rms which are defined here should include virtuallvevery rerm you are likel) ro encounrer ours'de of highly sp€ciatizc;monographs.

Aware of the typically shorr tifespan of the terms coined by theproFonents of particular theoretical frameworks, I hav€ chosen todevote the larger pan of this dictionary to purely descriptive termswhich have been and are widely used by grarnmarians of varyingtheoretical persuasions, and which seem likely to remain current forsome time, such as qntipassiv., Bach,Peters senterce. ergative, gap-ping, gentur, inalienlbk possession. infix, btond co\staint, pie.tpiping and subcategoizatio n.

With terms denoting theoretical consFucts. I have been a littlemore selectivc, but terms which are used in at least two majortheories of grammar arc normally includedt brndt g, c-comtnanil,Head Feature Convention, LP rule, specifer, uturcusative, X-bat

The specific lerminology of panicular theories of grammar istreated as follows. Given the dominant Dosition of Covemment-Binding Theory. rhe lerminology of that framework is covered insome considerabfe detail: A-bu bindia|, bafier. Burzio\ generalk-ation. exceptional case ma.king, m-command, proper goyemment,theta rcle. R^ther morc limited coverage is provided for four otherframeworks: Generaliz€d Phrase Structure crammar, l2xical-Functional Grammar. Relational Grammar and Role,and-RefererceGrammar- The specific terminology of oiher frame*orks is, reget-tably, not covcred, rhough every theory of grammar known to merecelves an entry under its name.

,i

€

G

There is considerable coverage of terms associated with mathe-matical linguistics and more limited coverage of computationallinguistics: ctan parre., contett-tee Bnmnar, counting gamrutr,Ea ey algofihm, indexed grammar. Iineor bounded autontaton,Pete+-Ritchie rcsuht.

Finally, the terminology of imditional gra,i.mar, iDcluding a fewrhetorical terms of grammatical rel€vance, is also includedr ana-colurhon, bahuvrihi, common noun, conjugation, indieca object,rc lativ e c Ia Lt e, ze u g na.

Comp€ting and confficting usages are ndted and described, atrdreconmendations are often provided; examples of ttoublesometetars are anaphor, aorist, intrut,-titive, middle and snall cla6e. AsI^ras possible, I have tried to identify the original sources of the terms,and for many of the more important terms I have suggested furtherreading.

The alphabetical order used is one which ignores both hphens andspaces betrveen words. Thus, for example, oorir, precEiles A-over-AConstaint,

"thile command donuin precEdes comtu nder , *hich pre-

'c.des comnand re laaion.The pronunciation given is thar tt?ical of the south of England.

Sp€akers of other varieties of English will, I hope, fiod little dimcdtyin making any necessary adjustments, though there are admittedly afew words who6e pronunciations are unpredictably different in NonhAm€rican English, such as ,reia,

In an enterpns€ ofthiskind, it is no doubt in€vitable that th€re willprove to trc a few errors and omissions. If you 6nd any, I will be

-pleas€d to hear aboui them. You can write to me at the School ofCognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, Fatner,Brighton BNI gQH, UK, or €-mail me at [email protected](fromwithin the UK) orat [email protected] (from elsewhere).

R. L. TraskBrighton, England

ir

c

eeeeee

Crcic1c1c1cieiei:i; l; l

iii!: l

iii:l:ll-^tH

ACKnOWleOgemenIS

I \hould l ike to e\pre\s m\ parlLul . i i lhur: . . lo Dick Hudson forsuggcst irg and encouri ,s in! thi \ $,)r ' " . nnd to Chirc I- Enfant and thcRourlcJs. edir .r ia l i roirrd for rhcir p.r t iencc. cncouragement and\ i ' lurhi t rd\ jcc. I anr also indebtcd () ln.rnonynnus reader. whomltdc a nunber of useful suSgcst ions l i ) r impro! i r)g lhe book, and toFrcd Householder. $ho kindly alsistcd mc in tracking down some,i lusi \ . ' h istor ical intbrmation. Alcxi l IUanrster-Ramer pat ient ly corrected a number of errors in an clr l ier vcrsion. ! inal ly, I 'm indebredro Jennv Potts for rn or(\ tanding joh of copy-cdit ing.

I otre an eaormous debr to al l m\ ic lk)$ l inguists. past and pr6en!.\$hose *orks I hr\c shnmcl lssl) pi l lsfcd tor tcrms. dc6nit ions.examples. ..comInendat()ns and hisn)rical inlbrmation. They runinto the hundreds- and ir is impossi l . lc to namc lhem al l here. hut afew of them must be singled out for thc sp€cial atlention lhey haved€loted to quesi ions of ternr inoloSy. attentron which has been of thegrearesr assistance to me in preparinS this dictaonar}: BernardComrie. John L\ons. Pcter Nlatthews and, above all. m) formerteacher Geoff Pullulni if there is any clariry and precision in thesedelinitions. Geoff deser\cs a great d€al of rhe credit. Naturall_v, theshonconings are ent jreh my o*n responsibi l i ty

Special menrion is due to the linguisl who. perhaps even more than-'oarn Chomsky. has shoun a phenomenal talent for coining endur-ing terns which now seem as famil iar as'noun'and'verb' : JohnRoberi Ross. Haj, your fingerprints arc all over our dis€ipline.

A difterent kind of debr is owed to all my students, colleagues andfcl low br idge-pla)ers. *ho, dur ing thc past ycar. have pat icnt ly putup \ \ i rh shat must at t imes havc seemcd a singular lack of concen'I dr iun,,n rhe bJ' ,n<, ' dL hJnJ. qhi l r lhc Jrct ionar) qa! oc(up\ ingthc l ion s share of m! attent ion.

Final l ) . I qould l ike ro thank Lisa wale for her supporl and for herinimitable sllle of encouragemenl durinS the pcriod when !hi! dic'tionary consisred largely of a blank word'pr€cssor screen and a fewembarrassingly bad definitions. Lisa. this one s for you.

Absn. n.adi.cF(G)GBGPSGHPSGLFG

Pl.RGRRGTG

Abbreviations

abstract nounadiecliveConten-Free (Gratr|mat)Government-Binding Th€-oryGeneratrzed Phrase Struclute GrammarHead-Driven Phrase Structure Grammarkxical-Functional Grammar

pluralRelational Gram-darRole-ard-Reference GrammarTransformatiooal Gramrl|ar

intransitive verb

ht sing

vi.

Guide to pronunciation

The pronunciation represented is that of the south of England.

tbt bib

lgl gaC

tbt judse/f/ ffe/81 rhink

16l eirher

Diacritics

Raised bar primary stress: /gre'matrkl/Louered bar secondary stress: /sa,b.:dr oer_14/Bar below syllabic consonant: /ken'drJn/

l^rl bie

II

IIIIIIIIIlIIIItIIIIIIIII

-|

ezeet2?eeccccccceeeeeeecsacCsCceeee

':'

! :':: A L See adje.tiv€. 2. See under SAP.

-' A-bar /'er,bor/ r. The one-bar projcction of the lexical category:a Adjective. posiled to provide suirable structures for adjective- phrases llke vry ptoud of Liea, analysed as [aplD.sver]l: t l- I^ t tp toua) IPPorL, 'a l tJ .

ir

A.bar binding /erbq:,barndrt/ ,?. (also notr-srgumeBt bitrd-ing) In GB. binding by a category which is not in llgunena position,such as a fronted wH-item: wlo, did you see et? A-bar bindingapplies to varirbles (wH-traces)i such a trace must be bound by a\uitable WH item which c-commands it. Cf. A-binding.

A-bar position /erbo: pe zrjnl 't. In GB, an NP-position whichis not an A-positiotr. pa(icularly the Comp positioo.

abbreviatory convention /.'bri:viotri kon'venJn/ '|. Any con-venrional notation which allows two or more distincl rules wilhclemerts ir common to be written as a single rule schems. Commonconlentions includ€ parenthes€s, braces, verticd brrs and theKleene star.

abbreviatory vsriable n. A variable whose possible values arerestricted to a specified set. Cf. ess€ntial v8riable.

ab€ssive /sb esrv/ n. ot a.lj. A case form typicaly expressing themeaning of without': Finnish rahatta 'witholut money' (rcha

A-binding /'er ,barndrr/ n. (also argumena bitrdltrg) In GB,binding b) a category which is in srgument position, such as asubject or a {direct) object. A-binding applies to maphors (reflex-ives. reciDrocals and NP-traces): each of these must be bound io itsgove.nrng cateSory; that is, it musl b€ coindexed with a c-cornmandinp catcgory within this domain. A category so bound is'A-b(jund : othcr$ise, il is A-free'. Cf. A-bar bbding.

?-Uc?eeccccaaacc

abstractablu ve

' rb iat l tc 1lr iL, \ / , or dCi. A cas€ i{ , . . r , *r l rcn l rprcal ly rrnrcares' , nir fcc ! ; i a moltment: lurk 'sh . !dcn fron the house ler '

Ablaut /'niflout/ ,. (alro iow€l slt€matiotr) Gr3nrmatical irflec-i , )-r h! \nr i3t ion in t l re \ , : r l ie l . l f a root. as in Enql ish r tn8. r . rg,

J!/rA. Ci. Un)liut. r,rd see lhe .ilnrark! lh.rc. Griib (13!s).

absolut€ .omparatiYe .'abs.iu:t/ r. A .orstruction inlolving acrompArafira ftini wrih no olerl slandard: k ,"oxnget gererution;Whizza washet vhirLr.

abs{rlute construction ,. A c.nsiinrenr linlied scmanticalh andnronal ior,r l i to the rest oi r , r seatc!.r . but lacking any overt

,.)i;rres,(i.s ol a s-vntactic lir,l]rt.IThe (id\ hdng t kntl,".l v'e decidedh) rta,. homt, 7 he tuo ||otnea. lrheir brLsiness completed.l rc .d to,1. bal Ofreo thc lerm i\ e\r€nded io rentence lrdverbs like

ah.olute excaptiou n ln somc rnal),es. a label applied 1o certainl . \ ical rr ! rrs whi.h obi igalonl l undc.g,) . or fdi l ro undergo. apr{}icrs which is usualli optional. Thus. for erample. $bile Passiveshke She it tot\ideft.i to be ,:levr Ne normall-t related ro corres-rorrdiig r iyrs lii:e fhq tansilet het to be./crdl. the verb.rdr isr'xccplional ;r can .Dlt aPP€a. il] rhe rassile iorrr \he b tanj @ herlr,, ?/, tre actile brnr' t,t!) ".-' . ?/ to i! t le\ et bcilrg r,or-existent.;lence rd! ,s a positrve absorute exceplio'r' io passivizatior,. fhei.rrrl ij alrr som4timcs used in morphobg): Nhlle rerbs in irirltt l iKe pt. \ ibt ;an) arc . i l . i r der i led i r r . ja ied lerbs ( l j ic p/o;t ib i t . \ , p, t i i : ,on i r . oo slrJh co:: . ' !pr, i , i ing !e.b. 3t least stPe.f( ia l ly, ! rnl some iurai ,- l ls woui L i ! ! i i rn und.dying verb stem

/,€/di i \ rhi . i ; i a posir i ! . absolute - :r i . .p l i ! )n rr , noun formalron.

ni)solrrle Fxr\-<€ssive , .\ rfi,rc.\i!e for,n o: a l.rsonal Proncunwhich funcli.)ns as a pror,our, r1lhet llrtrn as a detcrminer, such asEnglish rre or ro;r': .Vin" is I igge. titaa lrr1ru. \or Thc tem'. $e$irc tr,nod. louLl seet Idore apFroinlc, hui dtfonlnatell lhal tem

1T long trc.r i. u* I.lrb.l rhe tlosvs,ye d.r(.n'nc6 lile u) a.,l]du.

ibsrl,rte-.eiatiye icnse n. A tcnse form \lhich tak€s as ils intrinsicqfrn!.1 r( : i : ' . r . , . , ! , int in l im.-,r ther than the Presenl moment.\uch as the pasi anttriot (l had al/edd\'t.en hin) or lhe ftrture-iD'rhe-past (/ w"s gointl tu se? ,irt. botb of which take some paslr .n r .n ' r . rh rn r ' i ; ' , . f r , . fe ' . r . . , ( i . h .^hne lc rs€ . r€ la i i re

1 . n i S - r . i ' l ' . , , r '

absolute tens,e n \ tense form xhich lakes thc present moment asits point of referencc. such a! rhe simple past. prcsenr and futurctrnscr foundin nrany langLrages. Thc term is traditional, but regrer-kble. since lhe s(l called absoluae-relstiy€ tenses hale jDst .rs muchclarm to bejng qrnsidered ahsotutc-. Cf. r€tatire t€r|.se, absoluta.r€lativc !€trs€. S€c Comrie (i98,5a) tor discussn)n.

absolutc transitiy€ n. A constru.:rion in which an intrjDsicallylransrijle v€rb G-cur\ wirh no ov€rr direct objlcl. rhe subjecl of il€vcrb being interprcted as an ag€nl ilnd thc construction b€inginterprered as actile: Jdnet smoke!: !,iat is eaing The term is alsoappled to rhe dislinctile subclass with a reflcrj\c interpreradon:I.isa undrcssed. John is shaving. Sce also unspecif€d obj€ct de-Ietion, pseudo-intransitive. Jcsperscn {t,)6t, IUr 320).

absolute universal n. -A univenai qhich holds for every singlenatural langLragc *irhout exclption. Some linguisrs t orild argue, forexanlplc. rhat tbc structur€"dep€ndence of grammatjcal rules is justsuch a unilersal ( f. i€laaive unirersst.

absolutive /ebsJurrrlt n. o( adj. 1.In an €ryative tsnSu.sg€, thccase ibrm which marks borh rhe subjecl of an inlrarsitive verb andIhe direcr object of a transjtile verb, and qhich contrasts with theergalive (sense l). For exanpl€. in rhe ergarive language Basquethe NPs gjaon4 rhe man' and ua!/il .the boy take the absolutive.ase suffix zei, in such erampjes ts Gi.ona he[du d/.The manrfr ived. Grodal, muti to tkLt i dr . fh€ man srw the bo! 'andl lk l t tdA 4:an' , t l t , iJu Th( h^! . r$ thc mdn. \{hde rrc rransir jvfsLrbjecrs bear the ergalivc case suf6x -k. 2. By cxrension, the caFcgon consisting ofiotransilive subjecls and tran\itive direcr objecrs.

abstra.t j'ebstr€krr'adl. Denoring ao ar,aly\is of a srructure orphenorn€non w|rch is significantly diferent from its sorface rep-resenralionl somdimes more speciica y denoting an elenrcnt whictrrs Fostulared as being prescnr even though it has no.iverr phoreticrealization. For example. some analyses of tbc senaence / enjoJnrrd8. would po(ru13r€ ar abstract nodc calted AIrX or INFL inih;tree which senes.rs e locu\ for rr:nse marking but which has noo\e:t realizarion in the sent€nce. and some a.ratyses of 1_ira reernro ,te ftapp_r would posit an abstract underlfing structurc along therr.s of r"s-. lt;\o tc be happrJ. Abin '7. absrructD€ss

c<aci.c '-:e!.e'!ca!c '::

93ti"l \r'

c":c-?

c-c:

4 e-(abstract noun

sbstract noun n. A noun whose meaning is an abstract conceptit^h, bgautv, nugnitu.de, cotlrequcnce) or a noun denoting anevent (a ival, exp[osion). Cf. concreae m|lt|.

acc€ptability /eks€pt.'brlti/ n. Th€ degree to which a proposedsentence or utterance is adjudged permissible and interpretable bynative speak€rs. A s€ntence which is we -formed according to therequirements of th€ grammar may be considered unacceptable b€-cause of proc€ssing dimculties or pftgrnatitc factors. Flounderfound$ badger badg.r foundz\ The book the prcfessor rhe eudentsh'ho ore doinq v)e Uke recommended is good, Arabir is learningJohn. Adj. acxf,pt^ble lek's€ptebll.

acc€ssible subject /5k'seseb!/ ',. In GB, a panicular structuralrelation which may hold between nodes in a s€ntence. A node A isan ac{€ssible subject for another node B if the coindexation of Aatrd B does not violale any grammatical principles. The notion of anacc€$sible subject is important in the d€finition of a Bov€rdngcat4gory. CboNry (19E1).

accidetrc€ /'eksrdens/ r. A traditional term for what is now usuallvca.Ied tutrectionsl Dorpholog/.

ACC-ing /&k'I!/ n. The construction in which a gerutrd has asubject NP itr the objective (accusative) cas€:.1don'r like hitn doing,tr't. Cf. POSS.iz8.

accusative /.'kju:zatd n. or adj. L A cas€ form lypically markingthe direct object of a transitive verb: Latin puellam (ftom pucla'gIA') it\ Puellam vi.li'l saw fte girl'. 2. Another ierm for objeclive,particularly in GB, where Accusative is the conventional name oftbe abstract Cas€ assigned to an NP by a goveming verb or

Preposition.

accusative and hfnitive n. A traditional name for a consmrctionfound in cenain languages, including Latin and English, iovolvingan infnitival vP witb an overt subject in the accusative (objective)casei I would like him to come .

accusative laDgulge n. (nore fully, rDBiDativF-s€rusative bn-gurg€) A language in which subjects of intransitive verbs atrd sutFjects of transilive verbs are usually treated identically forgammatical purpos€s, while direct objects of transitive verbs aretrealed differently. Most familiar European languages, including

acdve language

EnSlish, are aca$ative. ,4rs'r. n. accrrsativity /r,kju:zo'xvlti/.Cf. erystivc l|trgurg€.

acruym /'akranrm/ n. A word formed by combining the initialletters of the principal words in a pkas€: ,rref, frorr, Ught anplili-cation by the s,imulated emLtsion of rudiation; NATO, frcfi NorthAtlantic Trcory oryanizatio n.

acros$-the-h8rd /e,kms dr 'b.rdl rd]. (ATB) Denoting certainext.action phenomena in which the extracted constituent is simul-taneously rclated to a gap in every coniunct of a coordination: Iialbook you were rcading e ond Lisa h'anted to buy e it out inpapeftack;Th&t's fie plaeer lanet l|'as talking about e and wants e topin. In English and some other languages, A'IB phenomena consti-tute a systematic class of exceptions to the Coordlnste StructureConstnirt- R6 (1967): revived by Wiuiams (19'lE).

acliae I'Ektt''l adj. L (of a clause) Denoting a construction, usuallyinvolving a transitive verb, in which the grammatical subject of theverb typically (though not €xceplionlessly) reprcseots the ageotp€rforming the action, and rhe direct object represents the Patient:Attila invaded Eurooe: I t)e eashed the ca\ Lisa i)ants a BMW; Shehos beautiful eyes. ln many (not au) languages, the active constnc-tion contrasts with an overt psssiv€ construction, and sometimeswith additional voic6. In the last majority of languages, the activeconstruction is the unmarked construction for lransitive verbs, in-volving the least marked form of the verb and the simplest possiblecase marking on the argument NPs. 2. (of a verb) Denoting thatform of a (usually transitive) verb which occurs in active consfiuc-tions (where these contrast witb passives orother voices): the activeforrn is usually the morphologically simpl€st (unmarked) form ofallthose participating in voice contrasis. Cf. psssive, middl€ (sense l),circunstortisl, applicdve, and see voice. 3. An occasional syno-nym for dyrumic; this usage should be avoided, beca$e of theobvious potential confusion with the more usual senses of'actire'.

active language n. (also ag€ntlv€ langurge) A languagc in whichsubjects ofboth transitive and intransitive verbs which are semanti-cally ageDts are treated id€ntically for grammatical purposes, whilenon-agent subjects and direct obj€cts are treatcd differently.Amoog languages efibititrg this pattem arc Sumerian, Balsbi (NECaucasian), Crow (siouxan) and Eastem Pomo (Hokan). Thefollowing examples from Eastem Pomo show the use of the t*osubject pronouos ,l: 'I' (agent) and w/'I' (non-^Eenl): Hd: ml:pal

ee.eeeec-cccacccei:e '-:eieeitei1.ei..cil:^ - J -l l . '- r \ .c-: 3

l:

s:4a

aclor

in . td I kr l lc( l h im . Hn ! rn l r . { r rd I m going: l t7 - ) , i ' i i r ,

Jsneeztr l . fh . co. ic l ! t i ( )n r \ r . r r . l \ I ) t r fect : usur l l \ thcre: r . . a feq\crb\ or f . . l icntes \h l .h rnptr r to br . \ r . f r i ( 'n . ,1 l1r somr r icr r !€ian3r 'ngcs lc \ rc . r l \erb! r re r iq id l \ dr \d.d in t , ) .ho\ r . i InL.r .ent

b lc . ts rnd t lxr - (e Iak i |g non-rgcnl subjccr ! i in ,nhcrs somc lex icalverhs crn rakc e i ther r , ) dcn,ne. ior cxampl . . d i l fc f ing dcgrees ofcontro l ( \cr rhc actron. Scc Mer lan (198i ) 1 in , l iscussion. C' f .ergalirc language. accusativr languag€. and see rlso sptit intrarBi-t ivc. I lu id ' in t ransi t i !e . SaJr i ' ( i ! l - r

actor / *kr ) / , I An c\ lcn\ ion ( ) l rhe le lnan( ic r r ( ' r0n of agent r { rinc ludc erna;n t i thcr ! . !unent \ l , r which are . . , t ! (nrr l \ a lents bur*h ieh pxr lcrn l ikc asenr\ for ! rammai ica l purpos. . For r \a l rp le.thc subicct NP / . r .16 *ould u\ur l l \ he considered rn . rc tor rn each o ithe l i , l loe ing lxamplcs: Lt \u l ,ou l l a sk i r r L ! 'd to G. l rhe orct -detsl: Lisu R.dren t lctk,t, I ^u tlcpt soft/x//\ llouShl\. thcn. anacor is thr l nrgument NP cxrrcrs ing thc h igh, is l dcgr(c o i independen( ac i i (n in rhe c lause. I -hr l . i l rc l i \ no l ncc! \ \ ! l \ rLnr ic ted toanjmat ! l \Ps Hal l ida) ( l9r r l r . 1 , , r . rar ,p le. re! . , rds l ls acrorc rhesubject \Ps in the examplc! 7 i r . rur ; j ! , t r t ; { !n , l His popula \llecLin.l. fllt\ categorl i\ imtonant io lnosl fun.lionel grammars(sensc l). particularl) in I{ll(i Cl. und€rgo€r I An overtl,rmufkcd c lsc fornr found in c . r la in larguages ( io tabl t Phi l ipp inelanSurgcs) which !o\crs : ip l ] ,ox imatel ! the scn)rn l ic range justJ( \ , r -LJ Sc< S. h , ' hr , r ( lq-h) f . r J : 'cu. \ i ' '4

adcquacy, le \ '€ ls of , : .drkq: l ! i / n An] of \ i , r ious \ets of cr i ler iaior e! t luat ing n)rmal grrmmar\ The best kno\ \n cr i rc f ia arc thoseof Chornsk) ( l9or) r a s fummrr achie\es obs€r \a l ionsl adequac) i li l conect l ! g€nerates rhe obscned data: i t rch ie\cs descr ip l i read€quacy if it also expresse\ rll linguisticalh" signili(lnt generaliz-ationsr il irchicres e\planritorJ adcquacJ if i! pr(nidcs a principledbt 's is ior choosing among conrpcr ine Srammars a l l o f sh ich achie\edescn i \ . adequac! . An i rdrpendcnt characrer i r ! t i , )n . proposedin Chorrsk\ (1957). is rhat in termi of €xternai irnd internaladcqu.t.): l grammar is erlernallJ adequate il ir .orrc.rl\ accountsfor thr dara: ir is intern.rll) adequate if it erihibir\ such rharacteris t ics as gcneral i t r . econon) and s i .nr ! i . i1 \ . \c l r th i rd se! ofcrjteria disliDglishes wcak and strong adcqua!\': a Srarnmar isweaklJ sdcquate it it gcnenrcs lhc right ser ol strin!s. and ltrorglledequst€ if it does this and also assigns 1() erch string rhc co.rc.I

ad€ssi te r tde\r ! / / r o t . r / i . A case form iorrnd i4 cenarr

lansua! :es. n pr . i l tv e\Pressing thc not ion o i adiacen( v . e1r r ( 's lnnt l

r r i t ( , Fn!r , \h , , ,4 o: rear : Frnnrsh loru la l la bn lhc table (J ' ' \ i ' r

r;1. ) { | 1..-,r1!.e. ineslirc

-{dj sec adjecrire.

sdjacencJ i r ( i ie lsnrr i ?r . The l i l ] , r i r r r t l3 t ion hoid ing ] )cn! ' rc '1 lq ' i

. i " " , . " t i ;n n \entence which arr not separaled b\ any o l l " i r e l t

nr fn, ILL l r .unc$, r i : ! { , i ,z i r ,g edrp iJ categor ies an cnpt t cat ' -gory

i , 1 . f rJ | . i , r l l . i (n , r r . l r . \ .nr adjaccn.y bel*een th ' i

r i r ! ' : , ' rd ! , ) f i l . - r r i i ad jac! t ' ! / r 'dre i \n t

\J iaaenc! Pi t rameter , l In Cl i . the purat i r 'e parunetc( b) Rl ' r ! i

., it.luo-". ,1,,"' - an". nor c\hibr! lhe Adjacencv Principlc

ld i&trnc! I ' r inc ip le n ln ( jB. thc .equi 'emenl thr t ' r c ' ' ! ip l !'n,'n r hrcl, r'al lt Cesenrlrrked nrLrst occ f adjacenl to ilrr hi:ad 'f

, r . fh i rs( i 'nd r r l rnot be leprra ied f rom i i b- r odrer nster ia l r i | j : "

rL i . lenr ; , i . - r r rxnsi t i ' e "

erh in F lngl ish nrust not be sei rafabd r ronr

i r i f r i r . . r ohl tc t . io *hrch r r iss igns Case: +John lu\ | \ 'J t ' tu in- ; a

l j ! ' , ihe nula l i \L oni \e^nl nr tur€ of ln is onncip lc is 'a i lc l l in i r

q u e n i d n b \ \ u c h I a n g u a g . ; ! s s P l n i 5 b . h * h i c h J | J / l

f r l r i r la . l i rcra l l r -Joh. sr$ \ t \ terday a l ih i ' n l ( rs | r t1 ' r \ ; :

ur rmarL.d wo orde. .

sJicctiral p:Llsive n fhc |rs.ivt plrticiple ol d (rvpic"llv transi

I i i . r \ . r ' lun.noninc a\ an - ' i icct r \e: , nr tA r 'm' r1/"1 /or_r i l '^ , l t k t ' th t | ) l t i , ien t rLtudct t t i ! ! ' !hnpp' \ ' t ' j Icd lhotLs latd

! t , , r r l " L in,L in t ransi i i \e exn,nPl .s rnc iu je rhc, io t t6 t i 'Pdt : ' ' i

jrtfln an'j Jrrnnr ir dlnoi rro\'1 up The exiltence of adi'crjval

p. r ! . r \ . ! t r r^ i j : i io t t . o l thc st rongesl c l idenc€ in favou( o i 3

pu.crr fci;..r rnal!sis oi prss've conrtnictjons, a:j proFs'jd for

( id 'n t lc r t r I I ( ' dnJ l lPSd S(( d l .o uune$ir t

adjcctile / is(llrkrr\1 n. 1r\dj or A) A l€xic.l cslcgori. ')r a le)iica-i

i rern htk,n; ing t . th is * tegorv fo l rnd in nant , thc th aot r l l '

13|31, . rg.s . in f l€d ional l \ and drst ibut ional lv d is i iDct t r inr i l r

r t r r rgor i . . \ run and \ erb. $ i th which i l t , r 'p ica l ly : iharcs thc chi i :c

t :ns i ic ( r f bc i r rg an oFn ctass shose rn.ub€rs Lale rcal semar l rc

' - r , , , ' r n ; - " 1 d d r . . r r ' ! ' I l ( r l l \ h a r e r e : ' r n r r ' - t l i r d

pcrnr!rcnt or r!mporary stlfihules. \nch at big' okl, SrePn, happl

rn(l '1l\. nnd in(leed in somr lanSu.rgcs adjectivcs constih(e a dsed

r! : r .s . .nr : l in ins onl ,v a dozen or qo suth i tems (Di . t ( )n !977a). t i r l- r . . . . - - , , l l \ rh . chss r . .n la iDs a large nrmkr of i l r rns l t i th

?z,

eeee

cI9Ic

cceccccceeaacccceeee-

a.lje.{ive

ic

orljecdve phrsse

meanings that may be more noun-like or verb-like, such as.rron).shiny, desd, ostonishinS and murrtdl. Among the grammaticalchamctenstics often displayed by adjectives are attributive po6ition(a big house\, predicate position (Thnt house i5 bi8), campaiison(biggea biggest) and inflection for gender, number and cas€ asrcquired by agreementwith, or govemment by, a head noun (not inEnglish, but consider French un vieut livre'an oldb(rok' , rme vi.illerndiroz'an old house', d€r vtuiller mrirons'old hous€s', etc.) rdi.rdj..tivrl /Ed3rk' tarvY.

arljective phrase n. (A4iP or AP) A phrar exhibiting a distri-bution similar to that of a lexical adjective and rmantically acting asa modifier of a noun or a noun phras€: very big, proun ol hetachievements, morc expensive than that one. An adjective phrateusually has an adjective as its lexical head and in the X-bar system isregarded as the maximal projection of lhe lexical cateSoryAdjective, A-double-bar.

adjoined relattve clau8e /e'd3clnd/ n- A t}?e of relative clausewhich is not contained within the claus€ in which its head is located,and which is therefore typically s€parated from its head- The pat-tem occurs in Engish, whe.e it is an optional variant of the moreusual pattem: Thot t lor has a ived [who lou've been waiting forl.ln some other languages, however, the adjoined .elative is th€ onlypossibility, as in the Australian language warlPin. Cf. corr.bdvcclluse . Itale (1976).

AdP See edj€cdve plrsse.

a4iunct /'ed3^Dkt/ n. A category which is a modifier of a lexicalhead without beiDg subcategorized fot by that lexical head andwhich could in principle be rcmoved wjthout affecting we -

formedness; e.9., in the *atence I saw Lisa in the pa* yestercltty,the phtaJ€s in the pork and yesterclay are adjuncts of the verb. Insome versio'ls of the X-bar system, an adjunct is formally defined asa category which is a sister of a one-bar projection and a daughter ofalother one-bar projection; some definitions add the (English-specific) requirement that it follow its one-bar siste.. -Adt. 34lum-tiyd /ed3 lklarvy. Cf. compl€ment, rtEibute.

adJunction /a'd5^Bkfan/ t. Any of various procedures foritrcorporatinS material into a tree, such as doLr-rdjrDcdoo,dl4haer-.djutrc{ion, Chomslry-rdjuncfion or E€er4iuDctioo. Itrsome &ameworks tbe lerm is lls€d without qualification to label the

adverb

only type of adjunction recognized, such as for Chomsky,adjunctionin GB or for tree-adjunction in tree,adioining grammars. 14 sdjoin/a'd3rIn/.

Adjunct-kland Condition n. The requirement that a wH-dependency cannot cross the boundary of an aJjvnct: *Who did hesee the boss Ibeforc talking ro ell The cursuaint runs into dificuhieswith apparent countercxamples like Who did you go to Pais to visit

&djuiative /e'd3u;tatwl n. or adj. An inflected form of the verbwhich indicates that lhe subject helps someone else to do !omc-thing: Tigrinya 2aqqatile 'he hetped to kill' (qd.ale 'he kiued'). Theadjutative forms pan of the voi.e system in languages in which ir

adrominsl /ad'nomrnl/ adJ. Denotiog any mnstituent whichoccurs inside a noun phrase and which modifies or specifies tbe headnoun. An adnominal constituent may be variously a determiner, anadjectiv€, a pr€positional pbras€ or a relative claus€, all of thes€b€ing illustrared by the example the yor.Jrt gil'l in th. bluc dress y.,hoyou were talking to-

adpoeition /€dp.'zrjn-l n. A superordiMte latrel includinS th€ cat-egories pr€pGition and po6tpcitiotr, required b€causc rhe iladi-tional term preposition, both etlmologifally and in pncticc, isr€slricted to adpositions which precedc thet objccts. ,4di. rdpcl-tiorsl /adpe'zrJany.

Adv L See adverb. 2. See adv€rbial.

advancement /ed'va:nsment/ r,. In RG, the procass by which thelogical or canonical form of a clause is rBtructlred so as to movcsome NP into a higher,rantint position on the RclrtlodatIlierarchy: e.9., passivization, in which an undedying object isadvanced to subject. Z sdvmc€ /ad'vohs/.

adverb /'edv3rb/ r. A lexiol cra€gory, or a member of rhis cat-egory, whose members are usually grammatical adjuncts of a verband most tlpicall) e\Fress such semandc nolionr as iime, manner,pfac€, instrument or circumst rct: yestedal, slowly, hcrc. Ad\etbsrarely exltibit distinctive inflectional norphology, tlough many lan-guages affow manner adverbs to b€ compared (rlotdy, morc sloN)ly,most slowty, and to take degee modifiers (very slowly, rarhersao|d)). Some languages, including English, exhibit a sutlclass of

z.':.",^

:.?--?--2-?e: le ':.Q-

(.

ca.c, i:g'r "9i"9 r. \ 'E.

ei,.ci.:.ciae:: jei3e::

ciaSist9;-

C:?

c:"c:?ei"e-! ?.l;

adverbial

advcrbs with ralhcr disrnctivc properties. kno*n as sentenceadverbs. .4di. advcrbial. Nort t'adirional sranmrr. *trh ns paucir! orlcxical cateSories. conycrnonalll asrgns to rhe calcS.r\ Arlvcrb the desrec

nodihcrs likc r.l rhe pr.po.rtional speci6.A like i'rv and ! rarher nriFella

neous correcrn)n of orher items of douhtrul class. lik. a't. h.a(rcr. \ct. ea\.

a.d rhc fi6t ar of ,r hq a\ u horet 5uch usc oi lhc ca(eloft Adrerb d d

Sranrnatical dustbi can hardll b. lu{i6€d. bur n.n} rePutable drcrionancs

and rexrb@ks .onti iuc this prrcticc

adverbial /ed'v:.fbi.l/ 1. ,. An! categort wirh a disrribution andfunctiod similar tr) that of r lerieal advcrb- such at r)Dk)rtow i8l1t.nt t/kt ga/,tu. trtt.t she Mift\ at ;n orlo td /rarr ,,rr r.gardlcss ofi ts surface synt.(r ic rcal izal ion. $hicn nr!) hc thal of a l . r icaladfrrb. an ad\ erf , plrrar. . a noLrn phrir \ ( . a prcposit lonr i Dhfuse. anadvcrbi^ l c laus. or i n. tr l in i t . \P The t . !nr ad\er l) ia l rs lhus atunct ior ial one. A derai l . 'd classrrcat i , )n oi advefhials. u: ing r isomeqhai id iosyo.rat ic lcrminol( ,g! . is gi \en in Quir l . , d l . (1985)2. ,.1/. Pertirining lo adyerbs or t() sdrerbials.

adverbial claus€ n. (:il\o oblique claus€) A suh{Jrdjnare clausc$hich bears to irs main claus. rny ol r range of semanric relalionssimilar to those hornc b)- advcrbs. stlch as lime. manner. place.instrument. c ircumsranJc. conccsr ion. lu4rr^c. .cnr l t . caL'se orcondit ion. Advorbral c lauscs in hngl ish are l lp icdl ly nrark.J b) iheprc sence i ) f subordina(ors such as afier. \'he\ . *hei.t u . n hile . asdnhough b(aulr rnd 4: See Thomplon and Longac.e (19851 tbr

adrerbial pqrticiple n. An adve.bial headcd b\ .i prrticiple:

lArtirifis a lill,: turl\',1 I decidd to Id/c u stdl and ltantorruqed bt"hcr nc(e$) sht rerter.r.d. See sma|l cla s€ (sensc I ).

adverb phrase n (AdrP) A phrasc who.re lctical head 's anad\,crh: rr .1 qwtl \ . r is l l ! h&

adverb prcposing n. Ihe construcl i ()n in $hich ,rn ad\erb thatnorc trpical l l . ) .curr in\ ide a VP occuls rnsrcad al thc beginning oithe sentcnce: Cunlullt rhe deunted ttu vit,e.

adve^at ive pa5sir€ rd \r : \ r f i ! / , .A . f i \ r rnclr \c con.trucl iunfound in certain langu.tges. nolabl!- Japanese. \thich rvpicallyexpresses r (usuall,t unfavourabte) cffect on somc person For€xrmple. th€ Japanese sctive s.ntence Jo.irir ga tanemashtta'Thcmaid quir' hai the corresponding linssive Jochrr i )omerare'ma&ita. l ; tera1l\ ' fo rhc m3id i t s i \ qDit ' - $hich means ronghl\

11

' T h e m a j d q u i t o n m e . i . e . . T h c m a i d q u i t a n ( l I ( o r s d m c b o d v ) w a sad!ersel\ l f {ecrcd b! i r '

AdvP See adverb phrase.

allective construction /r'fek \/ See datiye subjetr const.r,crion.

affectum /r fckr. ln/ , A l rr . t . i , : , r , l t r ! - i l { I a dirccr ot) j .ct \1,$lr ich r \ i \ ts l refor. r t re . , ! r tor , t : , . , rJ( l In i ts c lause aI l { t i ! ar,ccted int \)r f . \ rr \ h! r l r rr ai l r () : ' . ! . l r rrr l , , ;n th! , e\anpl( . totn ruin. irl. r./bl, ( i. efllaruD.

al l i rmative / :J3;m.rtn.1d,1/. I ) !nor i iq a senrcnce or t i )nn i whichnr) s lnt : tct ic ncs!r i \c elcmenl is pf€\cnt: c lar i !c clcm€nl! whi. t )arc deri !at ional l ! houn(t $i tbrI l s ingte words rn(t which are invisibtelo lhe synlar. such as a,- in ralup2i. do nrx c{runt

amr / aik\ / t r . A l ' l rund morphr 'ne which crn only occur ar(achedt i) i r \ \ 'ord o. s lcnr Aff i \ . \ mr) be drr i rnt ional. t ike - ,reJj r tnd pn, .or inf lect iondl. l i lc plur l l ' and tasr tcnse 1d. Af i i \c\ arr diy idedrnto preli\es. liuffixes. circ'rmtixes. infixes rnd srperfires ,14afti\al / dfrksll

^ a l h r a t i o n r r r l . . , i n . / , I ' r r f r o c c \ u t . , l r . r h r ! d n d f l i \ 1 , , . lbrsc- as in rhe d ' i r iva l i t )n ot unh4'p\ n hnp kts t rom huppt .

.' afterthought construction / o:f1a0.rr/ Sec right disl{}catio,r.3 agent /crd5ant , '1 . Thc scmanr ic roh borrr ! b ! a l l \1 , sh ich rsa - t J , 1 r \ ( , i . \ r h ( 1 , , n , . r , , u . ' n \ ! , r . , r d n , r r ' i o n . u , h r . / , \ , I n- _ | i \ ! , ^ l t , , t 1 , , , t t , r . ^ l , r t n h t , l , . : , . ! , t t l t t \ r r r r \ t I t . t . . . t t t h l- . n t r rp .J hr / r \d . \ ! , .n1 r . . . I u hL dccp ca5(1\ r . . . , . ,nr , .ed In

a acr.,r.

10

a-z-e,c,Q,e.eecccaaaeccccccc

ea

eaC-

agglutinal ing languagc

t O agentive language /i dicnli\/ Sce artire tangurge.

f - agent less passivc / erdjrnrta\ / x (at\{r short passive) A passj! .

C - , ' , . r r h ' i , , r ' l o r r , , r n ' r J I ' ̂ \ r ' r ( r t r ( . \ \ , , , n , . . r h . . , ! ( 1 t r , , , J / r 7

- - t : \ t , ( t r \ t , tp t l

agent phrase , In a fassi !c con\ lruct ion. thc {)ht iquc phrascc\prcssin! ihr iccnt. \uch as , ! r lc t r t , .e i r l J. ln. t r1r at tu. \kL! , t

C ? agglut inal ing languagc /Jstu: t lncr t r ! / n A t ro lua1l r qh{xc

^ - ' r " roholo! ) is nredon nanr l ! chrr . r le / (J h\ aSglur in l r i . rn

: : | ' . r m p l e s r r r l u r l N h . B J . q L f J d p a n ( . c . \ s , h r i i r r r r r - { u n r a f i a r r

c i"C '-?

aQ

12c

,i

i-

?c€

?

l 3 ambiguityagslutiD!th6

Cf. lblrtlDg trngu.ee, inf.ctlDg bDto.8.. wilb.lD rco HuEboldt 3.cHome (1%6) ror dinsion.

agglutination /a,glultl'rerJ$/ n. A tyF of motphological struc-ture in which words can b€ readily dividcd into a lioear s€queoce ofdistinct morphemcs, each of which tt?icaly has a fairly cotrsistentshape and a single consistent meanin8 or function. At exa&ple iiprovided by Swahili d/ttuon 'he saw you', @nsistin8 ofd- 'b.' + -ri-Past + -/<u- 'you' + -on' 's€e' + -, Indicativc; comp ra atak!4r'a'hawill sEe yo\t' , nilikuotu ' l saw you', alrniona 'he sew fic', and !o on.

AGR /'rega/ n. ln some analys€s, a feature or an abstract categoryposited as a locus of agreemenl featlres. In GPSO, for example,AGR is a feature which tak€s such values as IPERSOI.I] aDd

INUMBERI. In GB, AGR is vatiously legarded as a feature or asan abstmct node.

agreemeni /a'grilment/ n. (also coocord) Thc grahmaticalphenomenon by which the app€amDce ofone item in a sentence in aparticular form requircs a s€cond item which is grammatic{Iylinked *ith it to appear in a panicular form. Ageement takes plac€within the range oi choices offer€d within one or more grammaticalcategories which are morphologically ma.ked on cenain classes ofwords, such as numtrer, gender, case, p€rson or rcnse- The Engishse'l'tence These books are etpetltive illustrates agreement in oumb€rbetween the plural noun Dooftr and the determiner ,lrit (of which/rers is the plural) and also between ttre plural noun phras€ t ere,oo&r and the verb be (of which a/e is a plural form)- See Barlowand Ferguson (1988) for a discussion of agreement phenomena.Nm, strictly speaking. 'aSreern.nf for gelder or p€M. is nol agr.ement. rutgoyerm.nt. For example, i. the Ftetch Phrale utu ei.iqe tuiton'a otdho!e', the adj@tile vE k rates its ieminite fotm b€48 tunon i5 fettnine.

buf don hA no torm wh,ch r Dot feminiDe: ,r ts rhePteM. ot 4aBon. and

not its fom. which r.quires the femini.e adiectile Nevcnheles it is aadi

donal ro .cfc. to such ca5$ as irstanes of agr€ehent, $outh soDe mte6 e

som€ lab€l such 6 goveMcntal concord'for iNtatrq of thit titd.

AttioDssn Ol. Attionsarteo) /ak'ljeunzo:t, -4l n. 1. A distinctionof ssFct which is exptessed lerically, rather than g.ahmatically:eat, nibble, devout.2. (especially among Slavicists) A distinction ofaspect which is exprcssed by derivational morphology: Russianpisat'

"',rite', popieat' 'do a bit of witing', spisat 'ctrpy' , vyP6at

'write out, exc€rpt', zapirat' 'write down, record'.

alSor'ithm /'Elgeir6n/ n. Any explicit mechanical procedure con'sisting of a specified series of steps which, if executed in order, willguamntee a sotution to any one of a speofied class of problems.Effcient algorithms are essential in the construction of parcers ,4dr'slgorithmic /alga'rldmrk/. S€e Harel (198i,

alienable poss€ssion /'erlianebl/ n. A t)pe of possessive consffuc-rion m which the possess€d itern could in p.iociple be separatedfrom the poss€ssor: Jarr€t's ciSorexes, my car. In some languag€s,alienable possession is distinguished grammatically from iuli€nrblepGassioo; see examples utrder that entry.

allative /'elatw/ n. or adi. A case form which t,?ic.lly iodicates thegoal of motion: Basque sdera'to the house' (eE? 'house').

allomorph /'al?ma:flrt. (also &ltems ) One of two or more sur-face forms which are assumed by a singe morpheme in varyiogcircumsranc€s- The regative prefix ,;-, for eramPle, exhibiti s€vqdallomorphs in such *ords as indecent, impossible, inaiattal andignoble. Abstr. n. allomorphy /'elamr:fi/. Nida (1948).

Alpha Mov€meDt /'alfe ,murvment/ n. (also Mov6dpta orMovea) The single transformational rule occurring in most ver.sions of GB. Usually expressed as'Move-alpba', it caIl bc atttcdmore fully as 'Move any cateSory to a dlff€rent positiof'. Thcmassive overgeoeration which this rule would produce in isolation i3h€avily constained by the other componetrts of the Stammar.ChoDsky (19eJ).

eltemant /'.:ltanent/ See allomorpb.

alternation /rllte'nerjn/ r. A synonym for alloEorphy, bilt oneoften pr€f€rred for instances in wbich the variation in form issystematic in nature, such as the [s]4zy[iz] altematioo in the Englishplural morpheme (cotsldogtlfoxes), .or i^ whtch it is confined to asingle segment, as in the [k]lsl altemation observed in €taclttl

smbigrday /ambr'giu:rti/ rl- Tbe phetomenoo in which a sitrglcstring of rpords receives two or more sharply distinc,t m€rnitgE. Arrasrbiguity may be purely lexical, as iD Thir ,avdy pon it mantiorudin Captain Cook's dities, or it may be stluctural , N n young bolsand girb ore easily fnghEnad, Visiting relataves can bc a nuit4rtc '6ltAnne likes horces more than Mark. Complet example* cf ambiSuily

e,c.eeecGgaIcaIceeeccccci€ie;e-i€-i-ii l

c-lqea

rDbbdty test

erist, such as abc cllssic Janet nade the robot f!tl. \rhich is multiplya'lbrguotl3, involving t'olh lexical and structural ambiguiries- Anambiguour sirinS rs loosely rclcned to as an -ambiguous sentence';more precisely, such a string cor.esPonds to two or more distinctsentences. Ambiguity is penasive in natural languages. and itspreseoc€ is commonlv assunled to mean that adequstc formal gram-mars must be ambiguous gr8mmars. Ambrguny constrtutes a majorheadache for parsersl see also local ambiguiti, globrl ambiguity.,4dj. ombigpous.

aEbiguity test , An! crirerion proposed for dirtioguishing trueambiguit' from inslances of nrere !3guenes5. An erample is thecontradiction tcn, by which thc putalllcly acccplable examplc lftardog i\n't a da\ itt d bnr, sui.r.*dlv denon\t'lles the lexicalambiguii of .ios. Sce ;ar !.i' and Sadock ( l9r5) for discussbn.

&nbiguous grammar /8m brgiu.t/ tl. A forrnal grummar for aparticular language {hich rtsrigfls al lcast lwo ditf.rcnt structuraldeso'iptions (parses) to at least one \lr;ng of words. It is usuallyassumed that nlltural languages are inhcrently ambieuous. and lhatany plausible grammar for a natural language musr thercfore bc anambiguous gri|nrmar. bul sec Pullum { l9lt4a) for some discussrcn

ambiposition i rmbrpa,zrinl r. I An adpolition $hich can func'r ion cirher as a preposir ion or as a postposit ion. such as lngl i5hnot||ithstu!,ling: not\ ithstandhS this r.sult. thh ta\rh norr hstutul',it. L An occasional synonlm for circtrrnposition \(,rE thifcond

.lmerican structuralism /i1 rn€rrkn/ Scc slructurrlism (scn!€ :).

amphibious verb /sm ibir\r Scc labile \'€rb.

anacoluthon { l l . anacolutha) /anel i ' lurgtn. $. / , i . An rbrupt

changc from ore grammttlical construclion 1() anorher it lhc middleof an uttcrancc. lcaving lhc or jginal conslrucl ion inconlpiele: / l r i ,&

;-ou ought rt' - rctl. do n/Eni)ka'luroia/ (lf. zetrgma. aposiopesis. srntactic blend

analogy /a'n.!l:r(l3i/ ".

The process bv which a gfummatical tbrrn orpattcrn i-\ allcrcd so as t() conform lo anolhcr form or patternexist ing in th( language. F\amples include thc hi \ror ical rcDls.c 'i n . n r o f t h , - i - n r ' i s h P h ' . r l n . r m s l ! a n d t u ' . \ . . ' ' - : "

l ion ,) f ihe ! . rhal Fal lern di lc/ . jor. in lo , \mer, , f i rs . \ I

.n Phic cadtrd

rnodel of diveldrcee, and the use by childrcn of 3uch regula.izedlb.rns as rleepr and g.,ed. ,4dr. &d,ofi:.| /Enc'lDd5lkl/.

anal]1ic /€na'irtrk/ al./. Denoting a construction in whichgrammarical distinciions are cxprdr€d by the usc ofs€parate auxili-arv qords- rather tban by variatioD in !h€ forms of words: rrort;,:autiful. e ill have been eaten.6. tt''b.

Hnalt'tic lan8usge n. A langurge cterectarizcd by o prcdominanceof analytic constructioos; an bd&t L4tri!. Cf. ty ttlklangurge. S.hl€8el (1818)i c Hoh. (19,66) for dierid.

analysqble /'&nalarzebl/ ali. Derotidg r sinrcturc qhicb iscapable of s€rving as input to a transformational ruki thc staucttrei! said to be 'anal]sable' by the rule. Abrtr. r. .ndyr.t' Ity

en: l"v i hr ln! /

',raphor 'ten:fr;/ lr l. (also pro-conititu€nt, prefo.rtr) AD itemsith lirtlL or no inlrinsic meaninS or refer€nce which takes itsrnrerpret!rion from .lnLrtber item in the same s€nience or discourse,ir\ antec.rlent. for example. in l dsked LLsa b check th? ptoois, and'1. /i.1 ,. lhe items tre and r/rd it ar. anapho6, takiog theirrnt..trctrtions frum thcir antcccdent-\ Lirnt ̂ nd check the prcofs,r : ipect i \c l \ Pron{)uns lmorc prccisel} . pro-NPs) are the mosti3mil iar nni lphors. hur pro' I - hars. pro-VPs and pro sentences alsof . i \1 . \ , , , ' sone r r r , i t rn 'n l l 8 r^mmar i rns res t r id rhe te rm-arapho l ro aDr.n qh .h nnb{s its nnteeedent- p..Iciiing cr|lpnor for a sjoilar ltem whi.h

i r . . i . r i r \ (n i .cedcdr hu i rh ! d i \ lndn ,n iec r is ro be enhou ' \ ign i tcarcc .

,nc I n . r n . ,da l l \ nnJ . roda\ : . In GB. onc o t i t spec i l i . r ! \uhc lass' , i Jnaph,) rc in s .n\ . l . lon\ isr rng of ref ic \ i \ r rn. i rcc iprccr l i rems.r .h r ! , , r 'c1t an( l (a(h l rht r . ^nd a lso Nl '1 ces, which in thxtI r imetr , , l arc aor lv \ed as h i r \ ing d i f ler rnt propcr l ie \ l i )m thcnher r f t | r ional r inrphors. ca l lc( l prononr inals ,1. / , anaphor ic'enr lDfll r .1b-r, 'r. anaphor, /i n:l:iar./.

unaphor ic b inding r ' lhc

l - f ( l term lor rhc b inding of o lor lanaphors (sense ll. a\;n Lira, nquitted hcta ll, \ ell and I itr, ask&l,'e o hth h.. Cl lnapho.ic conlrot.

anaphor ic contro l , r . In LF( i , lhe dom in of thosc innancc: , ( t

contro l Nhich r rc Dor ohl i la l ( i r \ (opt jonr l ( ' r ! . f i r r l r \ ) r \ in 1- tvrno! i : .d t1 \ , , t r ,1a- t \ j t \ t ' i \ , ) r t h ta! ( ' r f . : \ . ' t .q" l , !nr ra l kn!-

a- t:

u:t> .:zi";

t4

j

I

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIT

zc-.>e,e-aa9aacCeeeee:i

IIIII

;!YI!l: l

i

CCCc-c'e

iL

atraphoric islatrd

anapboric island r. A caiegory no proper constituent of which canse.ve as the aotec€dent of an ansphor (s€nse l). Most familiarly,words-serve as anaphoric islands, ai illustrated by the ill-formedea mple *lanet hai been imprboned, and I want to visit her there, irlwhich the anapbor tftsrs is unable to refer !o the noun p/iiso, *henthis is an elementofthe wold impfuoned; cf . Janet has beenput intoprbon, and I h'ant to visit her therc . Postal ll9{9) .

anastrophe /e'nestrafi/ r. The use of an abnormal word order fo.rhetorical effect: She walked in pa$urcs grcen; I've traeeUed the

ancestor /'anseste/ ,, A particular relation that may hold betweentllo nodes in a tlee. A node A is an ancestor of a distinct node B iffA dominrtes B- Cf. rDother, desce6d,rDt.

snimScy hierarchy / enrmesi/ n. A hierarchy, or rather a set ofhi€rarchies, which is grammatically significant in matry languages.ln this hierarchy, first and secodd person outrank tirird person,pronouns outmnl commor nouns (with proper nouns sometimesocclrpying an intermediate position) and human nouns outrank non-human animate noum, which in tum outrank inanimate nouns.(The last of these is sometimes called the chain.of.beiq hi€rsrchy.)Thc ardmacy hierarchy is important in determining the order of NPsin some languag€s; in others, split crSatirity operates in terms of it.silvcFr.io (196).

ad,imSl.c /ajtrfiatl odj. Denoting a noun or noun phras€ which ispqc€ived as referring to a .Dnscious, volitional entity, a human orhither admal. Anioate noun phrases exhibit distinctive grammat;cal behaviour in some laDguages, such as in Basque, in whichanimate NPs form their local cas€s in a different manner frominanimate NPs, orin Navaho, in'which an animate subject or objec!must al*ays precede an inanimate one.,4bJtl. n. rDimacy/'anrmes/. Cf . tnrnlh.te.

amotated /'Eaa,terrd/ adj. (of a ldee structure) Containinginformatiolr or structure beyond the node labels and the represen-tation of domination and precedence relations, such as featurespecifications on the nodes or additional arcs linking nodes. Treesmntaining empty crlegories are sometimes also regarded asannotated,

antecedent /eentr'sirdent r- 1. The item from which an onsphorderives its meaning or reference. In tbe example After she cane in,

Lisa poured hersell a dint, the NP Lita is the antecedent of bolhrle (in the more obvious rcadinB) ̂ nd herself.2. See protasis.

a ecedena Sovernnent '|. In GB, one of the two instances ofpmFr govemmcnt. S€e undet that entry.

antiaccusslive /&ntie'kju:z5tF/ adi. Denoti'Ig a case markingsystem, found in a minority of acclsative latrguaees, in which thereis an overt case marking on subjects, but no overt case marking ondirect objecls. [email protected] (1979).

antiergative /anti'3:gattv/ adi. Denoting a syslem in *hich a sinSlecase form is used to ma.k all subjects, and also direct objects whenno overt subject is pr€s€nt, but in which a distinct case form marksthe direct object when an overt subject is presenl. Finnish andwelsh are among the languages reported as exhibiting this panem.

sltipassive /en!'pasrv/ n. or adr. A superficially in(ransitive con-struction whose subject is an agent and which contains an obliqueNP repres€nring an und€rlying direct object, paflicularly ooe {/hichcontrasts with a canonical lransitive conslruclioo. An example fromYup'ik Eskimo: Ott"Sta ner'uq neq-mek dog'Abs eat:3sg fish-Abl'The dog ate some fish', contrasting with the canonical transitiv€Qimrgt.-n neruo neqa dog-Erg eat:3sg:3sg fish-Ab6 'The do8 atethe fish'- Aniipasd\€s are frequenl io erSativ€ l&rgusg6; often,rhough ooi neces$rily, they serve to indicate a di.ect obiect which isindefinite or only panially affected. A parall€l can b€ drawn wilhEngfish contrasts like John struck at BiU rs. Iohn struck Bi , i^which the intransitive construction indicates a partially affectedobject. constr!ctio.. Kur-vlowie (19a6); term. Silve6tein (1976).

aorisl / ererr5t/ n. or adl. L A rerb forn marked for past tense butunmarked for aspect.2. A verb form marked for both past tenseand perfeclile aspect. 3. A verb form marked for perfective aspect.4- A conlentional label us€d in a highly variable manner amongspecialisrs in particular languages lo denote some particular verbform or set ofv€rb forms. For example, t-ewis (1967) us€s the termto label those Turkish verb forms marked for durative./habitualasp€ct. while the aorist of Ancient Greek represents a s€t ofmorphologically relaled forms exhibiting complex tensdaspcct b€-haliour. \o,. in $ew of rhis -sreat reminololical confiaion, Cotrie (19t6)recoomends rhe a\oidancc or rhe tem aorisr' in linguistic $@ry. -Adi.aoristic lcta rrsttkr. Aicicnr Oreek grlmmar: utbounded'.

ee"-eze,eeeecIeCecceeeeeec6e-:e-i

c-lC:ic-iffe--1e-.ie:

16

' !

' i

-

ra

-

17 aorist

A-over-A Conshaint

e.121Q.- r 1918 oppoddw clrua

verb usualy bcaring a distinclive inflection crpressiq t!€ samsaticrelation bome by the sudac€ dirccl objcct. Some lrnSuagc,r erhibita range of such constructions, one for each of th€ scarantrc rolaswhich can bc realizld as a dire€t obiect (Reaipient, B€nefactivc,InstuEent, ctc.). Consider the followitrg etamplar &oh Chi-Mwi:oi,lha ftst being a canonical tiansitive, thc sccond atr i6tru-mental applic.tive {Kisseb€rrh and Abasbeith 19n):

Nu:ru Gtilanzile: nama ka: chkuNuIu Subj<ut me.t with knifc'Nlmr qri thc rn€at with a tnife.'

Nu:ru Ftilengrlle: nama chisu

A-over.A Constraint /,erevar,et/ n. A proposed consrraintupvn iile application of grammatical ruies, panicularly rransfonha,tional rules, by which, in any case in which a category A is embed-ded within a larger exafirple of the same category A, a rule whichrefers to rhe caregory A may onty apply to the targer (higherjnstance of A. The A-over,A Consrrajnt, propos€d in Chomskv(1964), represented the first atrempt at combining the islatd coD:straints of Ross (196?) into a single more general principte; it wasnol succ€sstul- and, in spite of an attempr by Bresnan (1976) torescue it with a modifi€d form called th€ Relatiyiz€d A.ov€r-APrinciple, it has g€nerally been discarded in more recent work infavour of other approaches, notably lhe Subjaccncy Condition.

Q-t -

e-l !e,i eelee,l .e,i "c-i:c't.:e-l:

AP /er 'pir/ See adjecriv€ phrase.

apodosis /e'pDdesrs/ n. (atso consequent) ln a conditional s€n,tence. the clause which expresses rhe consequ€nc€ of the fulfilmentof rhc condit ional c lause. e.g.. t l t te l l h in rhe senreDce 1/ / s€eLisa, I' te her. Cf. prot^is.

apo koinou cotrstruction /o;peu 'kcrou:/ n. Any construction inwhich a singl€ element must apparently b€ simulraneously assignedto two different constituents, as in the archaic / have on uncle b amighty eotl.

aposiopesis /,apausara'pi:srs/ n_ The act of leavinq an utteranceunfini(hed tor rheroncat ettecr: tf I canl raise the minev . . .

A-position /'erpe,zrJ4l n. (also argumetrt posiiiotr) In cB, aposjtion occupied by an argumeot Np in its canonical place, sp€cifi_calty a subjcct, (direct) object or object of a preposition. Cf. A-barpocition.

appellativ€ /.'pelatrv/ See cornmon noun.

Applicational Crammsi /aplt lerJenl/ , A theory o[ grammardevelon€d b) Sebasrian Saumjan. consisring essenrrally ofa formali-zation of Case cramrnar in which (possibty universat) underlyingsemantic structures are mapped directly onto surface syntactic struc-tures by the application ofoperators. The system €mploys a forrnid,dble algebraic norarion rIhich is both rypographicaly awkward andhard ro readr i r i ( presenred in Saumjan (t ' r77).

applicative le'plftan'vl n. or adj. l. A consrruction found incertalr languages, notabtv Bantu languages, io which an underlyiogi.dir€ct or obliqDc object is realized as a surface direct obiect. the

c l - subj<it-APPl

e i-- 'Nuru clrt tb€ Deat wirh e koife '

C i "

ID the secood crample. .bough Dot io tbe 6rst. crt6r. 'knifc' catr bc

C | "

the subjed of a corrcspondinS passive. showltrS clearly its ltetu! r! a

c I a qrecr oD'ect:

^ | o Chisu sh-tilanSiilla: oaDa Da Nu:rue | : knife Subi-was clrt-APPL meat by Nurue ,

t- 'The tnife was used to cut the meat by Nuru.'

e I t'

Tlre applicaiive forms pert of the voic. syrtcm in luch latrgurtca.e I

t- ct. clrcunsuorr. z. (ilso.pplcd ?.rb, prroddol trltle "ttt- | t form us€d in such a co$truclion,

9 r -

C ! -- appocidve l.'poztrvl n. A nouo pbrase which immcdislely follow!

^ | -_ another noun pbras€ of identical refereDce. tbc whole sequeDce: | : b€having lile ; shgle noun pbrase wirh rcspea to rhc rest bf thcb I - senktrce. Appositives are most qpice y mo.Ed.dvc: tbe rcfer-

C ' : a ence of rhe nrsr nouD lhrase is clear. and the appositive s€rvca ooly

- J - to provide additional itrformatioo. Tbe phr4s€s set off by comlna! int I - ihe tollowing craEples are appositivcs: Palir, the grcaacst city iaC-

"

Fruncc, it changirrg its lkci His newest book, v latt ona in thc-J -- trilogy, conclufus ahe saga. Some appoGitives. horvevcf. are rcd..i I t tlvc lrequired for idenrincation of the refereDce of tbe first nounC-i

-- phras€). such as Stull"y in the example /m wrirl,n 8 a biogaphy ol

e, -- thc poet Shelley. An epposilive is said to be b.Dpodtlor to rhc

e4 -- Precedrng Nr'

CrJ ? appositive clause r. Another oame for a mr-Ed.dyc relativc

CJ Z clause

^ ) -

L,L 't ast€riskapproximative j0 t :

approximalive /) prDx\rmrrr\/ ,. ur ,r, O .".. ,"r,n o.."-,", ,n..

. --

? ' article /oxrkl/ n. A d€t€rmin€r which lacks independent meaning

but senes to indicate the degree of definiteness or specificity of theJli ra,n ranguascs which typicaly servcs ro erpre., .".h ;;;;i ;: € . . ;::;il."",;ffi;,.J.j;::. :.;: ;;;;;;ffi ;#;;;;#,;;;!s fai as , up ro or'until : Basque srrefd,no as far as rhe house. L 1

, and .indefinirc article,a.

arc/ork/n. l. h a tree diagram. any onc of the lincs connecrins a : ,: asce*ion /r senjr/ n Anorher nam€ for raising, prefe'€d in RG'

nodc to irs mothcr. 2. In RG and et. patr C*.nr*. ." ,..1* e ascliptire sentence /.'skrrptw/ /l. A sentence in which someconDecting an elcmenr to lhe resr of irs .\nracrrc ,,r".,"r.. ,;; e . : proper$ is ascribed !o the subject NP: Lisa is a trunslato4 she islab€lled to sho* the grammarical relation that elemeni bears ar each ' : : eerv ./erPl. An ascriptive sentence differs from an equatronal sen'stage of reorganizarion of rhc sen te nce . 3. f n a rransition ne r*

"ri Y

' tence in that it ca nnol be revcrsed: *,'{ ttd nslatot i.e Liro T\e telln is

any oneof the lines connecring rwo node< or"r"r.,r. eii". g ' normally confincd to copular senrenc€s with non-verbal Predicates;serving a similar linking funcrion in any ot various other typcs oi C r hcnce.!rp,i a r'rokPr is an ascriptive sentencc. but the semanlicallv

Sraphical representation similar Srd rrdleJ is not Cf. €quational s€ntence.

Arc Pair Grammar /ork 'p!:/ ,. A theory of grammar which : : aspect /aspekt/ n. A grammatjcal cateSory which relales to theviews syntacric srructurc pnrnaril,v in terms of lra.iati.rl ,elar,on, Y { internal temporal structure of a situation Aspcct is most commonlyand which is essenriaity a f;rmalized !;Eion ot Retationat g i. refl€cted in tbe form of lhe verb. and in many languages thecrsmrn r. Arc Pair crammar rcpresen rs rhe slnracric slrucrure oIa e .: cxprcssjon of aspect is iniimately bound up with the expression ofsentence by a kind of relalion;t net*ork ot arcs * eO , .pai, : : tens€. from which. hot\elcr. asPect must be distinguish€d. lnnerwork'. The framework has enjo)ed lirrtc p.,pularny. pertiao" C ,- English, for example, the fotms I didit,I was doinS it and I u:ed topartly beca use its graph icat rcpresen riti<,ns a rc r,oir, ,, p"e.'pt i.uit, C . : do 'l ar€ all Past tensc . but they express different asP€cls. Amongawkward and hard to rcad. ind partty because .r its i'"-u.yrri i - the aspcciual categories often expressed in languages are perfecdve,

rerminology. Arc Pair cramnrar was proposcd bt Davrd Johnson C r imp€rfectiv€. perfect. progressiv€. habitud, du!-ative, punctud andand paut postat (1980)i a convcnient inrroducrionis posrarrlcs2i. e .: ihrative. ndi. asFctual. Sce Comri€ (1976) and Dahl (1985) for

algument /'o:gl(|mant/ n. l. A noun phra\e beanng a lfecihc e ? .drscusstonFammaticar orsemanticrerationtoa"",t,""a*h.i.o,'.no, e ? A:lr"j:,TS:l /.:.f:k,:T,"d]1

l: i::,T1.j:^""E_,1"implied presence is required for well-formedness in srrucrures con I r I shndard Th€orJ 9f TGI ls€9 bccause thal theorv was-firsl pre-

raining that verrr. ,rrguments may b. il;;,;;;.;;;";i;;.;;;; C i: sentcd in chomsky's te6s book Aspects ol the rheory of syntox-grammaiical relarions (Sublect, Direct Objecr. erc.lor in rerms of C i 3 aspectoal verb /a'spektfurl/ n. A lericat verb or auxitiary which

::_,j]1.-:*:1Lq:1t iatient. erc.). somc rramesork5 ristrnsuish e I i pirnanr,r cxpresses'a disrinction of aspecr, such as 'ra,i, tr"i"n,

intcrnol arguments and enernal arguments: the former occur inside : I : ionri,,r, /a,i, progressi"e be or perfect lave.the vcrb phrasc and are subcategorized for bI the vcrb (direcr t | .l!objects, indirect objecrs). whilc ,i. r",,..,".,1.'lr",a. ,i. vi a | - assignnent h'salnmant/ |l- Anv process bY which some rule,(subjecrs)- The tcrm is borrowed from format togic 2. (wirh rcfer. : l:

pnnciple or component ofa grammar introduc€s some element"inloence ro a funcrion) An object to which rhe funcriln uarL bc apptred e i - 1 Teresenlatlin

of lructure .one

Iniv :ryif. l:l:a:ry]:fj :l:

and for which i t returos a lalue. " C la

assignment ofaccusatNe case.toa noxn phmse,orofthe assignment: | : of an asrerisk to a srructure rhich fails to meet the requirements ofa

srgument binding Scc A-bindine. C ;e component of lhe grammar.

C | 3 "*.rci"ti"e

network /r'r$Jirrrr/ See s€rn ntic oet*ork.srgument position /pr zrJnl See A-position. C i Z associative network /",seufiatr\,t|'€ument structurc , Thc speci{icarion- n,r a \crb or nredic e. C i ? ^,".t.1, /'astrrrsk/ n. l- A symbot convenrionally indicating tbar

of the numbet and tlpcs ol srgumcnts whr(h rr requiR\ lur *ell. e | '- the marcrial follo$ing ir is grammarically ilt-formed, e.g., +,tie

lorm( l : -

|c-l 'i l-z

aslmdeton 22

smiled me. Cf. question mrrk, per cent si8tr, hssh rnelt. NoE rhi!cooveni€r! and uriverslly ued nohtion hd apparetdy b€e. indepeDdcnlly

invented several tim€s a! an €xtesioo of it! long€srablisbed u!€ iD bisloricallinSuistie to mlrk utrattested folffi it was wd by Seeet (1898), but its nodcmM dat6 fiom Hin (1958). (In ontrast, the citldon of i[-fo.Ded sfiD$,withour disti.cliv€ ndkinS, go4 b&t ai least to lh€ Gtc.t tten'ti!!Apoloniur Dylcolusi s€€ Houlebold€t (1cl3).) 2 S€€ Kltr strr.

aEDdetoD /e'srndrtry' n- Coordination bets,een sentcuc€s widoutthe us€ of a coordinating conjunction: It leas ttte ttsa of titttzs: it w6the wo6t of times. Adi. asyndetic /asln'detlk/.

rsJmtactic /ersn't&lllk/ alr. lrckitrS a syntactic stnrciurc.

ATB See .cr6.th+boerd.

atdi'c leltirhkl adj. 1. Denoting an activity {hich has no recogoiz-able goal the achievement of which would necessarily brioa lbcactivity to an end, as in the examples Jarc, is sleepinq aad linspeak Bood Frcnch. 2. DeDoting a verb or Predicate which, intrilsic.ally or in a particDlar inslatce, exhibits this semantic proPerty,such as the verb itr the preceding etamples. Cf. t€lic. See CoErie(1976) for discussion. Garey (1957).

ATN /er ti: 'en/ See augmenicd transitiotr ndrrort-

attraction /a'trakJen/ n. The phenomenon io which a verb agrc€s,not with its subject, but with another NP which is closer to it: lrreposture of tout bloh's arc tet unktawn (Shakespearc); I pordet

v)hether the ight kind of supplies are being sent-

attribute /'etnbju:t/ ',. 1. An item which occurs in rtfiibullYe(s€nse 1) posilion. In some versions of the X-bar ststem, atr attf-bute is formally defined as a category which is the sister of aD N_barand the daughter of another N-bar; some definitions add the(Englisb-specific) requitement that it precede its N-bar sister. Cf'aqiutrct. Bloomfetd (1933). 2. More generally, any constrtuent'regardless of its syntactic Position, which serves to exPress a proP

erty of some entity, such as the predicare in an sscrlptiv€ senlaDa?3. The prop€rty expressed by such a constituent. 4. ln LFG' a

f€slurr occuring as an argument of a function in f-sfuctff€. Atattribute may take as its value either an atomic symbol, a s€Dlrdcform or another f-structure. See the examples under f_sEucurrc.,4dr. rtFibutiv€.

attribute grammar n. In computational linguistics, a tlpe ofcontext-free grammar augmented by properries (,altributes')assigned to its calegori€s.

athibutive /e'trrbjutw/ adi. 1. (of a word) Denoting an irem whichoccurs inside a noun phtase and s€rves io qualify or restrict themeaning of the head noun of that NP. Examples include r€d in rrercd book, in thz gaden in the people in the garden, Lisa's in Lira'sessay and newspaper i\ this neatspapel headline. Cf. pi€dicltive.Nc: t aditiolal aou6 ofie! apply rhe labet .adjErive to .ouN in anribu-tive positiotr, such a newspap.. b rh. lasr example; rhis u$8e should tJeavoided. 2. (of a sentence) A less usual synonym for sscriptive. NorEthis secod e of'attiibutive , ehile realof,able in itself, l€ads lo d dtonu-mre polertbt @trfision, si@ eiptive seDtetrG a.e preci*ly $ose *.hichi.volve iteN which ec Frdrodve (i_e., ror .anriburive' i! *nse l).

atrgmertativc /rlg'mentaov/ n. or adi. 7. A derivational affixwhich ca.n bc added to a word to express a notion of large size,sometime3 with additional overtones of excess, awkwardness orunpleasanbess: Spardsh -dr, -azo, -ote.2. A word derived by theUs€ of such ao amx: Spanish nbacr,dr 'stinking rich' (rico .rich'),ginebnzo'blw&y gre t shor of gin' (Srnebra ,gin,),

favotzote.heckof a fa\/ow' (favor 'fatour'). Cf. diminutiv€.

augmeDtd tr'ansition network /5:g,mentrd/ n. (ATN) An ex-teDsion of a rcclnsive traDsition networt which has b€en enrichedby the presence of a memory and by the ability to augment arcs wittactioos and conditions that mate reference to that memory. thusenabling ir ro handle dependencies such as agreemenr and di;ptace.ment. fie memory is usually repres€nred as a s€r of local la;ablescaled 'registen'. ATNS were uDtil recently widely used in natural-language processing, but they hav€ now been largely supplanted bychsn perscrs.

Autolexical Syntax /,.rtao,leksrkl/ n. A rheory of grammarcharacterized by the preseoce of thee autonomous modules (mor_phology, syntax! semantics), eacb having the fonn of a cootext-freepnrase structure gmmmar, plus an additional subsystem, the .inter_face', which includes the lexicon. A sentenc€ is represented bv alingle lree srruciure in each of rhe three modules, the marcb_uoamong lhe rhree represenlalions being mediated by rhe inlerfac€.Autolexical Synrax draws heavily upon the machinery ofGpSC, burrt ls unusual among theories of grammar in lhat its structure isstrongly motivated bv data fiom languages which are very different

aa-

-

-

-

Autolexical Syntax

automalon 244

c-l

"-l

ii

2J3(!l?tq'q

4?4

aryaj

aver$ve

from English, padcularly by cases of morphosyntaclic mismatchsuch as clitics and incorporation. The framework was proposed byJenold Sadock (1985); the most accessible presentation is Sadock(1991). See Gazdar and Pullum (1985) for some comments on themathemaiical and compuiational properti€s ot the framewo*.

autodraton (pl. at omata) /.:'tDmaten. 'el n. An abstract math-ematical device which is capable of performing certain compu-tations. An automaton is essentially an implementation of atraffition network to perform some particular task, frequently thatof r€cognitiotr. It consists of a number of states, each accompaniedby a set of instructions ielling it wbich other stat€ to move to onencountering any one of the possible input characten. It acceptsinput, one character at a time, moving from state to state in re-sponse. Eventually it eithet accepts the input as valid and halts,rejects the input as invalid and halts or, in some cases, fails to haitand goes on computing forever. Automata canbe defined $/hich are€quivalent to many classes of formal grammars. Three typ€s whichare of linguistic interest are finite automata, pushdom automaiaand line.r boundcd automata. The most pow€rful type of automa_ton is the Turing nachine.

autonomy of syntax /rr'tDnemi/ n. The docarine that syntax canand should be studied in isolation from other branches of linguisticsand most particularly from semantics. This doctnne has been widelyheld for decades, in spite of the vigorous attack upon it by theDroDonents of Generative Semanti€s, bui more rec€ntly linguistshave often been willing to accept that syntactic analyses must, atleast sometimes. take note of semantic facls.

AIJX /c:ks/ z. 1. See auxiliary. 2 In some theories of grammar' an

ab<rracr category \rhich is posrulaLed a\ being uni!ersal ly presrnt in

sentences and which serves as the locus for certain grammaticalcategories, notably tense. AUX was postulated by Chomsky (1957)

and was found in most versions of TG; in GB. it has been replac€dby the category INFL, which serves some of the same functions 3'

In certain languages, such as thc Australian Ianguage WarlPiri' an

overt. non-verbal constituent of the sentence which serves as the

locus of tense and agrcement, often regarded as a realization of

AUX in sense 2.

auxiliary /rrg'zrlieri/ "-

1 In English, one of a small set of lexicalitems haviog certain properties in common with verbs but alsoexhibiting a number of other distinct properties. The English auxr-

liaries are usually divided into th€ modal auxilisriB and the Don-modal auxiliaries. See patmer (1987) for a detaited account of theproperties of auxiliades. There has long been a vigorous debate oDthe.issue of wherher the Eoglish auxitiaries shouli be regarded asverbs or as memben of a distinct lerical category; pulum andWilson (192) provided th€ ctassic case for adopting th€ formerposition, one which is accepted bj, 1!e majority oi fiameworkstoday, thougl GB clings firml], ro the latte.. 2. M;re generally, anyitem in a 'anguage, wherher verbal or not, which serve,-s as a locus oiexpression for such categories as tense, asp€ct, mood or agreement.

aversive /e B:srv/ n. or adj. Aa overt case fomr foutd iD many,l:'gtan l:nCuaqgs which r)?icaUy express€s rhe meaniog.for feaiot

-. r torfly bamavtda tor rear ot rhe peopte. (bdrna ?eopte.). Di,on

(1977b).

z-e-2-L.ceceee

27

a|t

3

bare irtft tive

Bafl=srf.i! atttF /,bo:k 'fitt zl n. A sentence containing

tro au9ifia (lcnsc l), cach of which has as its rd4ctdenl a nouD

Dhsrc oootliniDg tbe orhcrl. lThe won4n who v"os sining ne'tt to't*^t'

-*a ot W" -"" who offercd he\ a lithtl, Such sentenc€s

Drovil& irq|pc;ble dimq ties for lh€ories of anaPbora which de-'.i""

orooouni from tbc reduction of full ooun Phreses Bach { 1970)'

Brchir c€DctrlIzrtlon /bo:ks/ n. Tbe obs€rvation thal an oqiect

NP whi;h contiols an empty subiect in a comPlemenl claus€ must be

ovenlv Dre!.nt. Hencc Lita p.rsutd.d us Io 8o is well fonDed, bul. Lisa'panuatkat lo go is not. becausc of th€ abs€nce of atr overl NP

controliog tbc eopty subjecl of lo So ln contrast. Lisa prcmised to

ro is wefforocd. sincc the verb PtotrisP exens subred conttol'

iterc erc also oore compler cases in whicb the cdtpty subje€l bitrds

eo. $o. (,cDs€ 2) ia tbe comPl€mcnt clall!€: Th? evidztrcz kd

ipCi,* a colctud2 lor o4s;lf that "ha

was Suilty Cf . 6 To

conctud. for onaeY hat sh. b Suiby woLU be roth Baci (l9r'9)'

b-t-fdodo,/'bek fo!,melJ9/ n. 1. A word fotmed by tb€-r"i-A ntt -oft"t wotat of a morPh'which rcs€mbld a farfliar

itu, c.2., crll horn cdiror, sculpt |rcar sculptor' ^ad peddh trom

ocdlar. iliby rcnotd of e morPh relcmblhS thc agenl suffir--?t as

iD r.,rirr. 2. A *ord formcd by thc reaml)sis of a comPoulo-:oro

atd tbc adb.cqucnt rcmoval of ao affix wbich w's not ongroarly an

J"to -ti i."n,' .uch $ r,t)-div€ from rk) -diving bizi^atl!

ttf"iitbrUA, hl t€enalyscd as [stv-dive]+[-trrgl' or Pic!-P.iry'tdi pia pipn' -te"Aty lptiz[]+lpiperl'but 'eE atysa as IPua'

iWli{-|.'t. itc-pro&J or iorming s word b eithcr of rhcscgayl.

boclrroolet fbek,gmuDdlD/ t l The discourse plteoom--.iotr-fn *ti.tt-t"o.

"iioeot of an utterance is msrked to indicate

o" iii i"-0" i"i..pto. as Part of lhc contexl in which thc rest of

tt" ottc."o"" i. ."i". somc iirguages provide cxplicit gafimstical

Ecant lot tf,is, sucb t! the Japalcsa toPic mar]er Pt' wbich r'ror

caFrUf O" ita".aiog ptta." it to t t t"n ""

a conte for what

i"U*.. Z. ri" discoi# phenomcnon by which infotmatioo is

pres€nted which merely carries a nanative along, without introducing new entities or events, sometimes associatad with int.ansitiveclaus€ s[ucture aDd with stative and duma|ve asD€ct and non_volitional verbs. Hopp.r dd ThomFon (l980l. 3. Any ;f various syn_tactic processes by which a syntactic pivot (mos! often a subject) isd€moted to a noo-pivot position or reEoved entirely from theclaus€. Passive and aotipassive c.,nsi: uctions are ftequentlv used forthis -purpose. Backgroundio8 may or may not be accomianied bythe foregrounding of some olher element: the English paisive con_struction always foaegrounds another element, while irnpcrsodslp&sdves tlpicaly involve backgounding without foregrounding.Foley dd Vaf, Vario (_19E4). Cf_ foregroudiDg.

bsclfacking /'bak,trEkr0/ n. The action of a parser which, onencountering an element which cannot be accommodated withinttre structure it has provisionally consfucted, reveas€s its most.ecent steF in order to try a different analysis. The minimalizatioDof such backtracking is a major goaj in the constructioo of efficientParseN.

backward Fonominrli"ation /,bekwed preunDmhalafzer&/r. (also crtrphora) A construction in which a pronoun precedes itantecedent, as it AIter shei came in, Janeti Ja, dolrn. See alsoprccrde.ard<lmmrnd coDditior.

bahuvrihi /bo:hu:'vri!hi/ r- (also exoceDEic compo[rd) A type ofcompouod word in \rhich one element modifies or restricts thj otherand the whole denores an entity which is a hypotrym of an un_express€d sematrtic bead: highbrow, bluebe , habhback. rcdskin.heavy-handed, pickpocket, scarecrow. The \erb+object type is rar€in English, but highly productive in Romance languagei: Spanistrtocadiscos 'recotd pl^yer, (toca- ,pl^y' + drrcor ,records'). aanstrit

bar /bo:/ n. ln the X-bor system, the conventional name for theteature attached to a lexical category to ifldicate a pmjecdon of thatcategory. For example, the c.ategory Noun (N) is usuallv assumed tohave the one-bar projection N-bar (notated as li. N, o;Nl) and therwo-bar projection N-double-bar (represenred as N, N" or N2).

bare infnitive /bea/ n. (atso bas€, base form) Ip English, the stemof a verb functioning as a non-finite fomr, such as do in you must dor'r. Cf. ,o-iDfDitire.

bare.NP adYerbial 28

bsre-M sdverbial tu€e^r en'pir/r. An sdverbial which consists ofa noun phraso unaccompanied by a Preposition. Only a small num_ber of English nouns can functjon as the heads of such adve.bials,inc\rding h'ay, place, time and temPoral nouns like day and minutelI did it thtt $layhhe same way.he h,at she did n . Do it thil. minurehheminute she orrivest I've seen that ewty place I ve bcen; cf. + I did it thasame mannet *I've seen that eeety county l've been.

barfier /'barit/ n. In GB. a category which blocks gov€mmentacross its boundarl. For example. the German verb schreiben'write'can assign Accusative Case to an NP which it govems (as inEt schreibt einen Roman 'He is writing a Dovel'. where einen Ronanis Accusativc), but it must not do so to ao NP in a following PP (asin Er schrcibt mit einem Bleirr,t'He iswriting wilh a pencil', whereeinem Bleistift is Dati\e)- we say tttat thc PP node is a barrier togovemmenl, and hence to case assignment. Broadly sPeaking,maximal projections are barrien, bul the facis are considerablymore complicated lhan this. ln recent work in GB, the notion of abarrier has been developed so as to subsume the notion of ahoutrdiDg nod€i the idea is that one barrier blocks govemment'while two barrien block movement. Cholnsky (1986)

/ bas€ /b€ls/ n. l. (also baie forn) In morphology. a morph. vanously

consisting of a Fmt, a siem or a word which serves. uf'on theaddition of a single further morphem€, as lhe immediate sourc€ ofsome particulal formation: thus, for cxample. iappl is the base for

the formatioo of both unhappy and happily, whilc unhaPpJ is thebase fot the formation ofboth unhapPily and unhaPpirers. This usge

is reomncnded by Matthe*s {197a)- 2 (also bsse fom) See slem 3'(aiso bse forrn) See bare infinitivc. 4. In some dcrivationtl theoriesof grammar, notably TG and GB, thal Pan of a grammar which is

responsible lor g€neraong underlying rePresentations of sentences,

which are lhen nodifi€d by oth€r components of th€ grammat(notably the transformational rules) to produc€ surface structut€s'

iypicaliy the base is regarded as consisting of a 5et of categorial

rules and the lexicon.

bas€-general€d /ber\ .d3enrrelttd/ adl ln a derivstiotral lheory

of grirnmar, denoting a structure provided by the bss€ (sense4)'

bef;re or without the subsequent aPplication of rul€s from other

components of the grammar, notably the transformational les'

btsic t|/ord order /,berslk 'w3:d J:Ya/, The normal Lrtrmarkedor most frequent order of elements in the sentences of a language'

c--c--2-2-?c-3e-3e- ale,2?-r ?c'i ict:9t:el:C1o'

ei!;t::i::t:: l:

iiiii;:l:' l :tl:c-= -s_--= -

i{ar,l c,

: . t :

€::-z

29binding

)11,i1;:l;:itili.&:;l',fi ":.fi :j,::?:::315.:ft".:;'$a!^SVO for€ngtish. VSO tor wetsh-and SOV forJ"p"".;;. i;,;;;languag€s, how€ver. a basic word order is difficul ;,I.p."iuf"i"

,"i#ft?11?iii"JTJ*".""a,T:1H3:::'#".";:,?"":J;graJDmatical purpos€s (say. with differenr oe.tat aspecrs; or te_

;:X#i5: 'il:::T :::T,?:LT:l il.r,'",, , nir..,* p*",iL

[l:","l'ff F[::"n:rs; * r:t*i Hfi fil sntiil!:qi:,y!::i?iiy*t;,t"ff ;:t,i:,jl{f...T{j*;;t::i:1" 9r9.T corretare srrongty *irh rlT,ologicat .harucr.rtrrics, u"il'"tj"ff.:iljlfffnbers.( Iqor) see vBo r-g""c"

""J";";,beDefaclive /,bent'fakrrv/ h. ot adt. L;nticarrng. rhe ;or"ro""i'rl, "n# **f, ff.l',il ,?i:XiI:SHil{,"{#;f I'i":"ffi .l$."1ff.J':,T;,j;"i..,,.:pr:\sron particularly when rcgarded as"a semanri. o. grornmuticltpnmrt[e. B€nefioary is one of the decp (z!€s recognrzed rn Cas€

l.Xl;,,i;,iiilil i, is \omerimes conn;,ed *;,r, n.iipr.", ". *fi

big PRO ,/bre/ See pRO.

bilary , branching. /,bajnrri 'brojnllrt/ a. L The srrudure\hown by.a node wirh exacrty rwo daughren. Z. ff," ,.qui;"ii

;l:li{ji'iil!,:!:1lJ:,i"xu,*,1,",[:.;l""**ill:an artra(Lrve constraint on possibli rree strucrures, bul certainconslruc|ion\. nolahly ditransrlire verbs anA cooralnare construf-:,."L],r,1,.,-.,

Dt(k and Hatry. pose severe dirficuhies for such a

bindm^g /'bajnd'o/ n L A relation beNeen rwo \ps in a senrencerone ot lhcm pos{ibly an erhpty careSorv) by which rhe inrerprer_

[,:rjll:i"., G i..l::l;:[T ;;,ffix]; ir.I:i:i*:u<,coreiellnti.l. For exafiple. in !anet hap, he&elf. theirem.he/1'etJrl]fr ,*#i:i*1"i:*:l1i;ii,:i:;nn,,::i:n,y"

e-L.

30 t_,L,)-

ttfe

Bindhg Th€orY bouDd

c?, the empty category must b€ -b9Yd Iy s'ho The nolioo.of

iioai* i" oiritiorr"tiy ,"to.iated wirb tfe GB frameworl' in wNch

i,Tffra.it"i,a, *'tne name of tbal framecrork sugg€sts wilhio'i6,'it"**ig"

.i -t"r.rence Pheoomena analysed as instances of

iiiit* i. ."-."*t" -ore r$tncted lhan might have been antici-

;;;:;* c€rtaio examPles involving e mPty cateSones are

i"frJ * Iit ""*.

ot a astirct relation called coDtd see

;-tr;-Tt-;, A-bindine and A-b{f t'indi4 ct'oNrv (re8o) 2'

fi" a"-g"" of ionu"n"" exercis€d by a maintlaus€ agenr over atr

""*ili r" @mplemeot clause. with bindinS tpes supposedly

;ffi;'; i.iil;. rrcm weakesr to strongest: direct speech . <

iffit -c't ,p.*u . t-ut of belief' knowledge and doubt < emotrve

verbs < verbs of attempt or rnatripulation (includitg coBmands and

;;;i :-;;d'*;nat successtul outcome vetbs like ''dr't atrd

su.c?ed. Git6n (19m)

Bbdtns Theory /'batndtl ,oiari/ n ln GB' rbe modul' whith"It-*il t-*i -..r"t"o"e Phenomena among NPs' including

ffity;;;;; B",h ;ven liPs -d empw *teeories are divided

ir.Tffi f,y t" *" oitarv features lanapb;ricl ;d [ptonominatl'

as follows:

These classes are subject to the folowiry Binding Principles:

I An anaphor [+a] is bound io its goveming category'

2 A oroo;miDal l+Pl is free io its goveming category'

3 An R€xpression is free everrvbere

H:fl Hff..#,P,"T#ll$;:#Tf; .HnT"".";"ffi llii""i"J,i*J*,1 "ittrter

NP whrch c-commands it: otherslse rt t"

il'il;".-;; -,*-" TS :'::Tff f 'n#fr :iThe confrictitrg requrremenb ot PflnoPre

a I + a, + pl category can only exlst tl rI nas nu goveming catego-ry and

itn""# iiti."J'"ia, * oven NP in this position would fall foul ol

irr. crrc fffL of cr"e fteory and bence cannol exist PRO is never

il',tiilrti" t"iiJtihe independent requiremenr of control see

tI" iis*) .i H;"g.."n ( l99ll for dis$ssioo chon'*Y(r%r)

'ijl:fi "jij,#J:i=iJ,'ltil";'B*'i'Jil:i""iHi,#*1;

i{j",l'.:i j!ii&:.T":::"ff ..,.li:':'[fr i,:_T;;H*:;f,:,1'."ff':j*::i:",.:: Iil1;^o*,u'*rte

ro "ad' oirretr,blend /blend/ n. t. (also portDanleau sbr€ndirg.2. see slrrstic bred

'ord) A word formed by

blendfuE /,blendr0/ z_ The process of word formarion by the

ff!:r i:: f i;';, ix",'ffi :i;Ht' ;ffi;l;i,xr*; i,'lii:,::::ry:t

chuanet lehainet pttts tun*0 s.."s",;- iie$r';;i

blocking,/'btokr0/ |l. The phenomenon by whrch rhe existence of a:",'j';1ff :ffi l:Tfi il:lTJjlll,T::f :,,'ff .'?J ::*Ttrwntrc pu.chap.yie.tds putchts?t. steat d&s notl era *r.rle.,w'riiii

;'JlTf '":try,^,ljlT'i,J1';ff ."j".fijf ,","r;;.i;;;

bond€dnesr /,bondrdnrs/ n. The Durativeners "and

modiners.are bo";. ;;; ilil;:":'j;;i:"': ;THi".:.r ne Denaqour of ligrrures in Ausrronesian tangu"g.. .uggi.i. ,;ronowrng hierarchy of tondedness. from dgl,r.;, ,,; f_*T, ;;;;> aercrrc > InrerroSativ€ > quanlifier > adj;di* , *r",i"..Jr...

Boolean conditions on analysability /,burtrrn ken,drlnzl r. In arormat system. rhe propeny of havinp no,t'"* "qi, r,, r."' i" 1,7'; ;:';;l'il:: f"Tfi :".1::1":,fi :3 bottonFup ,/borem ^pt adj. Denotina ale renres, hich besins 1",,n in. ,"oj"jui",''"X?llX"".l"i#,TIg;:I3 i:;fi"#:ii,:::jffi '"*'""*""4r 'r'. *r'.r. '.+""* *,i #

ifii1ryi*;t,nT.l':if _.:,"',1"1,":',i*T,fl :r,*:: il:T: l*:*il;lLJ"J::'#,"1;[ffi , ;i,;;;;;fi

eec

rl

aa

Fealtres overt[-", -pl R-€xPression

[-a, +P] Pronomlrlal[+", -p] AnaPbor

[+a, +pl

EmDtvWIi-trace (variable)proNP-trac€PRO

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

_|

.|

'cecceeefececIcccccceeee

-l; T brackerins paradoxo,i - ratKerrng paraoox

bourd sDaphora JZ e'i 7' other morpheme, such as the derivational athxes r€- and -?,

boutd srDphora n. A slnonym lor atrsphora. the longer form e-l t-' ln rcwnte and wnt€r). lhe inflectional amxes plural -randpasL-pd

"il"-i"""ffi *,"g preferred ro Indicare rhat erophoric ilems are

i | ._, (in.dtr and liv€d) and the l-atin verbal 10015 am- love and s.rib-

exctuded. : | ;, 'Ivrite' (in aaat 'she loves' and scibebam 'l was writing'). Cf. frceexduoeo, - | -.

boutrdrry /'boundri/ lr. Eiiher etrrem'rv of anv consrrlurnt on: : i ;, ,

morph€m€'

mavsDea l , f o rexamp le .o fa 'mo rphemebounda ry .aw9 rdC l -b rac€s / ' b re l s l z / n . ( a l socu r l yb racke t s ) l .Ano ra t i ona l conven t i onboundary'. a.clause boundary'. an NP-boundary'. and soon. lhe e i :: used locombine ina single nrleschema rwoor more rules which aretwo bo;ndaries of a constituenr are conventionally marted by , I - identical except for the presenc€ oldifferenr elements ar one porntlil:"-:lilX'A;6ffi;G

"- - ? I : the altemative eremenis are Iisted within ;;;i;';;'"*J;;

bounded /,boundrd/ dd]. (o{ a panicular dependency -or --ub) c | :

example' the two rules vPJ v NP PP andvPJ v NP AdvP could

constrained to hold or appty *min a sp.ifreia()-"i"t |o-r' cr' I | '-' be abbreviated bv the schema w + v NP {PP' AdvP} Braces

;;;;;.;;;;.;-#ffi".*ru..,ail"J ; ii, ;:':"ffT:"j',ffi.1'T:ilY,"1?il1,::T'I,;"""fl,T1::],iijbouDd form a. Any morph which cannot stand alone as a word g, i a,_' cojnbine, for expository convenience, two or more examples which

i o . - , l u t * t i " l - * t U . i c c o m p a n i e d i n a l l i t s o c c u f f e n c € s b y o n e - l ^ d i f f e r a l o n l y a s i n g l e p o i n t , a s i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e e x a m p l eor more additional morphs to Produce a well-forEed word Bound 9

| r

forms are quile varjous in therr natur€: some examptes are the g I i' I g IEnglisb derivational aIfires '?- (as in '?pnk) and

"'.\!.1" if-ll' e i e I wanr I rcr I oaoirrhe-iDfl€cdonalaffixesplural-i(asindoss)and.i"CtTil i- if l '

-- | + t -he'serj

the ctitics _ t/(asin Hs'l/d,ir) and Poss€ssive _ r{astnJohn sDoot()' g a

'

*i***"*n',mnuf:,r:i*l;:?;ff,I1'"IlT:':il e i1 ;r:,ip:ilT.dltLll#,.T'-T:i:iTi?i.riT*ff;-'::"nd

r't. o,"..nt "nd

p.rt cl srem\ amo' and amav_ of the sam€ verb g i

- {&k'} r (Past}

llr*'ril:.J5r*Til'.:"'J;flT;iJ[-S'"'i'"1ffT:i. 3 i ; Y*"* /b*k'|r'|'/ ,, A Linear representarion or consriruentiJ*,#i";'fi.-i.

'korbo ,h" n orr' ani ,na*n:t 'written'). As E i - structure which conventionally emplo's (square) brackets to itrdi-

ffi";i; h*.. ,, is conuentionur, "r,." Ji'"g "

bound.rorm_b C : 3. cate constituents An examDle is lllYourl tfiounsl lmanlll llisli""-ri.".,."*.'..,'",.r'vpr'"n,,oi.iil'?triil""..*;11 f#}.*"i,1.'#:1;1l-"::fitl'".i:Hr"[1:;:"::,llf3'1':

bounding trode /'boundq/ n "

aP, i. :##il "'lf.-""f,i : i !:

ror its svntactic catesory' th€ result is a lrbclled bracketing. welsdistan@ over which some granrmatrcal nrr

""r-r".lrt" t'"or"g

".aei usuallv recognized are NP and S' or NP t I Y .-

lii''j_i"i-,r" iuF.*nce pos,try a.p.noinion,h". q*i91 € : 3. b:ckedu.paradox /'brdkrrrD ,parrdoks/ n. L A pheno-

i;'";; i" ;", *.rk. the norion of a boun'ding node has tren ] I - me non io which lhe coostituent structure required by the sy;rax is

lirti*"'.j ""a.,

,r," *tion of a bsrd.r. s€e subja.eocv codiootr- ' I " uconsistenl with the grouPiDg madtested by the morphology. A

Tii:flts,sffi"l*:fibn:l1q:,-lt's';*5':i:.+j i! i l#ffrHijx::l';},fd.r::{1ii*:ffi'"'#i:h;.;",i.,

rl.i*.*. .r *o etemens which are bolh iryl]I,injj 6-: "

occuiin west creentandi" etrli.. r" *rri"ie.- sannik nartun-

:::ff:l*'.il'lfj:"ftffi"ff:'rure rne pn'qPar'"""-

9-l ? :i:i:HT;fif":il:#*T;Jf;ilil",?ffi*:x,ffi[x:boord morphem€ n. A morpheDe whrch can never srana.alone tc C-l ? tteratly two-tnilr sardine-ate-l'. wilh the noun phras€ being panly

Bake a wotd but which musl alway! be combined wilh dl least one '!rJ '''

{2

e - t t

a- '-brsnching node 34 C- .:

realized as a bound form inside the verb. 2. A similar pbetromeDon C' i'

in which the morphological structure of a phrale is inconsistent *ith L - =rhe grouping manifrsred by the phonological words of shic-tr it is a .:coiftposed'. Eanslomatiarwl grammarian, *hich norpbologicaly : :appears to coosi;t of nd ns[ointionat gnmmar pf,rs.,Air.

--' , C 3

brstrching node /'bro!ntjl!/ rr. 1. A dod€ itr a t e€ wNci has two :

e i:

or more aaughters. 2. (rare) A category for which the ml€s i! thc e € C In GB, a common abbreviation for COMP in the s€nse of COMPgarnmar provide at least one expansion with two or mote i a node,aaugblers.

(? \a ,a canonicol Ae'nonrkl/ rdt Denoting a pattem or stnrcture which is

brother-in.law agFeemetrt /'br^6ennb;/ r|. Agreemcnt witb a : : rhe mo6t !t?ical, most frequent or least marked among competingconstituent which has been displaced from its normal p6itiotr by a I q' possibilities. For example, the canonical struciure of English transi-dummy; an example is ft€r? are tuo people at,h. doot, in whiot tbc C i tive s€ntences may be repres€nted as Subject-Verrcbject-verb, insteAd of agreeing with the apparent sudace subject ,rrrtr, - - (Adjuncls), as illustrated by lhe example Lisa buys her dresses inagrees with the NP which has been displaced ftom subjccl poeitiou I 'q' Parb.bv the dummy. Perlrnutt€r (1e83r).

9 y cAp /si: er ,pi:/ s€e contml Agr.emetrt hinciple.Burdo's gen€ralization /'bu:rtsiau/ n. I! GB, a Spncralizatiotr C A

embracint passive vefts, raking verbs and unecdsativc vert6, 6r , ^, case A€Is/ 'l. l. A distinctive, overtly marked form which can be

follovrs: (-aia verb which lacks ; extemal argum€ot hifs to .rig! : : assum€d by an NP to indicate that that NP beaN some identifiable

Accusative Case; and (b) a verb wbicn failslo assigtr fcc|rletivc C i grammatical or semanlic relation to the rest of the s€ntence. IoCase fails to theta-mark an extemal argumetrt, It3 fuDdiotr ir to t - English, overt case marking is confined to a few pronouns (I/me;

force a non-subject NP itrto an empty subiecr position. B||t'io (19t6,. : : heylthem), b\t some other languages, such as German, Russiao,

e = Latin, Basque and Finoish, exhibit elabomte case systems typically

e : i involving about three to six distinct forms, but sometimes a doz€n

E | -' rodrhstive, .crrsrtive, ahcolutiv€, ergstiv€, d.ative, g€nitiv€,

C i e, instrumetrtal, comitrtiv€, locrtiv€, alhtive and sblative, but many^ | -- otherc exist. 2. (usually capitalized) In cB, a putatively universal! I

- abstract property of noun phrases which is an extension of.case' inC i n sense l. Every oven NP, in this view, must be marked by th€

€ i q. grammar as bearing exactty one of a set of abstract .Cases', the^ I _ names and natures of which are remioiscent of some of the tradi_t I J tional cas€s in sense l: Nominative, Accusative, cenitive, etc.C i a When it is necessary to distinguish Case in the GB sense ftom case) | -- In s€nse I, one speaks of'abstaact Cas€' and .morphological case',b I t r€spectively. See Case Thcory. 3. See deep crse.cia^ I ^ Las€ Filter n. In cB, rhe principal requirement imposed byI I J the module called Case Theory. It stipulates that every overt

e I 3 (non-empty) NP must be assigned exactly one (abstraco Case. Its^ I ^ funcrion is to ensure that NP-Movement is obligatory in passivet | - structures and in structures involving raising verbs and unaccusativeer 2

I

t:-a

a<-e-i -c-i .e-i !

ti;Q-l z'eilE-l :cl:9'el:9ts '9 ls 'e i..'|

(''

iilel=e

Case Grammar category-neuaral rule

verbsi it also guarantces that only PRO is possible as the subiect ofcerlaln.non-fi nitc verbs.

Case Gramdar r. A theory of grammar which regards deep csscaas the grammatical primitives in le.ms of which sentenc€s ilreconstructed. Casc crammar was Proposed by Chaies Fillmore(1968), and was developed particularlyby wallacc Chafe (1970) andJohn Anderson (1971). lts ideas have greatly influenced certaincontemporary lheories of grammar. notably GB and l2!icas€.

Cas€ Theory /'kels ,oieri/ r. In GB, one of the principal modulesof the framework, consisting of various Case-marking conventionsand the Cas€ Fil&r. The module is resPonsible for ensuring thatevery overt NP in a s€ntence is marked as Poss€ssing exactly one ofa set of abstract ProPerties called 'Cases', such as Nominativc,Accusative or Geoitiv€. as required by th€ Cas€ Filter. Essentially,this Case narking is a device for ensuring that every such NPoccupies a position which is in certain respects well-formed; it islargely conc€rned with prevenling NPs ftom appearing in atbitrarypositions in which they cannot be suitably interpr€ted. Thoughthere is only one s€t of Cases, Cas€ Theory recognizes two types ofCase assignment: 'inherent' case 's assigned at D-structure' while'structural' case is assigned at S-structure, the differenc€ reflectingroughly the difference between cases assigred by panicular leicalitems and those assigned in Panicular syntactic confguraliotrs_Chomsty (1980).

cataphor /'kEtaf.:/ n. A ttaditional name for an arsphor (sense l)

which orecedes its antecedent, now rarely used. Adr. c-rtlPboric/,keta'fDflk/; dbrrr. n. cstaphors /ka'tefaD/

Cstcgorirl Grammar /kete'gJrnal/ n. A Panicular theory ofgrammar which is formulated in terms of a small number of basic

lyntactic categories, a larger number of derived categories whic[

aie defined in terms of the basic ones and a set of operations (rules)

for combining these categories into syntactic structures. In the

conventional nolalion, a derived category X is repres€nted as a

fraction whos€ denominator sho*s another cateSory *hich X can

combine with and whose num€ratorshows lhe category that results

Thus, ifS (sentence) and N (noun) are taken as the basic cateSones,an iotransitive verb may be rePresented as (SN)' meaning that it

codbines t,ith a noun to produce a s€ntenc€, a t€nsitive verb may

b. rcpresenred as ((SfN)n'q, meaning that il combines with a nounto produce an inrransitive verb. and a determiner may be rePre-

s!nted as (N/N). meaning rhal it combines wirh a noun to produce anoun. Most versions add a directional element, specifying whe ther acategory combines wirh anorher to irs left or to ils righr. CntegorialG rammar was originatty developed by togicians. notably Le(ni;wski(1929) and Ajdukiewicz (t935). bur it was first brouehr ro theattcnl ion of l inguisrs by Bar-Hi et ( tqsl) . uho co,neJ rhe rcrm( 1964). Though similar ideas had been e\prc\ced les\ riSi,rou\ty b)Ic\per\en and HJclmsle!. Catcgoriat c;ammar \ la, .r i I targct]iSnored t'r' linguists until hs use by rhe logician Montaguc (1d70)attracted the alention of Bach, r,hose t97l paper biought tteframework into the linguislic mainstream, and since then it h;s beenIhe subject of vigorous research; the rather sparse machrncrv ofearlier Cat€gorial crammar has been elaborared in a number oflinguistically inreresting ways. and ir has been shown thal the un_claborated {ramework is weakly equivatenr to conrexr_free grammars. See_Oehrle er ar (19138) for a comprehensive summiry of

calegorial ruler' A rute which erpands \orne crtegorv inro a stringot daughrers: d phrase slructure rute or an immediaie dominanc;rule.

cateSory /'ketagri/ n. 1. A lab€lled node in a rree. This is thc sensecmployed in such CB locutrons a\.governing categort . and.Mo\earpna. where atpha js a calegory' . 7. ln a rhcory or \)nrrcr ic fearures.lny marix of suci features which is permitted by lhc systemand which is hence availabte ro serv€ as a node in a tree. This is the

;!;t::i:ei?9 i 9 li}il],lliljH:TiJi,i't.?ii"';i"itTT.flt;,"Jt$::1C i

"

r:Tn1t. obrecrs U\ase or rhe rerm r\ \o \ancd rhar nd sene,rr€ : G :^:lnl'lon

,s possibter in praclicc. a caregory is simpt| anv itass or: i : l"Tt::1,;#:l::i' ;li:li.'' iii,i Til,-i3 J.,ifi 'l', :":".11il:if I Y Cenarn classcs ot caregorier ars ,*;6.J, recognized anct h.rvc esrab_€ iC

xsn ed n a mes. such-as sl n ractic carcgorJ a n d grammat icat caregorj .

i I a ::;,l:,1',:":l',:l'T:':'l:.91.-...t:lrt.;'!.,.,- ;;;;;;;:; | : i',:l'.:i,:",;:,'l^';)':: ""'i"""'

:s'tr"i':;ri;;r':'|;e'|cs:;)d

6 i 3 catego.y-Deutral rule /,[aregrr 'nju:trrt/ n. A phrase strucruret I v \d.r5urJ-ucurrat rute /,kategri 'nju:trrt/ n. A phrase strucrure

C-i ? ru|e or imm€diere domitrance rute $h,ch makes no rerercnce to

6 | ? iT::T;:i'i,Tl?ll;Xi:1.:';fi'::#Jlll:;;,i:."X',;lC- I

"

and any number of maxrrnat projecirons. Such rur., "r.

,r,. plr-"llfi "'c-*3

cat4gory-valued festure

source of constituent structure in IIPSG and in recent versions of

GB.

category"valued feature /'kaetogri ,vEljurd/ ,. A festuE \r'hose

val;e is a syntactic category. An example is the GPSG feaore

[SLASH], which indicales the Pr€senc€ ofa gaP, and whose value is

; syntactic category rePres€nting the nalure of the gaP' as in the

example [SLASH NP].

cat4nadve verb /'katlnatw/ See cotrtrol vcrb

caussl /'kr:zll adi. Denoting an adverbial claus€ or Phrase which

expresse\ rhe notion becaus€ lot\'t Becau:? of lhc fog. '|e had to

nia in Luron: t n late b?cau!" I mltsed ln) t'ain Some langu-ges

have an oven case form for this purPose: Basque 'engatik, as 1n

euriarcngotik'because of the rain' (erta 'the rain')-

causative /'ktrzetlv/ n. or adr. 1. A transitive constnrction, related

to a s€cond. simpl€r, transitive or intransitive constructlon' from

which it differs by the additional Presence of an agent NP Perceivedas the direct instigator of the action exPressed in the simpler con_

struction. Causatives in this s€nse 3re suscePtible of a variety of

surface syntactic exPressions in English and other languages Here

are some English €xamples illustrating the most frequent patterns;

in €ach case, ihe second sentence is the causative of the first, and the

NP L'ia is the agent in the cau\ative: Tin smiles a Io Lisa nukes

Tim smile a lor; i washed the cartLi-ta made me wash the car or Lisa

had mewash the car ot Li:a got me to wash the cat Sometimes' bui

more controversially, the label 'causative' is extended to less obvi-

ous cases such as the followin$ The potatoes boiledlLiso boiled tha

Dontoes; He d?.ided Io SolLisa p?tsuoded him to 8or'l he co*scte')'por

tosrlLrso lot the citkscrew: The c?kn lell on the foo Lisa-dropped

rhe celery on the foor' In this €xtended sens€! the tetrn rs

*ii! ut"o in a purely semantic wav, and manv linguisrs x/ould

oref; to restrict the use of the term to syntactically productive

examples such as the earlier grouP. 2. A verb form, of the tlPe

found'in certain languages, used to express overtly such a causative

con.rrucrion. Tu.liin. ior example has a Producrive causativeJor-

marion, illustrared in the following examPles: Yumwu pqiyot'tne

egg is cooking /.4l yumurlLvi p4irtvor'Ali is cooking lhe eg8';

ffihnd atdu 'Meinet died'lAli Mehnzdi "ldiirdt

'pJi kt\ed

r-i"i'""rli^- AAye Mehntcdi l|diirltii 'H^lntt made Ali.kill

Mehme!'. Such verb fo.ms form pan of the vok' sFtem ln Frn_

guages exhibiting them. see Shibatad 09?6); Comrie (1985b)'

c- a\'

c - ! .Jv centre€mHding

Z, a: c.rorn'nrnd /'si:kamo:nd/ n. The most important of the comDAnd

a ?: rehtiols. The name has been applied lo several distinct relations in

: ., rhe literature. but the classical formulation is A node A c-e ! commands another node B iff lhe lowest branching node which

. :: properly dominates A also properly dominates B'. and it seem5 best: -, lo retain rhis usage. resoning to different names, where necessary.? '' ro pick out stightly different relations. C-command has proved ro be

C 3 a fundamenta] notion in analysing tree stnrctures. o; a par with

. - mother. &ughter and sister. lt is parricularly imponanr in GB, in- | : "bich

ir is the pnmary sourc€ of locarity and in which ir plays aci; crucial role in defining gov€rnmmt, one of the fundamental ideas of

.g i ri rhal ftamework. The inve* of comand was fi6r idenrified by Kllms

_ l- (106,,) Dde' rh. name 'in@nsrruction-wirh ithc relarion itklf wd fr^r defned9 I

rr b' Reinnan (lot4,. who calted ,r 'supenonry. The nane c-@'maod was

€' i n reponedlv rus€csted by G N. .lemeots and was originallr a shonenitrs of- | - @nn'tuenr@mmand. a name *hicb is not nomally used. Nm tor a fewI l

'l yes d tbe 1980s. rhe n.n. c-@mnud w6 ohen applred to rhe rctaoor now

C i a' called E{lmna. but the onsnar Ms. *ru nos ro have been rcsrorcd,

C : C rhoush qe ale finds rhe

.label stnct comard applied ro rbe orisiml

- I _ &linidon, m onh.nd is ale emerinB @lled c @mand in Oe *ns of

e i e Aoun and sponiche.

38

I I ] centrality /sen'rral.ti/ n. The requiremenr rhat the Initisl slrtrbol of- I

- a generative Srammar should be the maximal projecrion of a lexicale :

"

caregory. Centrality is obeyed in GPSC, in which rhe inirial slrrbol- a - S is regarded as the maxirnal proje.crion of the lexical caregory Verb,*

| : and in GB. in which rhe initial symbol S-bar {= CP} is regarded asC : a rhe maximai projection of ihe textcal caregory Comp, bui it is nor

C I a obeied. in ljc, in which the iniriat symbot S is nor regarded as a

e : . Prqecnon or any rcxrcal calegorv. Kohai .nd PullM (lam)

€ : a cetrtre-embeddirg /'senter rm,b€dr0/ n. A type of consrrucrion- a -- in which the material contained in one clause is interupred by aI I : second claus€: The book he prolessor reconnended b gond. inC |

"

*hicb the relative clavse he prclessor recommended ii cenrre-- a Z emb€dded in the marrix clense 7 he book Ls good. Multiple centre-: | : embeddings are nororiousty ditficuh for spe;kers to pr;ess: Ihe5 i a book the prolessor rtu students who arc doinS|9e tike ricommended

C :

"

ir good. Nevenheless. rhey are very common in some languages: lhe-. I a, touo\\aDg €xample from lbe cetrrral Sudanic laoguage Moru i us-- I I trates tbe normal and ody *ay ot expressing poss€ssion (Hagege

e-: 2 re6):c+2e+ie

tc-c-e-e-e-c-c-e-e-c-cGcccca

!:;

4

-

!t

-

3?

a

41 Chomsky Ilierarchy

identical to, or at least consistent with, anorhe. category. Checkingprocedures are essential in framewo.ks employing unifcrtion; thatused in LFG is particularly powerful, and is responsible for much ofthe formal and computational complexiry of that framework (Ber-wick 1984).

Chinese box /,tjarni:z 'bokr/ n- A',€ly used graphical d€vice forrepresenting the constituent -structure of a s€ntence, equivalent toan unlabelled brecketing. Example:

B C| /z\DCE

,to.f.

kotyE [toko [odruPi lma ro] rol ril dratedot wife brother me of of of is-dead'Mi brotheis wife's dog is dead.'

Udimited centre-embeddings cannot be ever weakly Senerated byrqotrf trrmmars (fnitFsrlre gramnrrs), and they form the basis -of the proof that natural languages caDnot be rtguler la4lrges.

'

,4dr. c.trE€-embedd€d /Im'bedld/. Chomskv (1957)

cf. 1. In scholarly work, the conventional abbreviation for'comParc"from htin cotlsr'bring together'- 2. By confusion' but very com-monly, an abbreviation for 'see' or 'rcfer to', for which the conven-

tional abbreviation is v. (Latin vid€ 'see'). N@ this sdnd N8€ is

simply ilit€rate, but it is nesrly unilesat in the cott€nPonP liogtistic

CFG See c,oftext-free granmar.

CFL Seeco ext-fre€ lrnguage.

CF-PSG See cotrt€xt-fre€ grammar.

CF-PS-rule See context-free rute.

CF'-rule see cootert-fi.ee rule

chalo /tJeln/ See Prth (s€ns€ 2).

chsin-of-being bierarcby /,t:em.v'bix0/ r. A hierarchy of

noun phrases: ranked according to semadtic features such as

humanness and animagy, which is gramDatically important rn som€

languages, especially in those exhibiting bv€rse Frsoo martiog'

ariexirrpte ii ttre ttie.urchy found in Navaho' which is essentiaily

Human > Animal > Inanimate; in a Navaho senten'€' a lolrer-

ranl(in! NP mav not preede a higher ranking one. and the verb is

inflectJ'd to indicate the grammalical relation bom€ by each NPI see

cxamples uoder itrvers€ p€rson marking.

chtrl Drrs€r /tJox/ ,l. A parser that uses a panicular dala structure'

a'chtn , lo record the cunent stale of the parse. including Parlrcu'lsrly its successful atlempts at parsing subconst il uenls of lhe sbngrt

is lrorking on. This c-an Sreatly reduce the time sp€nt in backtrack_

ing. Chari parsen are at present the most widely emPloyed type ot

palscr in Datural-language processing.

chocllDg /'tJekD/ n. Any procedure for detetmining wheth€r

some calgory ii legal, in particular' for determiniog *hether it is

ch6meuf 4au'm3/ r, In RG and Arc Pair Grammar, a nouD phrasewhich represents an underlying subject or object but which appearson the surface as an oblique NP in a p€ripheral podition, such as theagent phrase in a passive construction. An NP *hich is a ch6meur issaid to be €n chodrage /oh Jnr'mors/ (French: 'unemployed per-son')- Pertmutter and Postal (unpubtish€d *ork): Chung (196).

Chomsky-adjunction /'tJomski/ r. In TG, a t'?e of movementrule in which the moving category is attached under a node whichwas apparently not preseot before the movement aDd which isidentical to another node, previously present, which now becomesitsdaughter. Here is an abstract example, in which the moving nodeE is Chomskv-adioined to the node C:

Pc+D E

Chomsky-adjuncrion is the only t'?e of adjuncrion recognized inGB, where it is usually callcd simply'adjunction'.

Chomsky Hierarchy n. A hierarchy of classes of formal grammanranked according to their w€ak gener$ivc capscity (i.e., acrordingto the sets of strings which lhey can characterize). Chomsky'soriginal formulation (Chomsky 1959) included four classes; fromweakesl io most pow€rful, these are r€gqlar grr|nmsrs, conlext.frc€gra|nmars, cutcxt-sansitive grrmmrrs aod unrcstica€d grrm|Dlrs,Other classes of grammars have sometimes been defined *hich fall

34 @@t

ii

iii l:l

ii

ii

v4@4

:L

ChoDsky normsl form

into intervening positions in this hierarchy, such as iodexed Eram-mars. Mathematical linguists have often been interested in deter-mininE the positions occupied in the hierarchy by well-articulatedtheories of grammar such as TG, GB, LFG and GPSG; s€€ Panee etdl. (190) for some discussion. S€e also PeterFRilchie rr$rlts. N@:oo @Dpamble hi€rs.chy is available. or eaen possible, for Sra|ma @nsidered in rem of ih€ir rtmDg s*ndve crpactty (Mdaner'Raner 198-"b).

Chomsky noimal form /tjDmski nclmel 'fr:m/ n. The form of aco axt-free grrmm.sr in rvhich every rule is either of ihe form A +BC orof the form A + a, where A, B and C are non-terminals and, is a terminal. For every context-free grarnmar there is a weaklyequivalent grammar in this form. Chomsky (1959).

Chorch's tbesis /'tJ3:t!k ,oi:srs/ r. (also church-Turing Th€sb)The conjecture that every possible algoritbm is equivalent to someTuriDg mecblne. The linguistic veBion of this is that tht clals ofunrGfictad grr|trmrrs is weally equivalert to the clsss of Turhgmchines. This conjecture, proposed by the logician Alon7-o C'hurchand the mathematician Alan Turing, has never been proved, andindeed cannot be proved until a fully explicit characterization of l.he

notion of an algorithm is obtain€d, but it is utriversally believed tobe true.

cltcuDfx /'$:kemflks/ z. An affix which is realited as a combi-nation of a prefit and a suffix, such as Tigrinya bi- . . . _8t?e 'at thetirDe when'or the Chukchi 'recessive' e' . . . -t€, the laner illus-trared in e-tejkev-ke it-e* 'not to fighl'; cf. reJftev-s& 'to 6ght'.

circumpositior / s3:kempe'zlJn/ n. A combination of a Pteposrtion aDd a postposition functioning togelher as a single adposition'such as Mandarin dao . - . II into', illustrated in wd bd $hii dio dao

&rar tI I Acc water pour to can in 'I pour water inlo the can'.

circunstantial /,$rkam'stEnlv n. ot sdi. l. A cooslruction foutrdin cenain languages in which an underlying indirect or obliqueobject app€ars as the surface subject, the verb often being ovenlymarked to show the undetlying semantic role of its subiect.Ifiguages with circumstantials may have several different ones,

one for each underlying role which can appear as surface subject.CirqrDstantials form part of the voic! system in such languages;csicotially, they represent an extension of the familiar PassNecoDsrnrc-tion, in which atr underling direc,t objecr apPears as surface3ubiec1. Here is an example from the VOS language Malagasy'

43 CKY algortahm

illustrating a canonical transitive and a con€spondrng circumstantialwith an instrument as subject (Keenan 1976b)i

manasa lamba amin'ity savony ity Rasoawash clorhes sith this soap lhis Rasoa'Rasoa is washing clolhes with this soaD.'

anasan-dRasoa lamba ity iavony itywash-by'Rasoa clothes this soap this'This soap is being used lo wash cloth€s with by Rasoa.'

2- One of the distinctively inflected verb forms used in such aconstruction. Cf. passive, rpplicativ€, and see voicr.

citation form /sar'terJn fr:m/ a. That panicular form of a lexicaliiem which is used to name it when talking about it as a linguisticobject or when entering it in a dictionary. When a l€xical item hasonly a singfe form, like English undet or beautiful, or when it hasone form rhat shows no overt inflection, like dog, big or take, thechoice ofcitation form is obvious (at least to linguists and lexicogra-phers. ihough native sp€akers may prefer an inflected form). Whena le)iicalitem exists only as a set ofovertly inffected forms, however,onc of these must bc somewhat arbitrarily chosen as the citationformi linguists and lexicographers (and native speakers) may vary intheirchoices. Onc criterion is to choose the form which occun mostfrequcntly or in the widest variety of constructions; another is toirhoose the morphologically simplest form: a third is to choos€ theform which is most useful for predicting the remaining forms. Thesecriteria may conflicl. Thus. lbr exBmple. in citing Latin nouns. it isconventional to use the nominative singular. which is always used insubjecl position. even though the grammatically more specializedgenitive singular is generally a better guide to the remaining formsof thc noun. as illustrated by r"r 'king. genilive singular re8ir,whose remaining forms arc all constructed on th€ base reg-.Similarl_y. in citing verbs in Polyn€sian langua8es, it is conventionalto use the morphologically simpler intransitive form, from which thclransitivc lbrm is generally impossible to predict, €ven though homthe transitive form the intransitile form can almost always bepredrclcdt sco examples under sublraclion,

CKY algorithm Ai:ker'war/ n. A standard atgorithrn for parsing(,{r t( \ t - f r({ erammilrs. sh'ch runs 'n cubic t ime

?, !F

e-:e- --L=€3e3e3c3L3eGci-ci-cl*C. i r ici3ei3ei3el-fl.c It:l:?i=:I:: : ;

:i:c:as: t

cr2

42

classical Tramformational Grammar

classical Transformational Grammar /'klaslkl/ n. A namesometimes grven to the Statrdard Theory of TransformationalGmrDmar proposed in Chomsky (1965) and to the work of thefollowing lew years which took this book as its brsis.

clas6ifier /'klesrfare/ n. one of a set of specialized grammaticalwords which, in certain languages, tlpically or obligatorily formconstituents of ceftarn types of noun phrases, especially those coo-taining numeials, the choice of classifier being determined by thes€mantic characteristics of the head noun. Most often, €ach lexicalnoun obligatorily s€lects a panicular classifer, though in someclassifier languages a single noun can apP€ar with atry of s€veralclassifiers, depending on the meaning of the whole noun Phrase.Classifiers usually fotm a closed class with anywhere ftom abouttweoty members (as in Malay) to over a hundred (as inVietnamese), though Tzeltal is reported to have about four hun-dred. In some cases classfiers can also function as ordinary nouDs inthe language, taking classifiers of iheir own when s€rving as heads ofNPs; ir other cases the classifrers are entirely specialized grammati-cal words. The s€mantic range of a classifier catr be very general,like that of Malay e,tor'tail', used with all names of non_hueananimals (as in d!, e/<or lr'16 'tlro rats', lit€rally 'two tail rat'), or itcan be highly specific, like rhat of Malay /(a,ti (no hdependentheening), reponedly used only for counting long-stemmed floweN.See DO@ .l.xl&-rioD.

clruse /tb!/ r. Any constituent dominated by the initial symbol S'particdarly one which forms Pan of a larger struclure. Claus€s areconventionally divided into Esin chuses and $borditrta clau!€6.Nm: i. tEditiodl gtuFar, a claus is rqatded at excludint anv lubordinatcclauses cmbedd.d in it; in ail contcnPoEry wort. howevcr, such cnbeddcdchos€s dc osidcred to fonn pan of th€ matrir clause.

clause chaining t'rle:f.|,ql n- A lype of sent€nce slructute, ob'served in c€rtain languages, in which only a singte claus€ (usually

the last one) contains an ordinary 6ni!e verb, all the other clausescontaining iDstead sPecialized subordrnate verb forms (ctlled'medial' or 'dependenf forms) usually marked to ind;cate whethcrthey have the same argument NPs and tense as the finite verb oldifferent ones. Claus€ chaining is particularly frequenl in thePapuan languages of New Cuineai here is an exampl€ from Ialmul(Foley 1986):

dear.cases principle

nkay-at yi-ka waala kle-laa ylnr-ey-an nti nket

4544

?.-e-e-

e.c,

eeQ

III9ccceeeeeecea€ -

s-C-C-C.c-e-c-

house,to gcand dog get-and-then come_he-Unreal-if him him-to

s€€-Uoreal-I'lf he comes after he has gone to the holrs€ and got the dog, I'[ seehim. '

Her€ the last verb alone is fioite; the penultimate verb is marked toshow a different subject, while the 6rst two verbs coDsist of barestems with relational elements appended and aie futerpreted ashaving rhe same subjecl as rhe immediately following verb. SeeFoley (1986) for discussion.

claus€mate l'kJrtztnertt n_ Eith€r of two constituents in a lreestructure reiated by the prop€rty that every S_node that dominatesone of them also dominates the other one. Clausemates are thusrt€ms which app€ar in the same simpleclause; equivalently, they areitems each of which S-conmands the oiher. Set nrfe iclrtiod.

clausemaae conditiotr /ken,dlf4/ r. Any condition which requirestbat two items involved in the statement of some gra--aticai rulehust b€ clausemates. In English, for example, a reflexive pronounand its antecedent must normally be clausemaes.

clause unbn /Juhjer/ r. The appar€nt realization oo the surfaoe as asingle clause of what consists underlyiogty of two s€pamte clauses, oneof them a ve.b-complement clauje. Tbe follo*ing examples iomSpa ish ilustrate this phenomenon, the fint showing t*o

"I",r""s on

lhe surface, the second (arguably) the union of the two claus€s:

Quierc mo6tr4rtelos.I-want show-you-them'I c,ant to show you them.'

Te los quiero mostrar.you them I,want show'I want to show you them.'

The term is particularly associated with RG and Arc pair Grammar,though similar analyses have been advocated by linguists working inother ira$eworks. See also dific dimbing. Aisreo (197),

clear-crsB principle /,klre,kersrz/ '|. The principle that, incases rD which the well-formedness or lack of it of ccrtain exarnplasts nol obvious to native speakeE. tbe procedure should be to \r,ritathe simplest possible grammar for olher, clear. cases, and !o let the

G:

4746

z'a/-2:

cleft seDtctrce /klefu n. A marked stn cture in wtr;ct a foc,usea C I

constituent is extracted fiom its logical position and often s€t off e I :

with sotrle additional marerial. including an extra verb. The , . :unmarked senteoce Jo, n bou*ht o car yctkntay is related to several -- . .possibfe cfeft s€ntences. such zs It b,at toln wha bought a car IyesErday,It $)a.r a car ut lohn bought yesEdsy ^nd It was yesEr- C ,"day lut John bought a car. Cf. pceudo-defi se eDce. Jespc*.

C , .

cl€ft sdtence

resulting grasmar decide on the status of the questiooabb C :

eramples. This principle *as ofteo s€en as fundamental_io lhe eady e /- '

*:?'^':1":5:,'1"::*;:Ti:'^T,11'-::-'i*,:"*herprurthane.once hoped, and it is now invoked only infrequently.

cl06ure

are bound ro a following host (like ,a), and enclitrcs, which arebound to a prec€ding host (like,r?,6s and d?). Clitics may formclusters, as in French /? t rors'I see you', in which both the subjectpronoun .,'e

'I' and the object pronoun & 'you' are bound to thefolowing verb. There is a widespread tendency for clitics to occurobligatorily in th€ second position id a sentence, known asWackemg€l's position; the statement that clitics tend to do this iskno*n as Wackemagel's L$r (after Wackemagel (1892), who fiIsrmade the observation). See Sadock (191) for an excellent bdefreview of the prop€nies of clitiG and of the analytical problems tbeygive ris€ lo. Nida {1946)i Ancient G.e€k: 'leanins'.

clitic climbiry /'klarmrt/ n. The phenomenoo in which a cliticappears ovenly in a bigher clause, even though it is logicaly aconstituent of a lower clause. The use of the t€rm 'clitic climbins'implies an aoalysis in *hich rhe clauses in question are regarded isremaining distioct, with one being embedded under the other. Cf.thg discussion under clqu.se onion, and see the Spanish examplethere. Aisr (197).

clitic doublitrg /'d^blro/ r. The pbenomenon in which a s€ntencecontains a clitic whose reference is identical ro that of a full nounphrase in lhe same sentence. Clitic doubling is frequent and evenobfigalory in some languages, such as Spanish: Le di un ani o aMarta'l gave Maria a ing', lirerally 'to-her I,gave a dtrg to Maria';Eso no me lo nega s'you won't deny me that', literally 'that notme it you-will-deny'; ?e lo da na ti'They'll grye it to ror', literally'you it they'will-give to you'-

closed class /'kleuzd klos/ n. A lerical caaegory, gpically with asmall membership, to which n€w members are added only €relyand with difficuhy. In English. such categories as Preposition,Determiner, Cofljundion and Degree Modifier are clos€d classes; itrsome other languages, Adjective is also a closed class (Dixon1S77a). Cf. open cl,Eas.

cfo6€d function l'f^tklnl n. In LFG, a complement or adjunctwhich requires no control by an NP outside it: lwitt thrce rcgularsinjured,l Surrey arc undeldogst She announced Ithot dinnet v,as/ead)]. Cf. open functioD.

closure /'kleu3o/ n. A particular property which may b€ exhibited bya formal system with respect to some op€tation. The s''stem is saidto be closed under that operation if the application of the operation

94.bling a hierarcby except that, ioste; of consisting of a small 6nite C i i'numb€r of discrete elemetrts. it prrmits unlimited differentiatioo. a . ,,'For example, the category agetrt might be regard€d as a c:ine, sinceffi ;ffi,? ;;';i;i,tr'i "',i:;Fiii, iii".i, "i"f"-" iliit e I cline b€tween agents and non-agents is by no means obvious. fte Q {iterm was coined by Michael Haliday. and is particularly as.sociercd - . ̂with Sl|s&Dlc GlltmEar and its antecedenls; most other theon€sof glammar insist upon rigid either/or membership or non- C

'-1i

m.mrPRhin nf.rr.o6ri.. !hi.h i. hiohlv .-nvcnient ifndt tlwrs ^ //.membeEhip of categorie.s. which is highly convenient if Dot alwa]6 erealistic. Tle term sqofuh expresses a siDilar notion. e

(1937:63)-

cllne /klah/ r,. A one-dimensional grammatical continuum resem-

cllpping /'klrpr0i r. The process by s/hich a word is deriveJ from a

(tuom Havana cigar) ̂ nd coMry (fton crtuty b dl.

;lG.-#:;;;il; fi ;;s"ift;;#;;;;-;;;;; e -?part of the longer word, ilusirated t]y bl/s fton omnibrts, phonc Q,

'€

ftom telephonc. gtm from gymtuL\ium, pon foo'J. pontography. a .-,mike |rom micrcphone . mirrEo tron mimeogroph ana ai m- I Iti$rlal. Sometimes the lerm is extedded lo cas€s lile Hovona ,

€ i $clltic /'khtrk/ n. An item whicb exhibits behaviour inte.mediate C ii"

betwe€n that ofa word and that ofan affx. Typicaly. a clitic bns the ^ -phooological form of a separate word. but canqot bc sttessed and is D v

obUgea io occupy a panicular position in the s€Dteoce in which it i5 C € -

subject pronouns l€, tu, etc., which are bound to a followitrS 6[iteveft (as in i, vair 'I'm going'), and Basque 6" and Turkish de, bothmeaning'also', {,hich arc bound to the pr€ceding word (as in zl re,ri? de tou too'). Clitics are sometimes divided into proclitics, which

CNPC 49

(t

G

aoad

a??

,f8

lb-

e4

e-c-e,e,c-e-c-c-

co|nmand relation

collocltional reshiciioD Aole'kerJ.nl rr,stnkjt/ n. A s€lec-ttond lt3ffin, panicularly one which is unusualy idiosyncraticor language-specific: {iU (US brcil, c.llcEates with meat but notwith br?ad, while the revers€ is true for ,oasr. Finh (1951).

combldng fot.t[r /kam'barnr0 f.rm/ n. 1. A bound lorm of alexical siem which is us€d in word formation; e.9., Basque 8ko,'man' has the conbining form gid- in such formations as Sizdro'F)or felfow' (suf6x Jb) ^nd gkaaoBin'vrrcercr' (rorgi'r 'e'itch').

2. A bound form, usually of Greek or Latin origin, which in wordformation behaves as an affx in some resDects but not in others:aeto-, bio-, electro-, -crot, -phile ar.d -phobia. Th€ difficulty withr€garding such forms stnctly as affixes is that words can tre formedconsisting entirely of such combining forms, such I biocnt aJrdelecnophile: if rhe* forms are affxes, theo such words contain troroot. See Bauer (1983) for discussion.

comitative /'kDmrtatlv/ n. ot adj. l. A cas€ form tlpically indi-cating an individuai in whos€ company something is done: Basquegizo@rckin

"rith the man' (gizona'the n n').2- A derived form of

an intrinsicaly intransitive verb in which an underlying comitative(s€nse 1) relation is added to th€ valency of that verb, which thenfuctions as a tmnsitive I Dyirbal ninay 'sit', nindrndl 'sit with'.

command /ka'mo:nd/ |t. l The original and still widely used namefor S-commstrd. 2. A gen€ric term for any commaDd rclation. 3.One of the s€Dtence types of tradilional grarnmar, most typicallyeipressing an ord€r: P&a thut vase down! See imlf,,ralive.

command domain n. (of a node A) The set of all the nodes in thetree to which A bearc one of the commsnd r€lations.

comDtaDder /ke'morndo/ n. A node which bears a oommrtrdr€lctio! to another node.

commeld relatioD /rr'lerJq/ n. Any of various relations whichmay hold between two nodes in a trce. A command relation has thegeneral form'A node A X-commands another node B iffthe lowestnode of category X which properly dominates A also prop€rlydominates B', with the different values of X determining rhe variouscommand relations which can be defined: some versions add thefu(her requirement'and neitherA nor B dominates th€ other', butthis is rarely, if ev€r, crucial. The earliest command relation to bedefincd $as S-commsndt othen include crommsnd, m-command,

to any objects in the set defined by the system always results itranother objecl in the set. See Panee €, al. (1990) for a summary ofthe closure properties of classes of formal languages See also fnit

CNPC See Complex NP Conslraint.

cognate objeca /'kognett/ rI. A direct objecl whos€ semantic con-tent is more or less identical to that of the verb which govems it.The direct objects in the following examples are cognate objects: I&eamed a drcam last night, She sang a sons; l'm thinking teftible

cognitive grammar /'kDgnltN/ n. Any approach to grammatical

description which is bas€d on. or purports to be bas€d on, ourunderstanding ofcognitive processing in the human brain. The b€st-known such proposal is thatofLangacker (198?, 191). hngacker'sapproach is based upon concePtual classification and particularly

upon imagery; it maintains that syntax and s€mantics are insepar-able, and seeks an integrated theory of linguistic structure' rejectingthe conventional separation of linguistic description into differentcomDonents; it also rej;ts a good deal of th€ fo.maliz tion t}?icalof most other approaches. An overview of the framework is Prc-sented in Langacker (1988).

coirdexing ftau'ndeksl!/ n. 1. A nobtional device for indicatingthat two NPs have the same referent. The most usual bdnveotion is

the use of identical subscripts, chosen from lhe s€t r t' r' . . ' on

the NPs in question. In the example -4tet rrei came in, Lba. sal

down. she and llto are coindexed to show that they ref€r to the

same individual. 2. In some theories of grammar' notably GB' a

formal procedure for atlaching such indices, which in thes€ ftame-works are regarded as part of the syntactic structure of the s€olence-

collapcing 1ke'lEpsl[/ n. The combining of lwo or more rules rnto

a sin_gb ;b schema by lhe use of some sbbreviatory cooventlon y'

couaF€ /ke'leps/.

collective nouD /h'lektrv/ n. A noLrn whos€ meaning is a grouP of

individuals: corrmin€€, Sovernment, cla$ collective nouns -nBritish English are notable for their abiliiy when singular to taxe

either singular or pluraf verb agreement: The commfi?e has matk o

decision ot The committee have mode a decision. In some other

languages, collective nouns exhibit a distioctive morPhology.

I

z'a-e , 5t Complemetrtiz4r-Ctp Cotrrtr.it|t51

cor:riie:lt 5,1 2

,-n,,nsnd:,,,.,,,,n,.nu.::( n ? ',:.

iffil#,:ff"*..',*Til'.".*;T;:*:,'^,HT.T.y':l '#;3 derai t l r ' , , r , ,1, i , , i L\ , ' i ! r rn. l rr l . r ior\ S.! c! . ! ' f -command 2 ' -

f r l i - . " t tpf"- .""" t ion, anbigui iy, she€t lcngr! or pngmatic

cor:rorenl iiNr.ir 1iL \)rhrme) ln\)m! rrii. ! il,rLndrruta 2 i 1: intplausibitiiy The descriptions constructed bv gcoeralve gram-

seni.,,. "h,'. i.sc,, i, ir,r,',,,.,,p,. ,",i.'liir.,,,1:1,;i,.,1": a i : lm":l#l[:g:*.,1,ffi.*o,"".*,ence.cr Fr-

: d r . \ n . n , . r ' . ' I ' , i . r . n . i . ' n , ' , { { r r l ! 2 i 3 :

' 'I; ' "

i i I :: comDlemedt / kDmphmrnr/ n. t. Any constitucnt whicb forms Pan

common e.cnd(r ,r '-r. . , , I ln: L.rr ' . : . " r gcndrr n, : |--

'" f , i . .r"r"* A*i. I Iof a cate8ory lwrth a lerical head atrd which

; ' . , t , r \ ' . . r , , . . ' , ' . ' . . , ' . . , . i r " . . ' r . . . ' , . , " " " r , e1n . te r . I I - - J *U .a , .gon r .a fo r by tha r l e r i ca l head_ . l n t he e ramPle Z i sd pz r

: - . , ; " ' ;

, ' . , , 1 . r . , . , . r . , . , r i . r . . 1 , : . . n r , . im( .n | r . . F , , , C i n ' i i i . * i , t a " * * . r i e NP / r€ boo& and the l oca t i ve ph ras€ o ' / ' €, \ r F r l , ( . r r , l : " r , ,

. . . r ' , . , r ' . 1 - l ' -

I _.reeche.i,r,,,;',tr,,,,r,r,,pu..,,.,,,r..,r,.,,,"i.",r"."."u",*i"i 9l: ';llil*,:*mX1,i[''T:ifl;T:i::'Y"'3f,fj?-ff, . ' , : r , r f r . , . , r . - r . - , u , , r ' n , , n , . s ( . r ' L r ' \ - i r r . r . r i r n r " ' r c g i " i i i J . . ^ - . p r . r J o , i s f o r m a . l l y d e f i n e d a s a c a t e g o r y w h i c b i s a

naler. ii cpiccne r. .\ !,{\r,irion.rl l.rb. ior a -q:qdcr cta.s'" c. ! A j"* "i "

r.ri"h *,"g..y x and; daughter ofits ole-bar proj€ctiotr

.rdrin tl.,,l.i,n txnfuu!,is r.D.c\.ntin.e rhe 'r.rrer ol earli(r dr\. ] | = i-tar. cf. rajunct, lpccincr. 2. (also prdl'crte codDLdcrt) A

ti.c! m!!.u!i.r ,1n(l icnrifrn. gendcrs i,nJ *.nirrrtrn-r ''rth ,f'. C I N

rraditional label for a cateSory oc-curring in a predicate whicb rs

hi . : - , , t r r I C:; inrerprered as describrng or refemng to anolher NP in tbe sentence

lommonnoun ,. app(,,,! i \c \n,u,$hch.""," '-". - | i ; l .:n::j:;ffr::, ' .;f l ff.Xiitf i i i : .3:!;tr*:nona: rios fra,,,, ,'i,/ e : 3 ;;;;.';-j;;-;'; -.i,pr",*i or rhe obiccr "e

(as'objecr-( n n t p I r m . . , r ' m p l ( n , L n t i ^ r \ . c n m p h m r n r t \ .

e : 3 c o m p l e m e n i r ..O\tPnode ; \ , ,mDrral i \ r r l r .

cumpararrr . . \ ' : t . r , r . \ ' . i . - . I^ "n," ! i ; compl€ment clause n A f inire or non--f in ire clause wbich serves as

greateror,,s.crLicgrccr,,.,,,*,",".,n...",,,,1,'".pi5.,.:-*; 6!: ::u,*::,r:*ru;.:|:i'ilT;?.ffr"3fi,r#5T"fllJ.;t \ : a l n , , t , , , . l . , . t . , n , l t t , t u ( r . / , ' , r , . ? . t r 4 r / . l t t a ! " r . l h \ , r I f

ni*;rt*r"ll;i:*.*:":r**:.1[#['.r*; E i 3 ::,"'f;:i"i;"J:"#i5,'i'ffi'"'1":$::J""*::i:1""Jff &:oradvc rbs .a r i n i rec rc ( r , , r an r r ! r i c ro rm. ; ' ; . " , ' " . : 1 ; ; p ' . * " ' i ! a

Noonan(1e8s ) '

ffJlitir:l,fi::ill.lilii'llili;,ilriiii;,iil'::;i:t't1i''-' : i: ":,T"'l;ff1yJ"1,1*i,li*iilili.i;i."11T,-ji#,,i1'fr1;comparat ire drfel ion a. ih.ph,n{,mrnonri \ \hrch.rnac' \mparJ' t

l : ^nd whe win Lisa soid rhot ihe wouu come ̂ ad I don\ knott /

t lve consrrucLlon. n ! , , l , t lp. !r \ In r f . \ , , ( r , rn . 'hrch "

repcrrt i , ,n, ' t C = "

| |hether she smokes R*nbaum ( l%7)

! l ( . , n . i . r ' ' r r r r ' , r , r i : . ' . h , . , h . ' p \ ^ . . , r , 1 1 . \ a h ' r - - - .

m o r c r c d d \ i ) . d r s : n n . i n d \ t . : t . t . , t t i t d ; ! e ; ; h - , , d r , . . . . c n ^ p " r " ! f ] C o r n p l e m e n t i z e r - G a p c o n s k a i n t n . T h e c o n s t r a i n t ' a P P l y i n g i nr h e a t s € n c r 0 1 ! l r t r n c r l n r l p r , : . r , r c r a r r , , , , , ' . ' " a , t , a , " ^ , n . , C - " E n g l i s h b u r n o t i n s o m e o t h e r l a n g u a g e s . D y w h i c h a n o v e ( c o m P l e -1.b'. 'o.L' ai \utxlttrtnxr. C = a mentizer mal nor immediately precede a gap, as illusftated by

"o.rrerati'r.rbdcrr,i.,ds.,\ubde,cli{rn ; ! I :,i::::!'^':::;:!,'H:"';^fiffi1;::.:::tTi;i'IK:"f,*:. r.r2rei ji l:.r.f .,; \ :r \r) ,1.'rr:.r Lrrt\f e f ? also kno\rn ar l,r4trrace €ffecls.'"*cr?

eJ- z

conplexity th€ory 5352

z'e-e-

co.nplenty theory /kem,pleksrti 0reri/ r. A branch of compura-tio l mathematics which investigates the degree of difficulty ofclasses of problems as express€d in te.ms of the computati;nalresources required to apply the most efficienr algorithms available,and hence the time and space required to solve such problerns otr ;compuler. Complexity rheory is imponant in lhe construcrion ofefficient psrsers. See Banon et al. IIqB7l.

complex NP /'kDmpleks en,pi:/ /r. A noun pbrase contai ng botha lexical head and a clause attached to that head. The twJ maintypes are NPs containing relative clauses, such as the nan wLa canzeto dinner, and those cantaining noun-complement clauses, such a!the ,utnour that she's about to rcsign. Ross \tg6t.).

Complex NP Cotrrtr.int n. (CNpC) An isl.nd corBrrai6t whichstates that a complex NP is an island The guy Gina b going our u,irhb Frcn h,bljt+Who it the Euy e is going out t /ith Frcroh? Ro6s 0967).

cobplex obj€cl n. A label occalionaly applied ro rbe combinariono[.a dired obFcr *ilh a following objecl cosrplemenr. as in lrplcalkd then son Jaron and Lba nade me hlrppy. Cf. snrll d.G(sens€ 2). Jesp€eo (r%1, u:10).

complex prepoeitiou r. An item which bebaves syntacticaly justlike an ordinary preposition but *hich has an intemal smrctureconsistitrg of two or more vtotdsi out of, fu spte of, up t.tl!.

complex gentence n. A tmditional name for a s€ntence contailinEone or more subordinate clauses, Cf. coml'olnd s€DteDce.

complex slmboi /'srmbl/ n. A slatactic c-ategory which consists ofa malrix of syntactic fealures. e.g., INOLrNlIBAR 2]IPERSON 3]IPLURAL -l ta lhird-person sir4uiar noun ptrase). VinuaXy aticontemporary theories of grammar rcgard syntactic categories ajcomplex slmrbols, largely as a means of dealing with the phenom-enon of cr6.c.tegoriatioD. Cf. Dor.sd. Complex slDbols werc ftsrused by Hame (1963), thouSh Harir (1951) had edtier popo*d rhc idcasomewhat irexplicirlyr rhe tem yqs @ined by Chonsky (1965).

complex yerb See compo|tnd verb.

COMP node n. A node in a tree who6e daughter is most usually acomplementizer. The COMP node is usually regarded as thedaughter of an S-bar and the sister of an S. In GB. this node iscoDsidered lo have cenain special proF,enies aod to play a funda-metrlar rol€ lD syntar: il is regarded :rs a lexical category whos€

e,e,a.eeecccocccee

!:

.tt

rt

-

-

concatetration

maximal projection CP is identified with the c-ategory S-bar, and itserves as a hndiag Eile for WH-Movemeot

comlroDent Aem'peunant/ n. Any one of the more-orless auton-omols subsystems postulated in various theories of grammar; amodul€.

composiaion /,konpa'zrJn/ See compoutrdir|g.

compound /'kDmpound/ n. A word formed by

compounding /'kDmpaundr!/ n. The process of forming a wordby combining two or more existing *ords: newspaper, paperthin,bablsit, video game. See bahuvrihi, cndocentric compoutrd.

componnd s€ntence n. A traditional name for a sentence consis!ing of two or more maid clauses, either combined in an overtcoordinate constnrction with a conjunction, orjuxtaposed asyndeti,call'. CL complex s.nt€nce.

comlround verb r. (also campl€x verb) A lerb formed from twoelements, one b€ing a simple lexical verb ard the other beinganother lexical item such as a noun or a preposition. Examples:English phrasal verbs hke take off, ar,t€ up; lntin prepositionalcompounds like abire'go away' (a6 'a*ay from' plus ire'go');Basque nominal compounds like am€b egin 'dream' (arrert 'dream'

plus €gr,'do'). Certain English sequences that might not appear tobe constituents behave like compound verbs under passivizatioo,such as speak of: we spoke of her in admiing.ems; She vns spokenof in odminng Enns.

computational complexity /,kompju'terj3nl/ '|. Of a problem ora class of problems, the degree of difficulty involved in obtaining asolution, as expressed in terms of demand on computational re-sourc€s (time'. memory spac€, etc.). Cf. formsl complexity.

computational linguistics n. l. (formerly, and still occasionally) Avery broad label covering virtually any activity involving computersand natural language, such as machine translation of natural,language texrs- computer s€arching of texrs or lhe preparatioo ofconcordances for literary works by compurer. Now usually called'literary and linguistic compuling'. 2. (more usually today) A syno-nym fo. natural-langurg€ processing.

concatenation /ken,kEte'nerJn/ n. In certain approaches toSrammatical description in which sentences are rcgarded primarily

iiiiii;-!

a-a'z

55 confi gurat!onsi !f.uctuie

condrtionsl clsus€ , A lllc of sdverbld clsus4 $hic\ e:pr.\s.s rlcondirron uf{)n whose fullilmcr( the proPsitiur !xIIcs:ed 'n th.main cl i tu. i : dtpends Condit ional c iauscs in i ln i l ish are tsuat lyma.kcd b! r l r r :ubordLnator r t An eramPlc is th. l i r \ t c lause In / l trcins. *. 1! hate to posryone he ntatch.

colditionsl s€ntence n. A sentcnce consisling of t*o clalsc.. (rn.

cf *hich (the protasis or antecedcnt) e\ptessts a condltion whorciulniln.nt or non-fuifilrnent is rel€vaitt to drc degree of ft3ii1!arigned r. ihe tther (the a0odosts or coD*quent). Cofldilional! : 'ntenccs l .e often divid. .d into t \1o !ype<: 'oDcn'condit ionals. inshi. i r rhc lui i lment of lhc mndit ion is s.€n a! a rcr i is{ ic possibi l i t } .l id fcmo,e or-.ounterf l . tual condir iooals, in which ihc iul l l ir :ni J i ihe cr-nd!1ion is seen ns impcssiblc. cr nlrary to iacr .r ! rrle.r \ t unl i \eh. Eramples ol ofen c{rndi l ionals: I l tou but the witu,j l! .itl" lolnn Ij she ca sht rc 8.tn rain, slu ntuit ht1,e been ;nLrndoa btfar€ naon. €\ampl!:s oi counterfactual conditionals: 4 I,!.\t l,. tn F.ench. I could get d job in Parci It Orant hall bcea Put;tt tt,n'nu.l eotl;.?t, th. a |il Wat might lture en.led soonet. SeeP.r lm.r 1io35) ior di3cui\ ion.

cordi t ioning / 'kan drtanr!1 n lhe plenomdnon i . chlch r i l,:rirrr.r in rorm of a morthenre eihibiting allomorPh-t is Jettlminel rn n more oi i . \s.egula. 'Jtanner bv i ts en! i i . rnre.{ . i roleramFir. the Engl ish plurr l rr)rpheme has three regrlar ai ternanls

lij/lzjl[,7], the choice being coI|ditioned bv thi' rirufc oi the prcccding segnent: cars [s] . dogr iz l . .1, ! . ' I iz l : tht Sr inish q ord for 'and

l?s rh. f,)fm ' i most cirr'u n1 cr.t r ces (-Ui€!./ r l'."/ro ). but th! iormi, : t ihL roi lowrng s..d bcgins a i ih ihe !o*el l i l ( . ) t tquel e l t . t rn ) .i ic Bnsque l i rst-pelson singular agreemenl marker i \efbs ha. rhctdm ,r ,J i i anl thi l rg fol lows i t in the same word. hul -r orhc^vircldnk\ ' l l1: . \ r ' . dakidat i qhich I know ).

conligurational languagr /k.n frgju'rerf.nl/ n. A langulge irjqhi .h \rnrences t \9ic:r l l \ ha\€ a conf igu.st ional structu.e: \ ! ( . i iinrgur! . \ : : f t ' u.u3l iv fhar3ctcnzed b! fair lv ngid sord c: i l . : : !d l , rihe lntrrqu.nj ! of disront inuous const i luents. Lngl ish i i u.Nri l 'con\rd.r .d x l iaradiqnr casc or a conf igurat ionr i languagc. { l i non-tontigurationnl l6nguage.

configurational structure n A hierarchical synia*ic stru.trre olth! t . rnr i I l r k ind. in which cach cLrnsl i tu.nl t rprci i l ! ! , nsists' | . ,dr l j l .1; ler ron i tu. f : . . ani :h. t ret . tm.rur! . \ \ i ; i i \

concepturl distancf

as strings. the formal operation by which two string! are tinkedtogether in Iinear sequenc€ to form a longer strinS.

conceptual dist$ce Aan,sepljual 'dlstans/ n. A very Seneralabstract conc€ption of lhe degree of tightness holding between twoelements whi€h are bound in a form or conslruclion For examPle,insliensble pG€ssioo is held to exPress a smaller degree of conceFnral distance than sliemble po6session. and ssFct is often held tobe conc€ptually closer to a verb or proposition than ter|.le. Sce alsoiconicity. Haina. ( 1985)-

concessiYc clause Aen'seslv/ n. A ryp€ of idvnbiel cl..us€ whichcaries the implication ihat the Proposition it contains might havebeen expected lo exclude the proPosition exptessed in lhe rnainclause but in fact does not. Conccssive clauses in English ar€typically introduced by sucb subordinato6 a\ although, though.ewn though: Although iI had bce rining heaviry fo/ davs, thecricket pich ||as in Sood condition

condusive A3n klu:sN/ n. or adj. (also €aressive) An aspectualform, explicitly marked in some languages, expressinglhe notion'tofinish doing'. An example is ahe Japanese 'te r,rtndu constructron'illustrated in lkeda son i'a sono hon o J'onde shitu)n, lkeda_Mr

Topic that book Acc read-te shinnu-Past'Mr lkeda has finished

reading thar book'. Dahl(1985)

concord /'ko0kc:d/ S€e agr€€m€nt

concre& [our /ko{'knx/ r. A noun *hose meaning is perc€iYed

as a physical enrity: doT, tree. elhot'. \|ine. mountoin- Cf abstract

cotrdl t iotral Arn'dl jenl / , or ddl A convenl 'onal name lorcertain

verb forms occumng in some language' nolably Romance lan

guaSes, which typically express some norion ofremoteness. suppcsf-fool appto*lmiti"n or imPlied condition. semanticall-\" the

corditional is really a mood. but formally it beha\es more like pan

ofthe tense system. The conditionalis usualty formall! distioctJromthe subjunctive in languages in which lhe label is uscd. though the

uses of the lwo sets of fortns may ovcrlap Herc are some examplesfrom Spanr 'h. in each oi qhi 'h th( lerb form (ndrng in - / i? is a

conditional: S?rid itereJanle ll would be inleresring t T?ndria ul|os

ieinto ai,ot'He must havc been abour thirt,v : Dijo que lo harta

l&rPo'He said he d do it latea.

54

n

-l

zaL3

eeccceee€

ccc,cjeici:i: ll l: l: l: l:t:tIt:l: l;J

.nun7

3

z--5756

?-*

e-!a- l:e_ i:e,re- !:e,?c- :.I ' a.

9.- i'g- i-'e ,i'c "-'ei iC iii

c ..'-C .-j-c'(c .1'-c '.:C: 113

e16F .';

coDltitueDt stf,ucturecoqioinirB

considerable downwad branching. lbrr. n. confguntiouiity/ten,frgjurerje'nalrri/. Cf- non-.lnfigurrtioul.

coqioinirig /ken'd3rrnr0/ n. The phenomeDon by which two ormore constituents are combined in a coordinct€ struciurc. y. con_join /ken'dstrrn/. Cf. €mbeddiDS.

codugation /kDnd3u'gerjn/ n. L The inflection of (panicularlyfinite) verbs. 2. (of a panicular lexical verb) The complere paradigmof inflected forms which the verb can assume. 3. (of a particularlanguage) One of the seveml classes into whicb verbs may bedivided by their inflectional b€haviour, such as the traditional fourconjugations of Iltin verbs.

coqiunct /'kDod3^0kt/ n. Any one of the constituenrs which areconjoined in a crordinqte shuctur€: in the coordinate NP Cronrf,and his shdents , both Chonsk! and hi-t students ̂ re conjuncrs.

coqiunct doubling /'d^bll!/ n. The phenomenon by which oneconiunct of a c@rdinate structure is expressed twice, once by itsefand again within atother conjunct. An example is Basque aira labiok ioon garo'Li,sa and I went', Iiterally 'Lisa and both-of-us we-went'. Cf. coqiuncl uniotr. R. L. Trak (unpublished {ork)-

coqjutrction /ken'd3^!kjn/ r. 1. A closed leical category, or alexical item belonging to this category, whose memb€rs serve toconstuct coordinate structures, such as ard, or and bur in English.2. In traditiooal grammar, a much larger category consisting of themodern categories Conjunction, Complementizer and Subordina-tor. This traditional category is no longer recognized h linguistics,but it is still used in many reputable dictionaries and texlbooK. 3.Sce coordiuae structure.

coqjuDct utrloD-/junjgo/ n. The phenomeoon by which one con_JUnCr Ot an un(krliot coordinat€ structure is suppressed on the:i1:fJ f

^c 1dy* -Tly by an asreebeDt morph. An example isI wr,sn flasanta &tik Hasan_with we_went .Hasan and I went:. Cf.coqirbcr dooblbs. Ab!.tr (tgA,D_

cols€quent /tDrsrt*cnt/ S€e elo&d..

conctsnt gronh propcrt!' /,kDnstont ,9ra{r0 prDpotv ,t. Theproperty of a forDal lMguage in which, if aI the s€;tenc€s of lhrrantuaga ar€ [sted io order of hcf,easirg lcogrh, no two succ€ssivescoteDccs differ in length by morc than a cooslant *. Naturalhnguagcs apFar to bave this property. Jo.hi (1933).

Tordq"Et icsa /tcn,snrJu.trsi/ ,. tury of various crireria whichnave D€€o propc€d for id€trtifyiry coDsdtuetrE in senteoces.Amoog ttc critcria oftcn advarc€d are th€ fol.towitrg: ooty a con-stituent can be a conjunct in a coordinate structure; only a constitu-e_nt catr bc ftoDiad; only a constituent can utrdergo o.tain typo otelliFis; only a coDstituent can s€rve as a fragmcnt; only a constitu-enl c{D. scJve irs the iutec€deDt of a pm_fomri only a coDstitucnt caoDe ct€nedl a conslituenl cannoi be interruptcd by a parenthetjcal.No such (est is infalible, but rheir combin;d weight;ften at leastf:: p +. our some.anetys€s. Ser naOrora

-( rSSS) or frasi(ryylr lor oscusstoo aod illustration of some of these teats,

corrdau€trt Aan,strtJuenl,/ ''. Any pan of a sentence which isregaroed as torming a disrincr syntaclic unit i.irhin tbc overallstruc'ture of the s€trtence, on the ground rnaf;f benavcs as a unit:l:l_f:ryjr-..

*nl1Areria. such a! disptacement, coordinatjoD,e_utp$s atrd,tie possibiliiy of its s€rvitrg as ant€cedeot to a preform.,n a rree otagram, a constioent is rcpres€nted as a branch domi-lar:lDy

a s'ngt€ .node. Usually only a codthuous $quencc can::il'l.f.,."

constiluent. bur some approaches permil rhe recoS-ruIlon or discontitruoN coDstituents, ,4l,rr. n. condt||er<r.co^trstitu€nl saructru.e n. (also phr&s€ structure) A type of hierar_cnrcat slruclure which. in mosl lheories of glammar, is posited formost or all senlenc€s in mosr or all languages. In a Lnstituentsrructure analysis. a senlence is assumed lo consist of a sorall:::.T:-:lT'"

(:".1" c:]'tinuous sequence) ca[ed its (hncdrrrejconsatauenls, each ot which aiso consisls of a few srill smalleiconstituen$, each of which in turn aiso consists of eren smalle!consutuenrs, and so on, until the minimal syntactic units (words or

€- .i.coqiunction reduclion /fl'd^kjn/ r. In some derivalional tbeories

6 :iiof grammar, the putalive process by wbich mnjoined s€ntences

'^ ...

which are identicai apan from one consriruent iD eacb are reduced Dto a coordination of the two constituents which distinguish them. In C- ".:sucb a view. an example like Ton wash"d and died the dishes is -- ...derived from an unde;lying lorn wash?d the dish"s ond Tom dricd

j

the dithes, \nhile Tom wLthed the dishes ond mopped the floor is $- '::.

derived from ton |9ashed !fu di:hes and Tom moo,?d tfu floor-This ooce.popular analysis cannot cope wilh suctr coordinations as !Ton ond ililiare broni's. and ir enjoys ftrrle suppod.roday. G- '.1

c- ,se- ,5

constmint

morphemes) are reached. This kind of structure is most readitvdisplayed in a tree of the familiar son. The notion of svntacticstructure as constituenl structure was finjt expliciii! lroposed byBloomfield (1911): it has been one of the central ideas in America.rlinguistics ever sinc€. and it is arguably the principal respect inwhich the gramnlatical analyscs of the Amerjcan structuralins weretaken over moro or less intact by Chomsky and lhe gencrativisrswho follo*cd him. The pulative uni!ersaliit of coDstituenl structurehas. howevcr. been deri.d in at iea5t !\\o impodant qa!s. First.some linguists. while accepting lhe reali!! ofconnituent strucrure ingeneral, maintain that cc.lain languages (the so-called non-conffguratioml languages or W-strr languuges) are distingurhed bylhe complete (or nearl] conrt-.lctr) absercc oi constilucnt strucrurelsome wou,d fudher hold th3l ccrtain cc'nslructions mav be nol]-confgurar ional . \en in languagcs in Fhich cont igumtional i t \ ' (ccn-slituent struclure) is the norm. Second. and more radically. cenair,theories of grammar. notably thos€ characlefized as dep€nd€nc]grsmmars, decline to recognrze the existcnce of constiluent struc-ture at aI. prefening insreaC to posit a quile differenl kind ofsyntactic organiTation. See immediate constiluent anellsis- !r€€.

constraint Aan'streht/ n. Any formal limitatior, on the range ofapplication of some giammalical rute or ruies. parlicularly onewhich refers crucially to rho possibie inpuls lo such nrl€s. Manr_proposed constraints are morc or less olerrly labetled as such, likethe lsland .o$trebts of Ross ( l%7) or the Subjscrncy Condltion ofGB. but many other g.ammatical pnnciples noi so obliouslr namedare really constraints oo rules as \r€ j such as the H€ad Fe8lureConvention.'the formulation of conslrairis on rules has beenincrcasingly regarded as imporrant in recenr ycani wilhin GB. il ist)?ically seen as more imponant than the formulatfun of the rule(them6€lves. Cf. filter.

construsl, rule of /ken slrurll/ n. In GB. rn) rule shich rclat.s ananaphor (sensc 2) to j1s anlcccdcnl. Ken th. lunrubdshci l $or l i )

constructiotr /krn'sthkJn/ n. Anv Srtrnrnrirtic,rl riruclure $hiciloccurs systemalicalli in somlr langua8.. or ir\ fafticulrr inslance oiit. See Zwicky (1987) for . discussion .l .,nrstruclions in recenlgrammatical thcory.

constructional alteanation /k.n st.\k.linl/ r The us. of lnodif ferenr connrucf ion: I i ' r ,1,( m(e x a m p l e i ' ( h , u . ( o i r $ , , ( , , r r r r i n ! p ' . . ( \ . i l L ! r r . r , u . t k , n . i r

Amharic: ber'e 'hous€ my' and.va-rd bel of mc house'. both mean-

ing 'my hous€'.

Constructiotral Crammar n An apProach l() Srammatical charac-

rerization proposed by Hockcll (1961). essentiallY an elaboration of

immediste constituenl anllYsis.

constructional homotri'mity /homa nlnlti/ See structural

embiguity.

constrtctive grarruftrr /kan'str^kll!/ n Any Srammar which can

be reDresenled in the lorm of an algoritltm capable of determining

whict s€ntences are in the language defined by th€ grammar; a

generrtiYe granmsr (sense 1)

construct strte /'kDnstr^kt ste(/ l' ln certl]in languages, notably

S€mitic languages. an overtly inffecled form which is assumed by a

noun to indicat€ that it is possessed or modificd by another noun or

NP which itself may exhibil no ot'ert inflection. For examPl€' in

Hebrew. 'th€ slarf is la lsd't and 'the girl' is 'a'ldlda' but 'the

qirl's scarf is l'la'if hlr yokla in which tsa'i/'scarf' aPPears in its

;onstruct state utilto indicate lhat ;t is Possessed. Cf i"det'

construe /kan stru:/ t.. 1 To analyse the grammatical structure of;

k) parse. 2. to b€ constu€d with: To form part of a grammatical

structure with. For erample, in both Sfte ru ned on the IiSh and She

tun€d the light o^. rhe parlicle o, must be coostrued \rith the verb

consuetudinal /kDnswl'tjurdrnl/ See habitual

context /'kDntekst/ |l. 1. The immediate linguistic environmeni of

somc item. ofien lhc imnediaielv preceding and./or following items

rn rhc l in€dr urder ol elemenb $i lhin a .cntrnce. bu( \ometimes

including other ilems which are furthcr away. when these are

rcgarded as being in some way linked with it 2 The linguistic or

e)ilralinguislic siluation in which an utterance is mad€

conl€xt-free granrmar ADnteksffri, n (CFG) (more fully'

contexlfr€€ phrase sFucture grammsr' or CF-PSC) (also tvF 2

grsmmar) A formal grammar in which aU of ihe rules which directly

l i . rn 'c l . rcal \uhlre<s arc contet l f re€ rule ' Amongcutrcnl lheor '

ics of srammar. GPSG reprcsents the principal attcmpt at con-

strucli+ contexl frce grammars which are adequate for the

char:lcterization of the sr:immars of oalural languages

5958

z'z-aze?ceecccccccceceeccC€

5€

Gcc

:i:i

coltext-free grammar

n

a

aG

;_r

cotrtext-ftre lsnguage d)

context-free langu.lge n. (Cn ) 1. A formal language Scneratedby a contcxt-free grelnmsr. If null paoductions are uniforElvexcluded or permitled, the set of context-free languages is a prcfre;subs€r of rhe c.otrGrl-stnsftiv€ l|Dgurge3. 2. A natural tatrguatrwhose grammar caD be ad€quately repres€ored by such a formilgrammar. At present it app€ars that most, but not 6Il, lstu[-allanguages are so r€presentable, at least in terns of raal gttrfdi?tcapecity, the ones which are not being those few exhibiting ccrtabtypes of cFoss{€ri.l deFrdeDde. or of rtdulilcrtios.

context-fre€Dess /kontekst'frilDcv r. The property of a traturallanguage whosa gra[Bar caa b€ adequatety represcnied as acao&rt-ftle gnnDrr. There bas long b€etr a d€batc over whetDcrnatural languages exhibit context-freeness; given tbc difficulty ofobtaining results about strong generative capacity, this debate hasinevitably ceotred on weak generative cepacity. Dismis6a.ls of CFCrsin the early da]s of generative grammat werie too hasty, a factbrought out particnlarly by Harnan (1!53). Postal (1964a) prc-sented a famous ergument that Mohawk x€s trot CF, and the Dentwo decades saw further arguments published; however, Pullum andGazdar (f982) succlssfully demolished all arguoents for non-conten-freeness published up to thet date, and Pullum (1984b)demolished tlfo further arguments. Bresn ! er al. (1982) suc{€edcdin sbowing that the cross-serial dependencies in Dulch apparendy -precluded any linsuisticaly satisfying CF-anal)sis, but the Dutchdata could siill be weatly generated by a CFG. Soon after, hov-€ver, rhings changed: Huybregts (1984) convened the Dutch argu-ment hto ar apparently vaiid form; Culy (1985) preserted atrapparently valid demonstration that the African language Bambaiawas not even weakly CF; and Shieber (1985) published hii cele-braled account of the cross-serial dependencies of Swiss Germatr,which is now regarded as the definitive cas€ of a language whichcannot be even w€akly generated by a CFG (Shieber's argudentcontains a minor flaw. noted and reDaired bv Manaster-Ramer(1988) ). A handtul of languages are no; known which are not eveoweakly CF, but, as Gazdar and Pullum (1985) stress, the o!et-wheLning majo.ity of consttuctions in all natual languages can treelegantly and efficiently anelysed in terms of CFGS. See Pullum(1986a, 1987) for an account of ihe history of this issue.

coDtext-free phrase strucaura grarnmar S€e cotrbn-fr€€Srllmmlr.

cortext-fu rule r. (CF-rule) (nore tully, conr€xt-free phns€sFuclure rule, or CF-PS-ruL) l A resrite rule which exDandsexactly one caregory inro an ordered slring of zero or mor; car-egories and for the application of which no environrn€nt is specified.Eranples are lhe rules NP .- Pron, S , NP VP. rv? - V Np Npand NP+

".2. tn the *Titings of Noam Chomsky and his associates,

a re*rite rule which expands exacdy one category into an orderedstring ofone or more dttegories and for the application of which noenvironment is specifi€d. This definition differs from the Dreviousone in e{cluding null productions like the rule Np - e. Cf. context-s€Eitive rule, irnm€diate-donrimnce rul€. Noc: Chomskyt defnirionhd fie b.nefir of histo.iel prionry, bur n n dear rhar ihe Dracri@ of rheAhen€r srtuciualists which Chodsky wa proposing ro fomdiz acrualyrequires rhe 66r dcfnitioni in any .e. rhe fiEt- dennirion is rcw alh6runiveNlly prefered by rh@ linpisrs who Iake phras€ srrucrre rules s€.,io6ly, following Bar-Hillel ., al. (1 1). See Ma06tcrR.mer and Kac (1990)

cotrtext-sensitive graDmar /,konrekst,s€ostttv/ n. (CSc.l(more fully. context-scositive phiase structure grrmmsr, or CSISG) (also tyF r errrulir) A format grammar in which aI of lherules which directly license local subtrees have the form of eitherciii€xtsensitive or conlan-frce rules. In some conceDtions. noCSG is allowed ro conrain any null producrions.

corl€it-sensiaive language a. (CSL) t. A format language gener_8l€d by a context-seNitiv€ grrr||trrr. 2. A natural language whosegrammar can tre adequai€ly repres€nted by such a grammar. Arpresent ir app€ars that the grammars of natural languages do notrequire an]'thing like the full power of contexr_s€nsitive sramma$.al least as far a\ sea|( gebemtive clpacity rs concerneO, tto*ever,srnce at l€ast som€ natural languages are clearly not context,free,there is some interest in defining classes of h;guages which are'mildly context,sensitive', that is, which are generared by granmarswith only a small amounr of context-sensitiviay. Two attemlts at thisare repres€nted b) irdrred grrmEafs and ft+rdjoiniDg grsmErrs.

61

r

aaaa??

context-sensitive rule

a coDtext.s€Dsitive rule r,. (Cs.rute) (more tulty. otracrr.s€trsiriveI P[a"e .tructure .ule. or CS-pS.ruIe) A ]rwrtac rute which expands? exactly one category Into an ordered slring of one oa rnor.

""t-? egones and for lhe applic_arion of which some envircnmenl is speci-a ned. An absrr.rcr e\ample is rhe rul€ A - B C / _ D, m€atriagrg lhal a carcgon A \rhich is rmmediately folowed by rhe caregory 62

@ntinuousQ.2-

can be expanded into the slr ing BC: this rule(.rnn,n heapFl iuJlo 2' . , ( l ( ls5) r i r u tbrmal izar ion withir thc cpSC framework. Keeoaninstances ofA not immediatcly follo$ed hv D Sulh rules are litlle 2- - rt!-tr.

fff'I'Tifr'#"i5ffi:iH#:li:l1;:i::,[':'il:i*;;:: ? ':

("nirorrer ]t:ntreu,:/, I ,]c \p which is rnrerpre,ed as thetle subcrtego.iration f;ame for rhe verh gir? in thcse framcwfiks C :' {hject oi a non-fioite lcrb phrasc in a control strltct{ft See the

*ufJU" r"it"..n,"a ".

V - Itvsl -- NP NP. mcaning that gn? e .7 di\cullion under control (sense t) 2. See governor (sense 3)could b€ repres€nted as v + Srvsl -- r\r \r mcanrns rnnl frr€ ? .

can b€ inscrted into a V nod€ immediat€l! lolloscd h\ tso \Ps o

,. (ontrol strucaure r A slrucr!.e inlohing a non,fiflite Vp and aThe ban on null productions is relaxcd in some conccprion\ Tlc \' .2. (onrrol rerb. suchasl \ unt Lisa tu .!o it or Lisa prcmised to come.interpretation of Cs-rules as local sublrces rcquires some carc: see Cnode edmissibility condition. and see thc di\lulsron rn raneeera/. |

-. (ontrol Theory, fhe nrodule in GB which dcals with cotrhol(1940). Cf. cooiext-fr.e rute. I) lhcnornena. At preseni rhis is rhe least weli-articulated

contlnuous aan'nnjues/ L n. or a(1j. A synonlrn ior p*g'o"i'" : : 'rodulc in rht rrane"ork

(but see the comments under rhat ertry). 2 /,././. Dcnonng a con- 9 ' control verb r. (also Equi rerb, cal€nativ€ ve.b) A verb whichitituenr ororhergrouping rhich isrealizcd on the surface as a single € i' riikcs a ftnlo$ing VP complemenl. such as wont, p.omi.te ot W/-uninrerrupredsequenc€ s, i. lll11i.'1.,i'i";,5*"."'.,.,'.Tll::':.111:1::111,1,111"""-i:i1".e.1

contraction Aan'rrrkln/ n A \rnglc phoaologrcal t" 'o . l : f : C | : ,

.uhl .c. \P.r l lcd PRO. *hose intcrpretat ion is dererArin€d by Ihe' ; ; ; ; j ; ; ;^, .

, ; , , i ; , c I l . I , rnciprc! , , r conrro|I h€ory. con.rcr vcrbs,re convent ionalyresenting a sequence of two or morc separat(wit tnot.she'sfotsheborsheha:aadhealeir"1,,) , '1 i1),"-

g i ' : : th\ i ( t 'c i inro subjel-control verbs l ikc p'omtre whose subject is

^ | .,. Inr..Irr.rcd as rhe subjecr of the fo o$ing Vp. and .objeclcontrol' ' 1 1 '

control /kon'rraul/ n. 1. The phenomenon b\ shich 3 VP comp- r' | -- ..fos iilcr.rrrdd? whosc objoct is interp.eted as the subjecr ofihe

lement with no overt subject is interpreted setnanticallt as having C I L l(nlo$ing VP

some NP a. subjcct. ei ther another NP apPcaf lnS ovenl) 'n tht r L, . , . . , . ,senrence or an arbitrary (unspecilied) NP cl'"t^,ip."."i*" '* g

i l; !'rrrersron /krn r3r5n/ scc ze'o-derivation

panrcul.r l ) imponanl in G8. in uhrch a separarc;odulc rcon'rol C | : ' : . ,x)""u..€nc€ restr ic l ion , |J. .r l r r :ns f l ,srrrkJn/ ' . A uery gen.

Thcor ' ) is posired ro deal qir i r rhem. and rn $hi\h lhc non-olef l e

I . . : . rJr ldh( l l r r , , r \ , i ind,nl imi lalx,nonrhenmuttaneousoccurrenc€

62 coordinata Elrtrcture

subiect is conventionally represented h' r drsrincr emnf\ *"q9tf ! I ,:' r|r a slnlacric ltructurc of two clcrncnrs. with reference eirher to

calfed PRO ExamPles: John promisel vdrr [PRO 'o sd] ,rn whr:l

: I :: Iher. presen.e or ah'cnce or to rheir ftrrms. Some of the principalpRO is controlled by the subject J,'fin t iubjcct-control.) ,

J".!l € a :'l .|i,.\.s ol coorcurrencc restri.rion\ a.e subcategorizition, sg.re-penuoded Mary IPRO ,o 8o]. in which PRO i\ controlled hy llt c. ! .:- menl and Sortrnm€nloulect Ma'y { obj in conrr; l tand IPRO \ ' 'otr ie l ' ' r i \A'd" ' f , in ' |

\ "

which pRO exbibits arbrtrarv conrrol. Tle first two exrmple\ t' ; r,.r coordinate structurc /tar' ':din't/ ' (also conjunction) A s]'ntac'

exhibir .obt i8a(orycontrol ' .cai ledtuncrionalcontrol in,LfC:arbi-S | ' I r ' \ t ructurf in shich t$oormorc const i tuenls ar€ joined ( 'con-

ir"ry *n,.j "nj

.optionat control' (as n she hinkt lPRo 8oir8 t

I')- rr)intd r ir \tlch a sa! lhrl e ach ol rhem has rn equal ctaim to b€

topLsslis fun) arc caledsDrpbortc conlrot in LFG.:. rte phenom- I i

,< ' u\idc'.,I r h.3d oi th:rr slructure. In a typical coordinate struc-

" o dy *$"n oo"

".te8ory in a sentence requires agre€ment oo g : G

rL'rc '|ll ol th. .orij(,rred constitucnts (the codutrcts) are of the

uothcicatesory. _" e ! :. ::.li'':l:il" """';fi,:i:f(:'J$'::";T:iH*J;JJ:*iCootrol Agrtcent hrdple n. (cAP) A Propo!ed '"ilI1 C ! e o\cn exprcs,i()n of the coordinarion. Examples: Maadzto and his

priaciple govcming th. dktribution of agreement ph:*i:11 l': ^ |; t.lh,rets un .tngry tcanjoined NPs) l 1n ragbi, yo u can ru $,irh th.acntcnces. Thc principle may be brieflv and informax! sroreo d t a \' h,|ll krctil pass it (conioined VPs): Ndpoleon suncndarcd andfollows: tunclors may agree with nominal ar8um."t' T.ll'l"jj':,' c ! i. 'tt. rat ,,!\,,r.' t.onjoined ss): L;rd jr \,?n 8/t4u! orrd N,a 'tunctor' required here is somewhar technical. ccL t,azo.rr fla

4._| -_ o .1)ii:) t,l 'karr. tAP excr'ptiona[y conjorned wi$ NP).t l ' o6-: a<

i 'c.-tC-e-

65 cosubordinationCoc|||netc StncOre CoDstrrid @

coordinare stnrcrures are uno.ur_*onrfio;.o'llll ? ',

I;%'f:"H:Tlf']]::;:'ilnt",X::W.""Jt*[i:ix1nunbct of respects; oany theoriesbfgrarnmar posil spe.ial machir_ lL., ii*rr"t",r.o11l.cry to cope witb them. See Payne (1985b). t ..

c@dinrre shu.ure co'stninr ". (csc) rbe phenomcrou by i , "ffiffiffiJ"j""::;:l Tffiiiiiftr#":l,y#Ti'i.'J"iwhicb a c@rdbele stluctrllc is aD !&.d. Morc precisely. a Cepcn- a 1 orin"ipt"s' Th" -n".ption of core grammar has charged over thedency of c€nain sons may not have one cnd inside ooe cooiutrct of a ;eaF; mo6t rec€ntly. ihe lerm has been applied to thos€ aspecls ofcoordirEte structure aod the other eDd outsidc the coordinatc struc_ ?, . gammar regarded as being innate combined with the valuest|lre. For €xa.dpfe, a WHdcpcndency may not(lo!r:.Wha( did e,:- Lign"a to p"o-"t"." in p;rticular languages. Cf. msrked peri.LLra o?dar e and lArry o ercd chkked Kashm ? AcG-.L€-bo.rd ; .-.; phcry. chocky O9?7.).PbcDometre co'$iiltc e systeoatic class of ercePtions to thc csc.

I . " ao""oaes"oaStionrl Grammar /,kdrreprzetr,rerJrnl/ n. ARo'! oebT) !'' . d""T-ili-?p.Jp"I"a rv vi"i".iii* (lsqs). Much as incoqio|tctlor Aeu'rrdrDertq/ n. The traditionat C- t " Lfc, *" iy"t.- piovides two distinct and specialized rePresen-

terln fot whal is nol{ usually called simply a coqiucioo (sense l). C - i i. tarions of the syntactic structure ol a s€ntence, one showing the

.dE hrtrD ,t {t -rrrr,n-,rnl ordinary constituent structure, the other showing vaious q'pes ofceordlrtbr ^e,,.:di'rcrJl/ a. The linkiDs or rc/o or more t9- i; :::::?,ff;ffi;H:ffi';;ii-*;;#,tii;#;.''fi;;iclcmert! as coniuncts in a ooordhrte sEtrctult. -

|.-C I i; introduction is given in Kac (1980)

WiffiT,iit.Iry'#iiTl'l'.',yif_i!!,trS:iJ-j : i;i y-n,#:u;Xitff;\"it",TJ,J"i,H.::i',**::i?ptedllat!-whicfi either is identified with the subiect or characterizes C i 1i uuu a Pdrulur4rtrrc subi,cl; an example is Engrish Da h rira ir i;;;;;;;il; ; | , a

writtetr texts' which is available for analvsis'

my claiellt friend.2.'Sonretimls, by cxtension, a qursi.copots. ,4dj. : | ): corr€lstive /kr'relatN/ ,..1. One of a pair of items expressing anmy claseit friend.2. Sofiretimes, by cxtension, a qursi.coDota. ,{dj. I I )^ correlative /kr'relatN/ r. 1. One ofa pair of items expressing ancrylrr ot coFfrdre. e ; i: equrtive consrrucrion, such as Engiish ar. ..ot,asnaay.. as.2

coFhr setrtcrct /tDpiute/ r. A scoteoce consistiog ot , oo* C | 1! h traditional grammar' a generic terqr for demonstratives inter-

prnsccombin€d*ith'"p,"ai""r"uy-"fi"TTSr"",lii""liH e-! ,: ,:f::,:tr:"i:"H::;llf,iil#l3li;lijffi',i?Jjii;7?,;.Uto is a /',,r,6lslor, -. I ,-

coeubdvcco'pourd/'kopjoretrv/ s€cdvrDdu. il .? T#jh*T.:.:TiX"H#:i:,:':T:"*t'""f:"*il;coptlnS Lp8{rge /kDpirg/ r. A formal letrguage ax of flho6€ €+ ,- markeat, the relaiive clause by a wH-item and the main clause by a

ecieJ.o ti"" ile form_ ivw, where w i. itv-"t ing. copving Il ^ demonstrative, the whgle thus being characterized by a structure

Lrgu.86 caDnot, in gen"rd, U" *""Uy g"ii;;a Uy,irari-t"i' ! I ! abng the [nes of'which one . . that one' An example f'om

grlnh.rs, s hct shicl has signiicant coniequences for tbe aralysis S- ,a cujerati:of r.dt|[&; s€e, for exaftple, Culy (1985). S-! a [re dhobii maarii saa6e aavyo] r DaakTarno bhaaii che

gC lkatl n,l. ln somc functional anal)ses of clausc structure. ttar gJ 3 which washerman me with came that doctor's brothel is

part of a clause repres€nted by the arguments required by the lI - 'The washerman who came with me is the doctor's brother"

valcrcy of the v€rb, the subcategorized arguments pltrs .he subject. : f : Cf. r4ioiD€d rdrrtiye .t|o!.. Modifcarion of '@rcrative', Alery Andt€e,sScc by.rlrf (s€ns€ 1). 2. See core gra[mrr.

fi a (unplblish€d *ork); Do,,ni!8 (1c74).

Coftf,creooe /tdr're&.ns/ n. The relation which obtains bctweeo s- ? cqubordination /,koosabcrdr,nerjd n. Any of various ways ofti,o -Nh (trsudly two NI's in a single sentenc€) both of which G{

"

combining claus€s which appear to be syntactically intermediate8. i|n rprctcd as refer.ing.o the same exlralinguistic .nttv. tn

i _.,,1 !- l

+

cormler-agent

counting grammar / ko.'ntn/ /l. A format granmar which per-mits the staiement of rules and pnnciples in\ohing e\pticil refer-ence to some numbcr of calegorie.t or boundarics greatcr thanone. For example. a sratemcnt thar some dependencv can holdover a maxrmum of two clause boundaries. or a rul€ referring tothe third daughter of some node, could ooly be formularcd in acounting grammar. The grammars of narural languagcs seemnevet to .equ're such slatements. and no contemporary lheory oiF':ammar explicitly pc.mits rhem Sec Bcrqick 98?) for some

crods-categorizstioD

count noun /koonl/ n A noun whose meaning is perceived to be acountable cntit) rnd rhich can be tueely pllurelizf,.d. book, dry,,riva&e. ( f. mass noun.

CP /si: pi;/ r. In Gts. the usual abbreviation for the maximal proiec-1i{rn of the lexical ca(egory Complementizer, identified in thatframe!ork with the catcelory S-bar. Ifthe GB framework werc everto be tormalized as a generatilc granmar using the re\*'rite ruletbrmat. CP \ ould presumably be lhe inltial symbol. Cf. IP.

cmnberry morpheme l'krcDbri/ n. l. An apparent morPheme ofno discernible intrinsic meaning which serves, sometimes in aunique instance. to distinguish mearingl the classic examPle is theUun ot trunben',.2. B! extension, a morph, usually of Latinorigin, which occurs in a nrmber of apparently relaied words anddppcan to be a morphcme but which has no idcntifiable meaning,such as thc -/er of /e/er. prcfer. &nfet. defe\ truNJeL

cross-categorial generalization / krDsk€t!'gr:riel/ n. A gener-alization which applics to Inor. Ihan one lexicaa category or to one-bar or maximal projcctions of more than one lexical catcgory. Forerirmple. both verbs and preposilions in English. but not nouns andadjccti\cs. permit following N'-P complements which must stand inthc obiecti\e casc. Many lersions of the X-bar system attemPt to

f ' ,* iL l( nn thi . b\ decompujnp l , \ rcalciregonc' int , ' more pr imir i !e clcmenls, thc most usual such elemcnts bcing cal ted'substan(nc (or 'nomioal ) and predical ive . teprescnted as binary features

IN] and IVl. respcctnclf (the Platoristic fea.ures). This decomposi-tion- Iirst proposed by Clhomsky in unpublished work in 1974,effecti\eh reduce! all s!ntactic calcgorics to mere subcategories ofa single catcgor!. It has. bowevcr. prored to bc one of the lesssucccssful aspecrs of thc X bar system. Cf. cross-categorizntion.

cross-categorization /,krcskergarar'zerjn/ n. (ako cro6s-clrssification) fhe phenomenon by which thc syntactic categorieswhich can appe.rr as nodes in trees are simultaneously subjcct togeneralizarions $hich indcpendcntly cut across them in such a wayas to pick out diflcrent subclasscs. For example. the verb rar,inS inLisa is trushine rer.ar is simultaneously a transitive verb and an'trg participle: it is therefore subjecl t() all generalizations abuttransitive vcrbs. whethcr or nol they arc -in8 participlcs, and also toall gencralizarions about 'tng participlcs. wherher or oot they arerr. ,nr.r iv, rerh\. ( ror, (alegori / r t ion phenomena are pervasive iDsynla\ and are rhe pnncipal motivation for the use of slntactic

z-z,2?t?etecgecgIcceeee

6766

between coordrnarion and subordinarion. E\amptrs includc claus€chainirg, verb serializarion isce s€rial yerb construciion) ind rheuse of s*itch,r€I€.encc svstcms. ()t$n (t9ril): Fotcv ud Vr. v?ii!( 1984)

counter-agent /'kourt.r erd3.nt/ , ()ne of rhe dctp cases recoS_nized in some ve.sions of Ca\c cranmar. rcprcsenting ihe force oragency againsr which an action is carrjcd oui. ,uch a\ th? enent ii)She swam against lt.wrcn!.

counterexample /'kountang zo:mpu n. Any darum whjch.sup€rficiaily al least, appears ro be in€onsisrcnt wj!h some proposedgrammatjcal rule or principlc. and which might rbcreforc bc in.er-preted !s casting doubt on ic laljdity. Chomsk! has repcaredhstressed that the mere e\istcnce of ruch a darum does not in irseifconst i tute a counrerexamplc. but rarher rhat onlv some panicutarpropo$d analysis of il can be regarded as a counrerexamptc: thisargument rs reasonablc enough in principtc. but many tioguisrswould claim that at leasl somc dara are so blatantlv problematic rhatrt ls not unreasonablc ro regard rhem as pina fuci. cotJnrercxam_ples. It should also be pointed our that thc di\jding line bct\recncounterexamplcs and exceptions (irrcgulantics) is far irom ctcar: noone doubts the val idir l of lhe.ulc shich sals thar Engt ish nounsform thcir plufal by adding -.r. in spirc of rhc existence of a numberof exccptions like nr,. rleep and fr.rr6; ihcse arc noi regarded 3scounlerexamples. Most linguins aR' comparrri\et\ reluctant. how-ever, b admil !he existencc of mere exceptions ro pu.civ syntacricrules or principlcs.

counterfactual /,kounte fakrjuai/ ,l. or d.t. Scc rhe dis,'ussionunder conditional s€nrrnce.

ii\'

\a

;!

crossed depetdercy

f€{tures and for the representation of syntactic categories as co@_pl€x stmbols. The importance of cross-categorization was first elDli-ol ly nored b) Bloornield (1913).

cr0ored-dependeDcy ArDst/ Se€ ctG-serial depedd€nci.

crGover ph€t|orIena /'krDsarve fe,nDmrna/ r. pl A superficiallvdivefie s€r of phenomena of which the fouowing are exrnpies, wtrc;these are regard€d as consrjruring a unified ser of facts. Obs€we &at 1cx' nysef is well-formed, while the corr€sponding passive r,I lear c/,) rnFef is (according to some) ill-formed. Observe atso thai g4@,satd Liea kbsed hi4? is weu-formed. *hile *l77rq did hei say Lilokirsdd? is il-formed. Postal (191) propo6€n thar rhese and other fadswere examples of a general constraint *hich lle called the ClmttfCoffisinl, by which no NP can cross a corcfercntial Np dudns thederivation of a s€nrence (he was, of cou e. working within rheframework of TG, in which just such cro6sovers would have beeninvolved in the derivation of the i -formed exampl€s). In cB, mo6tc-rossover violations (including thce above) ar€ excluded automati-cafly by the principles of Binding Theory, though soire arc Dot. SeesEo|ry crcover, wesk crNover.

cross-scrld dependency /,kros'steriey n. A dependency irvolv-ing pairs of items exhibiting the following general pattem:

cl

striking evidenc€ available that at least some naruml Iaoquaqes arcnot conrert l ree. See Shreber (1S85, for di .cuscion. ar. ;daddepend€ncy.

CSC Se€ Coordinate Structure Constraitrr.

CSG See conaext-s€nsitive grammar.

CSL See cotrtext-sersitive lhgusge.

CS-PSG Sce context-s€nsitive grammar.

CS-PS-rule See contexisensitive rute.

Cs-rule S€e conen-sensitive rule.

c-structure /'si; str ktja/ n. In LFG, one of the two struch{eswhich together constitute the syntactic r€pr€sentation of a sentence.C-structure is represented as a constituent structure tree of thefaniliar sort. Cf. f-strucaure.

cumulative exponence /,kju:mjulotF/ n. In moryhology, the sys-tematic realization of two or more grammatical calego;is Uy singeunanalysable morphs. For example, in tbe iDflecti;n of nouns-inLatin and in Russian, the catego.ies case and number are regularlyexp.cssed by such moehs, so thar rhe genitive plu.al, for instance,bears no resemblance either ro the genitive singr ar or to the dativeplural. Cf. overlspping erponence, frx€d exponencc. M.nhri6{1974).

cotly brackets /,brti ,brakfis/ See braccs.

cycle /'sarky r'. 1. See transformationat cycle. 2. Any particutarsingle application of the transformarional cycle to a cyciijaomain.

cyclic dobaitr /srlhk/ r. Any subrree which is regarded as form_rng rne domarn tor asingte application ol rhe aransformErional clcle.A rycljc domain is alsays dominated b' a cyclic node.

cyclic node n. Any node in a tree which belongs to one of c€naincare€ories whose domajns are designated as cyctic domaiff for tleaPp!.cabon of rhe EaDs{omrationat cyclc. Mosr usuall}. the nodes Sand NP are designared a( cyctic nodes. lhough orh;r suggeslions

69

rI

cc

68

B 1

a--,

t,t ,t-4,, I. l- t

",i

cyclic node

An example is the pattem exhibited ir subordinate clauses in SwissGerman, in which a sequence of object NPs is followed by asequence of the verbs goveming those NPs in marching order, eacbNP assuming the case folm required by its verb (Shieber 1985):

Jan sait das mer d'chind

C2

em Hans es huusJan sals that we therhildren-A€c the llans-Dat the-house-Acclond hdiJe aasuircheIet help pain!'Jan sals that we let the children help Hans paint the hous€.'

Such dependencies are interesting, because it can be proved thatunlimited cross-serial dependencies cannot be even weakly gener.ated by a context-free grammar; hence they provide rhe most

B2

??2

e-c-e'e,c-eae-eccceecc

! t

!i

ir

\.

Gs.

a.'

11 Daughter.Depende[cy GraDlnar

D S€e dcierDiner.

DAG /dEgl See dirrct€d rcycltc graPh.

dsngli4 particiPle /'dslgltD/ n. A Frticiple whicb lacks ao NP

t" "f,i.l

it ca" refer or *hich is s€parated from $at NP by othcr

materiaf. Exafiples are I Having sad that.] therc's anorhcr intcrprct'

arion and I Drivinl down tlv hiShwot.l a dog leaPt out in front o[ ne '

Oanptins Darticiplcs ate vigorously condemned by ptescriPtivista

and ire -usually

regarded as iI-form€d by linFists but they are lar

hom rare in sp€€ch.

data /'deta/, rarely /'d&tel or I'dor:3l n- Pt ot t l Traditiofi y,

anal still Ior mo6t lidgursts, a corpus of uttemnces or wdtten texts

Droduced bv native ipeakers. with respect io whicb a proposed

sam-aticai descripti;o should b€ evalualed 2 lo lh€ iew of

ioam C:tromsky and his associates. fte intuitions which Mtive

speuten hute a;out tneir latrglage, Particularly about which srrings

J'o o. ao .tot correspold to weil-fomred sentences; in this view'

accountinc for thes€ intuitions is a primary goai ot lioguistic inves!-

cation. T;e use of such inruilions as dala has tteeo s€verely cnh'

izrJ Uv oanv lineuitts on a number of grounds' most notably on

,rt" L.i-a,ri", th-e irruitions rePoned by sP€akers do not always

conlspond to their observed usage: see kbov (1975) for os_

cussiol. lm: naOtiouatlv tbe fom drr' is Plural stb singdat d'tom but

ir .""ft -"..p".- *"g., dit! is an itvdiable IjlN nou (s i! 'Th; d'ata is

intere.stitrg), dd $e @ enient sinSular der@ nst be r€Placed W son€

crdE ocltioD sucb as 'Piec€ ofdatt

dative /'dertlv/ a. ot adj l. A case form $?ica y indicatitg the

individual who is lhe reoPient of an action: Basque n"sl4a'torn,€

sirl' (teska 'the glrl l in Neskati eman dior 'l gave it to the gln '_Datiue

fo.ms arJfrequently also us€d iD a wider sense; see elhlc

-**"tt-.2. Denoling a grammatical panern in which dirtc'l

obiecb are distincuished ftom iDdirec{ obj€cls as opPos€d to p'l-

-iry oti*t. ftoi s€cotrdsrv objecrs Cf dechtic-a€tistiYe s€ns' 2:

Blansitt {1984).

drtive shift {rft/ n. (also d.tive movemert) The pbenomenor bywhich an underlying dative (indirect obie€t) is rcalized as a dircclobject, tle unde.lying direct object being reatized as some kind ofperipheral element. Dative sbift is common in EDgish, as illutratedby the pair 1 seht tha books to Lball sent Lisa the Dootr, the seaondform showing dative shift. In languages with richer morphology,dativ€ shift is often explicitly marked by an spplcrdve vcrb formand/or by altereal case marking on the two Nps. Occssiodally theterm 'dative shif is extended to applicilive constru€Iions genefilly.

dative srbj€t coDsEuct&xr n. (also afiedve coeocdd) A e@-stnrction occurring in some langirages iD which aD arimatc NP, usurlvan Exp€riencer. appears ovenly in rhe dative (or a.notber obliquelcas€, while anothei NP 4rp€ars in ihe fontr usually associated *ithsubjects. An example is the Bas.IE Joni liburrd ahazat zarlo .Jobn basforgotten the book', litel:ly 'The book ba6 forgotte! to Jobn,, trtere,lon Tohn' stands in the dative case and lr-rrrua .the book' stalds in iheordinary subject cas€. Dative subjecls in some laquages may erhibitat least some of the q?ical p.operties of suu€ct5 lbted i.n Kecn n(196a) in spite of rheir overr obtique markirg.

daughter /'dr:tel n. A particular retationship which Esy hold be-tween two nodes in a tree. If a node A immediatelv doeimtef adistincr node B. lben B is a daughrer of A. Cf. mothei, a"*uoA.or.

daughter-adjunction n. A tl?e of adjlmctirn in \rhich the movinrcategory becomes rhe daught€r of atr existiDg oode wilhout becom:rng the sister of any node. The following abstract example shows thenode D being daughter-adjoined to rhe node C:.

Ac+Bc, / \ | |DEED

Daughter-adjunciion has rarely been used in genentive grammar.

Daughter-Depeldelcy Gremmer n. (DDG) A,theory of gram-mar comolrung conventional coostituent st ucture with dereodeDcvrelations. Nodes are coopler slmbob bearing both categorial anid€peodency featwes; rcpresentatiot!! &re moDoshatal, witlr verticatarcs expressing constifuent relatiorJ eod horimntal arcs cxprc6singde?endency reladons. DDG was proposed ry nichara UuOrcir lvlo): rn spile ot rs ob ous appeal, the framework has beeD litde

72

e--cI

)

eeee

ccIcceceeeeeeccC€

IcIc-C'c-e-e-

'73 defsult

classes, as in Latin or Russian, 3, One ofthe declensional classes ofnouns in languages exhibiting several such classes, such as thetraditional five declensions of Latin nouns.

deep cas€ /di:p/ n. In Cas€ Grammar, any one of a set of s€mrDti.roles which are taken as the fundamental grammatical primitives interms of which sentences 4re cons::,-:aied. The list of deep casesrecognized varies considerably from one presentation to another, asdo the labels used; a fairly comprehensive list might include Agent,Patient, Theme. Experiencer, Goal, Recipient, Counter'Agent,Source, Path, Instrument, Result, Place, Time and Event. Theassignment of particular NPs to particular deep cases is a matter ofcoosiderable controversy, and can often seem somewhat arbitrary:in an example like Lisa f ed the bucket with *,aw, the NP thebucfter might be variously analysed as a Patient, a Place or a Goal,or perhaps even an Instrum€nt, and similar uncertainty surrounds,dt€r. Deep cases also ptay a part in vanous contemporary theo.iesof grammar, such as in kxicase, and also in GB, where they areknown as thetr rol€s.

deep structuie ldiryl n. In most versions of TransfonnsdonslGrammar, that representatioo of the structure of a sentence whichis most remote from the surface and which is the structure directlygenerated by the rules of the base (s€nse 4), the phrrs€ stluctul€rules or cat€gorial rules, with lexical it€ms inseded. Deep structurcsse.ve as input to all the other components of the ftamework,particularly to the tran5fo.mations. In GB, the equivalent structureis called D-structure. In TG. GB and various other d€rivstiondtheorics, the sarne or a similar level of structurc is also variouslycalled the base structnre, the initial structure, the rcmot€ structureor the underlying structure.

default /dr'ftr:lt/ n. In a formal grammar employing features, avalu€ whidi is artomatically assigned to some feature by the frame-work whenever no other value is required by some statem€nt in thegrammar- Th€ default value of a featur€ typically represents thatvalue which is most frequent or least marked in the language. Forexample. the feature IPERSON] is often assigned the default value[3]. since the vast rnajority of noun phrases in all languages are thirdperson; doing this means that only the minority of non-third-personcategories need be sp€cilically marked. The use of such defaultvalues can greatly iedLrce th€ number of specilic individual state-m€nts which have to be made in the erammar-

DCFL

developed, and its author has abandoned it in favour of the purelydependency-based approacb Word Gmmm.r. See Schachter (1980)for an inffoduction.

DCFL See dct€rministic cont€xt-fre€ latrguge.

DCG See defiaite clause grammar.

DDG see Dsughhr-Depend€ncJ Gr3mmsr'

dechticaetiative /dektr'si:tietw/ adj. Denorlr'tg a grammaticalpattem in which primary objerts are distinguished from s€codsryobjectr, mt}ler than dir€ct objects from indircct obj€cts. Cf. dativc(sense 2). BlaNiit (1984).

decldability /d6alde blld/ n. 1. A Property of a fonnal grammarfor *hicb a mechanical procedure exists that will determine in everyca3€ c,hether an arbitrary string is or is not a membs of thelanguage d€fined by the grammar. Almost all classes of fo.malIanguages are decidable in this sense, though ihe rccursively.ooD.nble hnguages a.e not. 2. Any similar proPefy of a formalgrammar, or of a class of formal grammars, involving the answer to

so.[e question about the language(s) defined by t]e grammar(s)

See Panee sl dl. (190) for a summary of the decidability propertres

of foinal gradmars.

iltclslon procedure /dl'sr34 prarr,si:d3a/ r. An explicit mechan-

ical procedute for deciding whether some ptoPos€cl gradmar rcr a

corpus of data is in fact the best possible gfammar- Cf. discovert

Fwdurc, evrlustiod proc€durc' Chotrkv (1957).

doclrrrdve /dl'klEre!\l adi. Glso indicative) The mood category

a$ociated with the uttering of a statement which the speaker be_

licves to be true. The dechrltive is the least marked of aI the mood

cstegories, and in most languages it is express€d by constructrons

and;rb foms which carry no oven marking of mood, all other

dbtinctions of mood b€ing ovenly marked in some way See Palmer(1 ) for discussion.

daclctdor /dltlenJd /r. 1. The inflection of a noun, pronoun'

adjeltive or noun phras€ for cts. in languages exiibiting cas€

dbtioctioDs. Such an item is said lo deditrc (i e in8ect for cas€) 2

A comDlcte set of the cas€ forms of such an item, representing the

infcclional behar'tour ot th€ class it b€longs to A cas€ langllage

nay bav€ only ooe sucb class, as in Baque. itr which virlualy all

NPs are ioie,cfed identically, or it may have several distinct such

C:

def,ccdve

dd'3{'laa ldlte1lrr odj. Denoting a lexical iteD which lacks sooeof thc gramDatical forms typicaly exhibited by members of its class.In English, for example, the verb bewrre has no finitc forms and tbemodal m6t has no past tense; in Russiar, certain verbs lack a flst-palson singular form; in Basque, the verb -io- 'say' has tro non-fniteforms: iD ktin, the noun vir'force'bas no gcDitive or dati\,e cascforms, and the noun ratu 'by binh' has no forDs at all apan ftomlhc ablative singular.

dtfDlt€ /'deftni/ adr'. Denoting a noun phrase which refe.s torome particular entity or entities and whose refereoce is se€n asclearly established, or clearly establishable from the lhguiltic orextrahnguistrc context. Definite NPs are often divided hto proFroames, such as Lira or Parrr, and definite descriptions, such as rrtnzw teacher, my mother, that dog and the gkl you ttcr..talking to. c.lndefnlte.

deftrit€ a$ich r. A coDventional label for a detarDincr mosttypicrly (though not nec€ssarily exclusively) us€d in a noutr phrar€vhose r€ferent is assumed to be readily identmable by the addr€s-s€e, such as English rhe. Cf. lDdefnit .rddc.

deffnite clauce grammar n. (lrcc) In computational linguistics,atr implementation of a context-free grarnmar within a declarativc6ystem, such as PROLOG. P.rcira dd wden (19$).

degrce /dlgri:/ r. (also grrd€) The graflinatical category by wffc}adjectives and adv€rbs vary in form to express th€ presence of theirassociated characteristics to a greater or lesser extent, as illustratedby biglbiqge bigg?st And sloteltlmore slov ylnos. rrorrt. Futhcrdistioctions along the same dimension may b€ express€d lexicaly byd€g€e modifers, as in very big and rather slowly.

degree modifier n. (also inteDsifer) A lerical category, or a mem-ber of this category, whose memb€n typically fuction as modifiersof an adjective or adverb and express ihe degree to which rhequality express€d by that item is present. Examples include vetr,too, so, rorhq , quirc, lairy aind exverncly , as in very slow, too slov',etc. N@: &gr! modi6..s *ec ailigred by traditional gammdiaE to lb.c.tcSory AdE ! but thcy ate mw oomdly legardcd by lin8uists d @lltitut-irf r rtrddddsy, ftouSh nray|t?ut bL didion&i€s and rcnboob dainthc ol&r h!.1.

delctic pcitb|t

deictic /'darktru rr, (also indedcal) Any lexical or gndrmaticalitem $,hich serves to exprcss a distinction wiihin a ffi catagoit,such :]s a pe$onal plonoun, a demonstrative, a tense markitg ol anadverb hhe here aad ,hen.

detctic crtcgory r. Any greDn"ticrl ellSory which s€rv€s toexDress distitrctioDs in terms of orientation within the irnmediateco;Ext of atr utleranc€. Deidic cat€Sories are thos€ vrhich matecrucial refercnc€ to such faclors as the time or place of speaking orthe idetrtity or location of the speaker, the addtess€€ or othcr€ntities. Ahong the most ftequeDt deictic categories ate Pertotr,fa$e a d{i.fic pcitioo.

deictic positioD r. A glatnmatical category occurring in perhaFall laDguages wbich serves to express distinctions of .eferenc€,partic'liarly with respect to location. D€ictic slstems are almostalwa's egoceDtric - that is, they express locatiotr primarily withreference to the speaker, though they Day secondarily includerefererce to the addressee or to other entities. Deictic systemsalways include referenc€ to distance, though they may also involv€reference to other dimensions, such as direction, visibility, size,motion or previous nention. English has a sidple tx/o-way @n-trast betweea tbe trotions 'near the speaker' (r"re, ,rris) and 'asry

ftom the speaker' (theft, t'/'t). Spanish exhibits a three-way con-fast between 'near the speaker' (aqut 'herc', este 'this'), 'a littlell/ay ftom the sp€aker' (arrI '(iuso there', .s.'that (iusr theic)')and 'far ftom the speaker' (a i'(over) there', agu€I 'that (ovcrthere)'). In contrast, the three Japanes€ demonstrativcs loro,\sono and ano have the respective meanings 'this (ncar thcspeaker)', 'that (near the addressee)' aod 'that (away fioo both)'.Malagasy has a remarkable s€ven-term system which exclusivclyexpress€s differing degrees of distanc€ ftom the speaker, plu! ch'boratiohs involving visibility and other facto.s. The Aust eliao Lr-guage Dyirbal shows a rich deictic system involving soch tettrn ali&)i 'short distance lupwa ', data'medium distarce upward',dayr 'long dislance \pwafi', balbala'medrum disterce dowD-iver', balbalu'long distatrc€ downriver' and gtl4 'acro3s tbrriver', among others. The most elaborate dciclic system! tnownare those of Eskimo and Aleut, which iocludo doze8 ol tcrmsexpressing such specific notions as 'that lerSe ol moving onc wayup therc', 'that one outside, ody pady visiblc' ad 'th!l lDall orcgoing away ftom the spcaker'.

a-?--a-a-Q.a,e,e,e-c-c-ccccccceeccceetC9-e-'

€-

e-€ir,c:

74 75

ana\r'

\'

\a\.

\.

d

qz1

te rL- i

e-e,e-e-e,?'?ra'c-c-G-cc

ece*i5

lt

{

77 dep€ndency heed€|is

deixis /'darksrs/ n. Reference by a ierm forming part of a system€xpressing a dektic category: you. noh', therc. thit or a past-tensemark6r. edj. d€lctic. See Anderson and Keenan (1985).

deletioo /dl'li:J4/ n. 1. Any putative process which, in a d€rih-tfuDd theory of gmmmar, removes some overt-material from as€ntence. Deletion processes were widely invoked in the StandardTheory of TG, 8nd w€re the principal cause of the enoifious powerof that framework, as demonstraled by lhe Peter6-Ritchh rc$lts.In the more rec€n( descendants of that framewort. deletion oper-ations have been increasingly constrained. but are still present. Inc{rrent versions of GB, certain deletion processes are permitled toapply between S-structure and LF. 2. By €xtension, a conventionallabel for any construction in which some material required forsemantic interpretation is not overtly pres€nt. even in analys€s andfuameworks in which no deletion operation is pmpos€d or p€rmitted, as in comparslive deletion or unspecified object dclciioD. y.

&lete /dr'li:t/.

ddctlon rDder identity /^nder al'deotlti/ n. A name sometimesgiven to instanc€s of ellipGis in which the elided material is identicalto other overt material in the sentence. as in a,ia doesnl want to 8o,but JMd does, wllP-re the continuation . . . pant to 80 is said lo b€dcleled under identity. See also sloppy id€ntity.

deDolshative /dr'mDnstrctlv/ n. A deteminer with a clear deic-tic function, such as tfi;r or tfta, in English.

demotl,on /dr'meuJn/ 't. ln RG, any pr@ess in which a claus€ isrestruclured so as to move some NP into a lower-ranking Positiolon the Relsdorrt Hierarchy, such as the demotion of an underlingsubject to an oblique NP in passivization. The term is also some-times used in a loose desciptive s€nse in frameworks in u,hich it hasno theoretical status.

&DomiDd /dl'nDmlnl/ ddr. In word formation, denoting a lexicalitcm of another class derived from a noun or a nominal stem Fole'[mpb, ,nounaainous is a denominal adjeclive derived ftom the

dodc ddity /di'DnlIU n- The area of mood conce.ned $'ithp.rEi|.in, obliSation and prohibition. Cf. epidemic modtlity.

dependency /dr pendrnsr/ /]. L Any relaLion belween rwo ele_menrs or pos rons In a s€ntence by which the presence. ab,s€n€e orrorm or an etement In one position is correlated with the presence.absence or form of another element in another position. T)?icalexamples include agreement. govemmcnt and fflt"r_grp a.p"'oi*-ci€s such as topicrtization and WH_Movertrena. nepenaencies areconvcnientl) divrded into tocal depend€nci8 and unboud€ddependenci€s. d'ctinguished by rhe domain wirhin whrch rhe depen_!:*l!:,0)

Tle exisrenc€ of dependen.ies tn narurut tangurgii i.on€ oJ th€ two pnncipal reasons that very simple rheories-ofg-ram-mar. such as regutar graflmars or unelaborared versions ofcontcxt-fre€ gammals, are inadequate for th€ characterization of naturallangxages. rhe orher reason being the existenc€ of btcr-sctrtaDcemlanons. L ln depend€ncy grarnmars. a panicular sorl of relationoet$een twJ words in a sentence. b) which one of rhem is linked torne synlaclrc strucrure of lhe sentence as a whole solely by itsconnecrion with the other one; th€ firsr is said to be aepenaent onrhe second. In these frame\rorks. th€ syntacric structu;e ot a sen_rence rs seen as consisring pnmant! of such dependencies.

dep€ideocy giammar r. An approach ro grammahc_at descriplionwnrcn ts Dased. not on const(uenr \tnrcture. bu( on relationi be_r$een indiv 'duat words. Dep€ndenc' gramma,s rypica y tunct ion inrermr ot rhe <ubcaregorization requiremenK of wordi, and oftenarracn -constdfrabte imponance lo grammatical relalions; lhe exisGcnce_o-l consrrtuent strucrure is usually denied In talour of principtes

or rrneanzatron apptying ro words. senrence \ tructure is usualtyrepre\enred in rerms otdependem) tre6 The firsr fUlly anicularei

: : l , r : i ln.*:1r wa5 rhar.of Tesnibre ( le5er: rhe mosi recenr pro.

torar ro^u\c the name .dependency Srammaa is lhat ot Mel:euk

r r".d, leflarn other currenl theorres of gtamfiar are also versionsoI aePendcnc) grammar. \uch as Word Crammar and Lexicrs€.

eeeee

IIIII

It I r' { o) rruru ufir|rnfi ano LexrcasE.

€-i i aenenAencj. tree ,. tn a dep€trdency gramnar. lhe graphicalC i ; ,1.1* *t lch ir rhc usuat meani or repres{nrrns synracric srrucrure.

: j : i:j:lj:rdft:.):f :j.i :u' ;i* ::;::lill,,",*lC- j : :ryi10,,. lhe node on *hich r, r. ,'nln.al,i"iy i"p."a'", liiiii

: I : [{i.,iii:n: ffi .:iffi,:.,;.:i:"TfiH,,:t"","#1'#l:;F - . ' : ' r .y : ::^l: l: :.:epcndency nee for ihe sentence rhe Torireirapped rheC_ ? r ehtcncd bkrytat hehind th" hoLre

t* ,:

depend€nt marking

behind

II

II

d|€

e-c-e-2-c-e,e,eee-e,

78

burglar

rhe ftighl€ned

police

II

the

(t

(t

{

-

a7?,

descriptive$hich^ th-e- syntactrc.structure of a sentcnce ts represented as an

:ji"'J:i:;:"lffi j j"&]":if :f llf; '??tI..:.y,11*:l* joDjccrs rn th€ sequence are distinguished as b€iDg of special signin_.:i:,

ll. d:q ('niriar. urdertying) strucrure. which is rhe

-mosr

;:';T,'il1,:,:JiiJ:i:?':$?:;'1,.",*.,:"",* .tructure. whjch is

"aai'i.""rr.,.r".i,ip."..:""ffi ;]"^l"J:J".'".fl i#'*"ifl fnor De drstrnguishcd as sp€cially significant. The besr_known deriva_ttonat theones of grammar are Trrnjformationsl Gramfis. andcorernm€nt-Binding TheorJ. rhough orhers ehst.derivatioDal conshaint ||. (also qtobrt cr

l:.ll:1111". ,heoo _or srammar. a """,,*TlI,J;,lilT i,j,",l"l\uccessrve tevels of repres€ntation. Abs€nt from the Slandard,"i::? -.i19. q:ll:,"r.nat consrrainrs were introauced uy r_akorf

i:i:11:ilr:illi:1,*11LIH:::,Tfifi ';:'i:H.;itii,,ii"'*"*il*::t;: ;T,*ffi.i':tr;JJ.1Ti*rlsynlactrc-represenration to .remember, what has l"pp"n"j

"i "rrfi"istages of a derivation, and hence derivationat _i",."iri, ar"'i"some sens€ a part of GB.derivational morpholog/ r. {atso t€xicat morphotos,) Tbarbranch of morphotogy dealing wirh *ord forrnad;, p;icu;;j""J,loii*n*t"'t, with derivation {sense l ). cr. btrecdotri

1T*dp! /dr,senden/ 'l. A relarion which may hold berweenrwo nodes in a tre-e. Ifa node A dominates a distinct node B, then trs a d€scendanr of A. Cf. aft:tstor, daughter.dgscripfive /dr'sknprrv/ ad_/.. 1 Denorinin r ransi r ive ) *,ro .i, p.. jia,..," JJ""#t" j,:]fr . ;l"l"Jy"lrerat|ons, and somerim€s atso perceptions. rather than.actioni or

*:: *i':i^l,:ffi ru';;:;,Y ;ru*:j*rj#::::fjes are rhos€.wirh sucrr rnean;ngs as .ue 6r'a:oe-ra-i..";f#::i€ cousrns- ard .hear. A grnmmitica y distincti"e class of oe#p

F.,,i.Ij.r'::lij:il,,'i"T:B*s,ffi :ff r*{T*";#i.ra.l*ll"; 91,:. often prefefted ror tabefuns a rormalty dbrincr''drs. wnrle rhe ta(er term is ofien preferred to; den",;"g ,,*rn""ril

dependent marking /dr'pend.nt .molkrg/ , fte g"--*"af !p;[em in which the relalion bet$een a head and a deP€ndent ofthe I

iead is morphokgcally marked on the dePendent tatbet than otr C ;the head, E\amples include the martlng ol a possesslve relaDon on -the poss€ssor. ra(her ihan on the poss€.ss€d. atrd the nta*ing of e

Ierammatical relalions by case forms on atgument NPs' relher thao e i-br

markrne on the verb Dependent marking is sometimes regarded 4 |ai a tvooloeical characteristic of languages erhibiaing il. Cf. h"d 9

|ns"king. and see Nichols (l98b) for discussion vd varu (19E5) e i

depcndent verb See medirl vcrb e I

deDonenl verb /dr'p$n)nr/ n. l ln the Srammar of Larin. a verb (e I

u,lich exhib'ls exclusively passive morPholo$, but whicb tunsions e I

as an active verb. \uch as lti u5€" /oqd'speal('or podin'orvoe'z' - |A label occrsionally us€d lo denote any class of verbs n ryme

L I

language whos€ morPhology is at odds with their synlaclic.be.bav- e :iour, such a\ for the \ubclass of Bagque inlmnsitive vero6 er_Dlolnng - Itransitive morphologY. : I

derivation /,derr'verJn/ n l. In word formadon' the proc€ss of - |

obtaining new words by adding aftixes to exisnngwords orstems' 's t' f

ll"1"::i,flx j'i#:i,:":!#,i::'"i::#{rf #f 5derivation is one ot lhe two princiPal means of word formauon ro ] |Enslish and mosl other languages. 2 ln a derirational lheory ol C-

I

grimmar. the process ofobraining a gilen surface struclgl nolr-l a._ I

ieep (undertying. inirial) sFucturt. or a rePresentation oflhe slages D I

involvea in ioing rlis. Adl derivalionat C-i

derivatiotraf :de 'vetlenll adi l Penaining lo denvation {s€nse C-:l) or ro derivrtions (sense 2) 2 D€nor'ng a theory of erammar In

G-l

a_J;J.

de.{riptive adequacY

tI

tl_latttecg'a

aac

eeeeeCc€

€

eCIcIcccs

8061 diacritic feature

class of predicates, regardless of formal distinctjons chaf' (1967) 2

S€e d€criptivisrb.

defcriptiye adequacy sec under adequscJ

descriptivisn /d,'skrrptlvrTnv , The approach lo grammaticel

charaiterization which holds rhal lingui\lic facrsshould be described

as thev are obsened lo exi\t All senou\ linguiltic approaches toqraJnmar in this centur) ha!e been descriPtivist Cf pre'criptivim

laj. aescripCvist tar'strrptwlst/ ot d€scriPtive

desideirtive /dl'srd3ratlv/ adr. I A mood cat€8ory exPressing the

s€nse of 'wantiog' or 'desiring'. In most European languages this

notron is exPresseal by Purelylexical means. but in some languages it

is eroressed grammatical l t . pat(nuldr l) by inf lect 'on of the verb

An eiample ii the Japancse affi\-Idr. whrch derives adjeclives tsom

verb stems (t,tz 'go', ikil4i 'wanling to 8o'): this is the ordinary

means oferPressing such meanings in Japanes€ Latin has a class of

desiderative verbs iormed from simPle verbs with the suffix -rirt:

erurire'*ant lo eal . from edere cat 2 A mood calegory exprels-

ine an unreatizable wish' as in the somewhat archaic English Ivoud

thot our leadet stilt lived. s€N 2r JesPersen (1921)

desinence /'deslnans/ n- An inflectional ending of a word'

destinatiYe /'destlneilv/ n. or ddi. A distinctive case form fouod in

certain latrguages which tpicaly expresses an inadmate lestina-

rirrn: Basqie klotxerako 'foithe car' (kor're 'car') in Koderuko eroi

dar r/r 'I've bought this for the car'

Det ldetl S€e det€rminer'

determber /dl't3:mlnt/ n- (D€t or D) A lexical category' or a

member of this cate8ory, whose members typically occu within

noun Dhrases and indicate the range of appl'cabil'r) of lhe noun

ohras;s conlaining lhem. Englsh delerminers include lhe arrrcrs

ifr" "nJ

r, ttt" o.tionuratives tl6 and thdt Possessi!es like av"nd

voar. ouantifiers like aarv. /Ph no and slressed soaP and !anous'"in"t

ir".t rir'. Pihet- a'hirh bor' and un'lres\ed som? [n mosl

i...i"n" "i,rt"

x_r"t tvstem' determiners are regarded as sp€cife's

of nouns, but s€vetal analysts (such as Hudson 1984) have rec€nu)'

ri"-*i *t" a"r..-*erJmigitt be bettet tegarded as the heads of

noun phrases, which would then tte renamed 'detetmin€r phras€s '

Noc: mmyanallsa regardlhe quantine6 a fomin8adntinct lexical careSory

IIIIIIIIIII

froh dcremircB. bul rhis vie$. shich is ba*d chicflv on senantic cnrcria. isdifiicuh ro defcnd srnr.cricaily.

d€terminer phrase n. (DetP or Dp) I. The maxirnat projection ofthc le)iical catcgon Dererminer. in framcworls in which such aprojection is assumed to exist.2. Thc prefe.rcd label for a nounphrase iD analyses in which rh€ dererminer is regarded as the hcadof such a phrase. While srill non srandard. rhis anatysis has fre-qucntly bccn suggested as advantagcoLs for a numbcr of reasons(for exarnplc. by Hudson (1984)).

d€terministic /di !3;mr nrsok/ rl4- Denorin-! a t)pe of auro,maton or transitron network in which, at evcry point. rhe pathchosen is cntirely determined b) the current stalc and the nexr inputcharacler. Cf. non-d€terminisric, and sce also pushdown automatonand linear bound€d automaton.

deterministic context-fiee language n. (IrFL) Any one of rhepropcr subset of contcxt-fre languages which are accepted by somedeterministic pushdown automaton. Such languages have lineartimc rccogni!ion. The relevaoce of rhe DCFLS !o narural languageshrs been litrl€ discussed; see cazdar and pullum (1995) for some

DetP See delermin€r phras€.

deverbal /dr'!3;bal/./4 ln $ord formarion. dcnoting a lexjcal itemof another class deri!ed from a verb or a yerbal stcm. For example,realrrd.ion is a deverbal noun dcrived from rhc verb fe.r[ae.

deriant /'di:\'icnt/ adJ. L See itfformed. 2. Dcnotjng a stnng whichis ciiher syntactically iI formed or scmanlica[y uninterp;table,particularll in cases in which rhc dccision as ro which it is is difficulr

diachronic /dara'krDnrk/ ddl. pertaining to linguistic change acrossnme. ir$r. n. diachrony /dar,skr.ni/. Cf. synclronic.

diacritic fealure /darr'krrtrk/ n. In some anatyses, a morphotogi_cal or syntactic fearure arached to a panicular lexical item or smallgroup of leriical irems and sening to denote rhat such items behaveexccprionally with respecr ro some regular grammatical process. Forexample. thc transirive verb ltl miehr be marked wilh a diacriricrearure to show thar ir fails ro undergo passiuization: That suit ftsJou bur +t ou arc fted bl tut suit.

dialect

dirlc.t /'daralek!/ r. 1 A distinctivc variety of a language used bv\pcaler\ in . ldrtrcular ge^grat\ ical ree'^n ̂r rn a paarcular ' ;

group. 2. See idiolect. f,.'oE: rhn second usag.. rhough *idcspread, is norrecommended.,4dl. dialeclsl /dari'lektl/.

diathesis /dar'Eorsrs/ r. The relation betwecn the sementic rol€s(decp clses, th€t roles) subcategorized for by a lexical verb orprcdicate and rhc surface expression of lhose roles as gr.mmsticslrelitions. Thus. for example. the lerb d.rra!l' requires aq agent anda palient uhich. in the unmarked (acti!e) case. ar€ realized assubject and dircct object. respectivel]_. Thc terrn diathesis'expresses mucb thc same nolion as ioice. but is lypjcally uscd wirhrefcrence to parlicular lexical items. *hile voice is more commrnlyused in connecrion with the grammatical pattcrns inlohed in relei-in.e grammatical relations to participant roles. In LFG. the samerelation is called the lexical form of the verb or predicate.

diminutive /dr'mrnjutrv/ ".

1. A dedvational affix which may beaddcd to a $ord to express a notion of small size. often addilionallv{or cven insread) a notion of wa.mth or affection: Spanish -n'. -ilf--

2. A word formed by the use of su€h an affix: Spanish Sado 'kitien'

k.ro 'cat'). paltllo loothpick (/talo stick ). Itno'!on (affcction

arc) (r,/D son . unmarked). Jl]antla Jane,v' (Jrard'Jane ).

directed acfclic graph /dar,rekud elslklk 'gro:t ll. (DAG)A graphical rcprcsenlation of slructure consisting of nodes linkedby arcs in whicb evcry arc linking t\to nodes is directional and thereare no loops. The conventional trce structures for senlences arcDAGS. as arc the feature malric€s which constilute syntactic categories in GPSC Glaph deo^

direct object idar'rekt/ n. (DO) The granrnaticsl relation bome tly

an NP which occurs inside a verb phrase and which is the s€conduhl iSalory drgumenl of a tr an\r l r \ | j verb. m.\st lypical l ) expresl ing a

palient which undergoes ihe action of th€ !erb. The presence of a

direci object is what distinguishes a lransilive verb from an Intransr'-ive one. Direcl objects are typicall\ disringuished from indirecl and

obhque object. . $hrch al \o u(Lur in\ ide the VP bI such cr i t rna as

obligatory subcategonzation by the verb. distinctive case marKrngrDra\e language. (u.;all! accusstire in accusstive laog sges and sho_-

lulive in ergatire lenglsgesl and lhe abrlil! tn become lhc subject ol

a corresponding passire. Thcre has been considerable conlroveEyas ro qiich Nt;ould be reSarded as thc direct obiect in doubleobje(l rorstlrfctions like LiM t.,1 me thtt b@1. at preseni lhere rs

discontinuous consaituent

pcrhaps som€thing of a consensus in favour of the first NP (me inrhe example). lhough the issue cannot be rcgarded as settled. InCB. a direcl object is referred to simply as an objecr'. sincc indirecrobjects arc nor recognized in rhar framework. Cf. subje.t. indirectobjcct. p mart object. s€condsry object.

direct person marking See under invers€ p€rson marking.

direct sp€ech /spirtJ/,. The reportiDg of what someone has said byquoiing her/his exact words. as in 'ly,4,r rim? ir i!? . sh. a.\ked arld''fhe/e s a wasp on nn ba.k . sh? sai.l 1uid\,. Cl. indir€ct sp€€ch.

disagreement /drsa grirmant/ n. Any of various phenomena inwhich an agrcemeni morph assumes a iorm apparenrty inconsistenrsith the carcgor! it is supposed to be agrceing wirh. An cxample isthe Spanish Lot norteam icanos ron(,.{ rlir unlgoJ the Norrh,Americans wo are your friends We North America.l are yourfricnds . in which the verb shows first person plural agreemenr evenlhough the subject \P is third person plural.

disambiguation / drsembrqju crJn/ n Anv procedure for sctecr-ing one of the mcanings of an rmbiguous string. This may bc doneIn larious ways, such as by adding extra words or paraphrasing or,in lome cases. blr adding rcicrential indiccs. For example, theamhiguous string Vithntg ftlulires can be a nuisance can be djs-ambiguated bv adding a second clausc which is consisrenr wirh onlyone of the re:dings: Visitiru relatircs can be a nuisance, especiollyb hen the\' .1rcp nt une xp€.redh . y. disambiguate /drsEm'brqjue rrl.

discontinuous constitucnt / drskan rrnjuos/ |l. A conrrrtuent. oraPparent conn;rucnr. which rppears on thc surfacc in lwo or morcPans separated b\ material $h;ch is nol parr of thc constiluent.posrng se\crc probtems in drawine a tree srru€iurc. In rhe sentenceA student tlk) l dcntall.r don( the readi g htrne.t up this noming,thc scquencc ll .1n/&n, B,ho tt u(tua -r !:lo,lt] thc n nulng appears to beuncontrolersi;rll! a constiruenl_ bur jn the rlternalive torm A r-ru-l.nt tutned ut thk nornins tho tl acndtt .tone fie rcudit|. rhes!nrc sequencc is dis€onrinuous. fhere is considerabte evidence thatorscontrnuous con5trtuenrs necd ro be recognized in syntax, but arpresent no consensus exisrs rs b how such sequences should beanarrsedi see l luck and Ojcda (1987) for some proposals in var iousIr i rmeworks. lhL.\ inenccof di \e,nr inuouscon\r i rucn6*.as imdi.nr! re@8-nlltd br the Amelcrn rtrudu |ns. lhc 6rsr c\tticr rrcarmcnr w$ pioposeo

lt3

aa

2

z'l:iiiclel

iiilii:r:r:ri!

tl

82

cn

. t l

: i l: i l

c-iicl

'lll

ir

a

-

ni.,.-j.

3

85 doublc neg:rtiv€dilicourse 64

discourse / dr 'k.rn /r , \ conntcled \cnes Lt ut l . . rnce: b! on. ornror. \p! !r ler- . . ( ! rr . r in lYPc\ oi grammarical . le\ ical and Phonolo-gier l c lenr.nls c.rn he idtnl ihcd $hich t lp icr l l \ scnc to relare oneurtcrance lo arothdf in sotnc tashi()n. but. on thc $holc. at tempts atcxrcnding rhc mclhods ol grammatical analysis lo the study ofdis()u.\e. in lhc holc ol corrnrud'nq drscour\ . gran)mars. harenot becn outstandirrgl \ \ucccstful .

discou$e i tem {. An\ lc\r(al i tem or {ramnrr l ict t l form qhich

r\nical lv scr\es 1() rc l l lc one utterancc to anothcr in r discourse- or

t( ] rc ixre lhe ut lc. !nc. in n prr l icular $a\ to lhc di 'course as a$hr) l r Flngl ish hr i r nunrhcr of such irems- including ' .1/ . res.

trett. hotevr. ut nu tonturt io and ,.'./lk'lcr' N{andarin( hinese is reponcd as t ts iDg r gramnlal ical izcd ser ol \cnlence-f inaIprrlicles lor discour\lj PurPoscs. ircluding l' currenllY relevaDtsrarc. re respon\. l ( , quc\t ion-- bd sol ic i l ing rgrcement. o&'fr icndl i $arning . , or t , r{duced forcefulne:s and ,?.r 'quesrton '

discoYert procedurc /dr\'trlari pr:u si:d:./ ?r' An explicit

rncchanic.rl prrcedure ftx c)itracting a gfannrrr from a corpus of

data. The attainment of such a proccdure $as. in Principle at l€ast. a

major g{,al of thc Amcricrn structuralists Cf d€cision protedure'

evaluation procedure oronrtl! i l95r).

dis junct i d,sd3^4lt / / r ()nc I l f lhe al lernat i \c clcments combined

in a disjunction.

disjunction /drs d5.\n!Jn/ n A coordinalc structure $hich

crpresses a choice,nrong xl tcrnat i \ .s such as.r)r t ' . or lea

dislocat ion /dls l : r t r ker ln/ rr . A construct ion in $hich an elemcnt rs

Jirpl i l r 'd rrom i l \ n, ' rnrr l f , \ t r ron in th( 'cnt(nru rhal pu<rr idn

being occupied b-r a prt>form. English erhibiis bolh lcfl dislocation'

asin-Thi\ - ine, t rcat l \ / i l . r t . and r ight-dislocatton.nsinI rea vl ikeit. this \|ine. RiShl dislociltions are sonelimes crlled aflerthoughl

conslruct ions . In \pdkcn Frcnch. ul tcrances in\ ,ohing dislocalrons

in both direclions arc c\ccedingl! common. as in Jtun il I a athei'

ld roi(r". Iileralh John. hc s boughl it. rhe car" ('f topicalization

dicplacement /dls pler\mrnl/ n The occurrencc of an element in a

. nt. n.. ln ort'". ittnn ;1s canonical nosition as in preposing and

dblocttior.

dista l ' dr \ r l , d , /1. ln l \ \sre r o l deicr ic posi r ioDs. denorr , r ! rh l r rcnnr \pr . - ins lh( l : r . r rcsr d is l lDcc ln inr rhc fc t . rence p. , jn l . \uch.rst r l l \h r / rdr . , r r /kr . Ci . p .o\ im. t r

d is t r ibut ion n j r \ r f l b ju j ln , ' n 1h. tu l t r .u ,s .$hich ! l ! \ i i ! l or granrmar ica l fornr can occur

dis t r ibut ive / ( l r 's i r rb jut r \ / , . I A tc \ ic t i tcm. par t icut ! r1r , l derermi fcr . $hrch is inrerprered as rc tcrr inS scprrare l ) ,an. t c \h rsr ivet !Ic c \ .n . jnr l . nrenrber of . t qroup such as cd.r . . f f / r . lo i lnd

. \ ^ i , - \ n r I n l , , r . J t , , . , I I n \ . , 1 \ r r , : . . , , . u , , . , f , , a. \ l i . \ \ r - ! . r \ r n l l . i r n o t l J n . \ u . h l . / n r ) . ( J . r . i x o , ? n l r , s o r n cl . r rgur ! . , hr \c an ln l lecr i l t i ) rnr t t ) r th i \ |u . fo je. \uch l \ I l l \ ( lu(, r , r : r r i d - r $ o . a c h - _ l $ o a p i c c c . t \ ( ) r l I t i m e - l b i . r $ o . )

d i t ransi t ivr r r rb /dar l ren\r i r \ / , . A !crb which subci r l fgor i rcstor r$o obj . . rs . ruch as Si r ( Sh( ur( t , . d k tss.

DO Sr. direct objc(t.

domain r r l : r r , nr , : rn ' d . i (o t L i rut . ) fhe range of appt i .nhi l i t \ o fr h l l f u l e . l . l o i . r n o d c i n . r l r c r ) i h c r , ) n f l e r e b r f . . d i r n i n x r c db\ lhr t nodL' . Sec a lso command doml in

dominancc idon nansi /7 A r r tnr i l )n shich ma\ b() td hcr$.cnrodes r r t rcc I l a conr inuous d,N\r )ward path of $h!r r \c f lc grhcnn be tnccd l rom a node A ro. r rodc t t . thcn A dominr lcs l l . : indA bcr fs thc re lar ion of dr)minr cc 11) I ] . tsr convenr ion. l noclcdom'nJlc \ i l \c l l . fhc reprcscnr ! l i ( )n ( ) t dominanee ret . ( )ns i \ 0neol !hc lur( i rnrcr ta l turpo(e\ , , f r r re. n iagr !nr . Ci inrmediarcdominanrr rnd proper donr in ln( . l r ( t \e . r tso domnin. an(eslor

donkcl scntrnce / 'do0ki / | . \ \ent !n(c .onra in ing i rn rnrph0r! \ ho\d rnrr .c( lcnt rs an indef in i r ( N"t ) $ hosL rctcrenc. i \ . ( , r ) \ l r i r incdt r \ a q u r n t i l i . r c l \ e s h e r c i n t h c s r r t c n c r t t h c c h ! \ i c c \ r n r t r t e r \ 1 r !ntu \ho .$r ! t da kel , heat i / , . such senrcncc\ posc ur l r \ur l t )se\cfc pf t )b l .nrs ibr mosr accoun( ot rn i tphora

double- i r rg constra int /d \b. t In / , A consl r r rnr rn 1 n l t ish h\*h i .h r \Lrb q h ich takr \ a compt.nrr r VI , i rhc . i , r1 , l i ) r D|r r r \ nor' iscr i r fp . r r ln thc in f lo tn. t : I t : !d k ,nta hrn55t l r t7 t \k) tu i r .11 tkutl l nuri\c. hra - 1r rd v/rri?rs /drrr,.(. Rns I L!-t.L I

double negal i r 'e / 'd \b l / , . A corrst ruct i (nr rn \Lnrc l l ( )o. o! ! r rnccar \ . c lcnrcnt appears ! \ r lh in lhc sc() tc of anorhcr $ j rhdur rn!

double-object construction

indepcndcnr function. s|rrch as I ditln t do noIhnIS Long condemned

by pre\criptilist grammrrians as illogical . such double negativesare regarded as non-standard in English hut are ven common invemacular spccch. In nrany olher languagcs. however. doublc nega-tives (n€gative concord) are normal and obliSatory. such as inSpanish: No dice nada He says nothing. literallv 'he docsn t saynothing i Nrin.d '?ia d ,tani? en nineuna d. lus habiaciones'l never

saw anybod) in any of thc rooms . literallr 'I never saw nobody innone of the rooms .

double-object construction r' A construction involving a

ditransilive verb likc girc or tel1. such as l-is.r Save mPa /./Jr' See the

remarks under dftect object

double passive r. Thc construction in $hich passivi2ation appli€s

both i; a matrix clause and in a complcment clause' somelimes

resulring in ill formcdness: Ih. ciry M! allowed to be captured,*The Duke wss auempted b be ki ed

double p€rfect n. The conslruction. oflcn rcgarded as ill'formed' in

which both a matrix verb and its infinilital compl€ment are marked

for perfcct aspec!: l.Sre woukl haw liked b hare gone

do\vn arrow / doun ereo/ ,r' In LF'C' thc s"vmbol I ' attacbcd to a

node in a tree to represent thc functionalslructure (see f_slructure)

of that nodc. See thc examplcs under functional schema and cf up

DP See d€termin€r Phrase

D-structure /'di:,str^klj3/ n ln GB. the usual labcl for the initial

(base-gcncraled) lelel of lhc structure of a sentence essentially

*hal was formerly called de€p structure.

dual /'djufrl/ n. or uttj. One of a sel of contrasting numbcr forms

which ;crves 1o exprcss exaclly tlvo of somc entit-v ln English' the

dual is a marginal phenomcnon. i l lustralcd by dual bdr ' contraslrng

with plural dll. but in somc languages nouns and/or pronouns ate

systematicall,! inflected lbr singular. dual and plural numbers' as

iliustrate<t tr,,- Classical Arabic: Dr1ifu.n a king malikani rwo

kings', ndlikrnd (lhrec or rnore) kings .

dubltative /'dju:brratr!/ lr4. A mood distinclion. grammatically

expressed in some languages. exprcrsing the modal mcanrng -Per

haps it is so'or. in quesli;ns. can ir be so? For examlle consider

a-i :"-

ll : E7 dy,,"-i"?-11 ' '

. ri : *:,ii;11';;:::;lli."":il."i,u-11"""" o'"'''-"'i"'n("r a\et of

" t l : . P , , , , , xdd !^ . \ r , ( , . r . r r ; \ .

C i i : p, zrr .,re r-r:.r snr mi,n, "c n.rrrrC : : ' r ' z r r a r r "u , , t , ,hc napp, '

e ! 3 n ' / i t ' r , J r r , ' ' ( . ,n .hc pu- ih l \ h ( hapo\ '

, , l - . dua-t d\rnr a {dl \n e\plet i rcr A { nrrr ical l \ .1r l t \ elemenl.

: l _ r , , . r , . i r { n J n o u n r h r l \ e . s h i c h i . r ( q u r ( d r o r $ e . , , , r m e d n e . \ r nC ' l

: In \rrucrur{\ . I nrtr \h matL, ( \ ren. i !e us.

: ! :: ;.il;.:ll.:.11:t;; i^ii:;'1,),;1i':';;li':;:,:::,';";:;K;9

I : ' I n . , r , r , \ J t r , , N a t y r , \ c d i , , n : ! l t r r < s J r J ( d d s " t i n d o r J u m m ) . d . i n

9 1 1 r ' \ , n , , \ t i t n ! ' t { , , { ( r m t a r e \ o u n t k , t t o t . a , L i , m e r i m e s r h e

: ii i :;"ii:l'r.il;.11i *.til;;i"i:;'l'1.1t. ::.111 i:",:n::lI |

. ' I I , - - , h o $ e ! . r . r i { , r r p u m e n ' \ r h J r n , , , n , r ( d . . t u m r n , . i , e v e rC , i i . , , " \ l ( \ o i J o r m e J n , n e , . . o r \ n ' r ' 1 - r " . ' )

Q , i i . durat i 'e dj . : rr" " , / An a\p€ct r . rm $hjch e\prc\\c. an acr ion

- ) l : : - or . tJIe sh'cn r . Pf ' r(r \Lo o\ lJ\r ' r f (or a ccndrn l .nlrh of t ;me.- ' f

: ' l h ( , i u r d r i \ e a , p e . r N l , u D d i \ i . , c n n i i m p e r f e r r i l e r , p c c r . a n d r re I t rppr.rr . rhar tes L,nrLrge. ha'e r , l i , r rncr rorm tor rcpre,enr,ng

e : . j r u r . , r r \ r J , f e { r c \ p t i , i r t r : o h < n r r L C r p r e s \ e d , , n t ! h } a g c n e r a l

^ a . . r n r n ( f l r i r , \ ( t u r m q h r . h r . d t \ u u \ e J r , ' ( \ p r e * h l b i r u a l { l r p r o g r 6 s _* I

* r( J\ t . \ r . rh. ,ush rn fnr i i ,h r i . mr\ t u\ua \ e\prc.\rd by lhee :

- . l - ' ; l t l ( p a . r u r t r ( . c n t l o r m . . t , u t l u o u . d f a r a n r u x . . D u r a l i r e

C f ! G

' , nni ' r . mo.r "r-rx,u\h k,rn puncrual sDcLr.

- 1! 1 drandra J ornJ\r . a ,dt \o . , ,pulat i tc compoundj A r lTr otI I : . , m r , o u f , l s , , , J i n q n h h ( . , c n , . r c n , u n r h J \ a n e q u a t c t a r m r o b eY I . . \unider<Ll r l - ( hc.,J. r . rhorgt rhL <icmcnl, qe,( jo ined b\ rhe9

' i . *otd and.4L t t - H ut1otv. r ,u$ omit . . t rce:c-J, \

C I i . drnamic /darnemrt. a4 Deno , ls r ,enrenr. . t , (d(dr i . \ (rh

! i r iil;:i;;i;:i,?,:iI',lll,',,il, )l:T l,)ll.ll,'il,!lili)I : 3 rh( r(rm dlnJni. N d,une,ordin.,r. ",p(cru:,t t . :h, I co,rrran,nfC I 3

q r rhs ta t i r €

ci3cl2e': --e-'i ?e-l ?

86

e /i:/ The conventional symbol for a gap, particularly an €mptycalegori: Who did you sa! you saw e in to$'n?.

Earley algorithm /'3rli/ n. A particularly pow€rful and efficientparsing algorithm for conle\t-free grammars: il alway\ produces aresult within r ime Kn'and epace Knz. where K is a conslanldepending on the grammar and n is the length of the input string; ifambiguoN grammars ar€ excluded, it produces a result witbin timeKnr. Edley (19?0).

echo question /'ekeu/ n. A response to an utterance which takes theform of a question seeking confirmation of some Part of that utter-ance and which, as far as Possibl€. simply repeats that utterance.Echo questioris in English are grammatically distinctive in that theydo not undergo WH-fronting or inversion; if a WH-item is used' itmust be stre3sed. For exampfe, to the $teftr.ce I saw lgnatz thbnornirg, a responding echo question might be You sa|| lgnatz th/JnnrninST or You saw vho?

echo respons€ n. Any response to an utterance whicir targely

consis6 of repeal inB Lhal ur lerance. For e\ample. to lhe ul lerance /

sa],, Ignatz this moninS, a possible echo response would be yol sdr'Ignatz thb moming.

ECP /ir sir 'pi:/ Sec Empty Category Principle.

ECPO /fekpeu/ Sec exha stiv€ constant partial ordering.

effeclor A tekts/ ri. ln rome versionr ol functionat grammar (sense

2), especially RRC, any NP wh;ch is in principle eligible to be an

adorawhether or not it actually appears as the actor in a particular

clause ( i r ma) be oulran[ed b\ anolher NP shich rs Presenl)

efiectum /r'fektam/ n- A traditional label for a direct objecr NP'which only comes into existence as a result of the action denoted in

its clause, such as tfte tdble in John huiL the tabl€ Cf. atrectutrl'

egressive /igresrv/ See conclusive

emphasis

E-language /iietgwrdj/ ,. (also ext€rnalized tanguage) A lan-guage seen as a sea ot sentences. cf. I-language. chomsky (1986).

elative /'i:fetlv/ n. or adj. 1. A case form, occurring in c€rrainIanguages, typically used to express rhe norion '(morion) out of':Finnish ralo$d 'out of the hous€' (rrft, 'house

). 2. In languages *ithonly two d€grees of comparison fcr adi.r.trves, th€ form expressingthc greater degree: Arabic 2akb$ \eq great, greatesr', from posi,tivc kab; great ).

elision /r'lrjr./ n. A very general term for the omission from anutterance of material which is requir€d to complete the structure.For example, the utterance Seens we haye d problelr illustrateselision of the initial ,. y. elide /r'lard/.

ellipsis /r hpsrs/ n- Any construction in which some material whichis required for semantic interpretarion and which could have beeno!€rtly present is absent but immediately recoverable from th€linguistic context, particularly *hen that material is ovenly preseotelsewhere in the sentence. For example, the senrence Siobhan can'tspeak Spanish, but Lisa can illustrates ellipsis of the repeated V?speak Spdnish in the second clause. Adj. e ipticat /r,lptrky; Zelips€ /r lrps/. See also deletion under idcnrir). stoppy ide;tit).

Elsewhere Principle ,elsrrr/ u (also ELs€{h€re Condiaion,Another name for the l'rop€r Inctusion principle, used more inphonology lhan in synra\.

embedded question /rm'bedrd/ See indirect qucstion.

embedding /rm bedrt/ n. A structure in whjch one constituent iscontainedwithin anotherconstituenr, especia yanotherconstituenror th€ same category. The example That book you lent me is very/nrelerdn8 illustrates the embedding of the clause rcu Ient me \\irhina larger clau\'. CI coqjoining. and 'ce rerurlion.

emphasis /'emiosrs/ n. A very general term lor any phenomenonwhich serves to draw particular atention ro some etem€nt in asentence or utterancc, either ro place that elemenr in focus or roconlrarr r t wirh romc orher elemenr. Lmpha,is In.poken Fnetr\h i ,olr(n achie!ed mercl) b! \ t re\ \ ing the emphasrred element. bulEnglish and other languages also exhjbit a rangc of grammaticalmeans for cxpressing emphasis, such as partictes, distinctive wordorder and clefted constructioos.

olc-le-le-19'rc.- 1?t7.1c'le-l.'aa:a.l

ii:r:t:t:r:r:r:r7rt le_lt-_l

:-|

Lrl-r:l: - |

:

3

€

e!t

€

333????eaaaaaaa3aaa

89

lr

c-l:emply rategorv 9t)

empty category / empti/ l?. In (;8. anv of sereral absrract elementswhich halc no o!ert phonet ic rcal izal ion bul which are posited asoccupying certain \P posirlons in sentences. Four tvpe\ are cur-rently recognized: NP-t.ace. WH-l.ace. PRO ( big PRO ) and pro( ' l i t t le prc ') . These four r lpes occur in dist inct c ircumsrances andhale dislinct properties. Sevcrnl of thc modules of CB make crucialreferencc 1o these empl) categories. notably Binding Theory.covernmcnl Theory and Conrrol ThcoD Scc thc indivrdual enrriesfor fur(her inforrnation. and ree under Binding Th.orJ for a

Empty CategorJ- Principle n (F:CP) In GB. one of rhe iunda,mental rcqui.ements of Govcrnment TheorJ. lt strtes: a lrace mustbe properlv governed. \ore that. in spi te of i ts namc. the ECPapplies io onlv tqo of the four l,vpcs of empt] category. The chieffunction of rhe ECP is to placu constraints on lhe movement ofcaregorics by thc rule ofalpha morementr it effeclilcl) allows a treestrucrurc to rcmember' *hat has happen€d at earlier stages of aderilation. and it can be seen as GB s lersion of the older deriia-lional constraints. See proper goternment.

empty morph r. In morphology. a norph rhich cannol be assignedto an) morpheme. For examplc. in Basque nenrlietd,? in lhc rnoDn-tains' , ns'rdi is the noun mounlain-- 'e ' is thc urual iorm oftheplural morpheme in oblique crses and n is thc usual form of thelocative casc. leaving'ra unassigned a\ an ernpt)- morpb.

empt) node n. A node io a rrcc which. in some particular anallsis.is postulatrd ar being pre\enl c lcn lhough no o!ert phonel ic material is prcsenr to represenl il. The empt] categories of GB areexamples of empt! nodes. but the term is of wider applicabilit]-.For cxample. some anal,vses of such a sentence ̂s I'isa said shewould conc poslulate an emply COMP nodc in the comple,nentclause: l-ird rdrd [s fcoM pe] l;she toutd come)1. An empty node isa synlact ic nul l elementi i l mu\t be dist ingui lhcd from thc case inwhich an item is posited as being slntacticalll prcsent c!en thoughit is phoneticallv null. For e\ample. some anal\scs of Frctc, r'rrleir d/rnrirp would recognizc thc presence in the noun phrase of alexical determiner xhich is an actual lexical i tem $ith zcro phone_t ic real izat ioni in srch an analysis. the Det node in lh€ NP is norempty.

empty t+ord See grammaticd word.

C I l' .rr epiphenomenooC 1. 't : : . ' encl i t ic ,en t l r rrk/ n. A cl i r ic $hiLh rs phonologr(al ly hound ro a: a . . p r e ( ( d r n p h , ^ 1 . ' u c h a . , I r n , , r 1 A r ' r . C l . p r r r l i t i c . A n . n . n r c r e e k

! r).?

t ) endocenlr i ( 7 (ndrtr ' ' rnrf l l / , / , . / / I Denoring a.on\rrucnt which? f . . hr ' ; ! he.d ln man! contempordq lrame$ork.. every const i tuetr t

S l -- : . mu\rh3\L d head. and thr. endoc(i : t r ic i i ) ."ufren regardfd as the

: | - . rcnl |al rcqurrement nf lh< X-bBr sr: tem. 2. In older u.agc. denot inge | . ' r ,o| lniru( l l r who.e Ll i . r r ihutron i ' . in pr inciple ar leasr. srmi lar to

C ; : i 'h. ' ur | l . l ( \ ical heal ' randinr Jlonc a\ a concriruent. Thus. tor- . - . \3mpl(. thc \P / i?"re , 'pr hool ls endorenrr ic. s ince rts lcxicalI I

t ' head hr. t \ Ldn form an \P $irh s 'm' lar dr\rr iburon: l r€f f r . r t9 1 r ' hooL' ap nr i . ! { inE r. Aout\ , .c d,p.prnn8. Simi lar l ) . the AP

c I r i fcf \ , /g i . (ndoLenrr ic. \ incc i t \ disrr ibur ion is simi lar ro that of bi8: I - . r"nding alone Ab,rf n. €ndoccntr ic i ty / ,endrusen'r f lsr t / . Cf.g

I : ' e ' ( .xentr ic hloomncrd rrolr l

C I rr eDdocenlric compound r A componnd which r. d hyponym of the

C : <; srammdrical head: armhan. atrnan.IosbooA.,kv.htue. rce.cotd.

e : <: no\PJttc 'ptat'patnt ot x? df?/ cr' bahuwihi

a I ,: epicene / cpr'r:n/ d,.lt. ln a language with a getrder.ystem showing a

: I ; . correlar,on \rrh sex. denot ins a noun wh'ch has dn 'nvariabl€f - - . gender bur *hrch can take refcrcnts of eirher.e\. In French, for

C : a: ( \ rmplc., i r !urr '*r i rer ' . renorf l $i tne' \ 'and.ontrul to 'conrtatto '

- | t . arc alqal . mascul ine. even $hcn referr ing to a qoman. whi le* I

-- , rr lm, .rrctrm . per\oarr pcr\ , ,n and rprr l i€ le \(ntr ] are alway\C :

' - : lemin,ne. r \ (n *hcn rcternng ro a man. Cr commotr scrdry- a . - ( s e n s e l r .

I ! , ' ] "Otpn"".menon {pl epiphenomenar /eprrr ,nDmrnrn. -) / , . l

: I -* i .up..n. ' , r r ' ,n ' t 'ea picn"-en"n " l ich

is acrua y rhe accidental

! I * re,ulr ol rh( Inr{ .rrcf i^n ot fv(ral independenl pnnciples. For

f - r ! ' . c\Jmpl(. ( homsk) ha\ ofren \uegesred rhat narural languages are- | - . - cpi fhenomcna. berng hrr le more rhan rhe more-nr- less direcr l)

i f : " pcr icpr ihlc hr-produir ' ur r i ( underl l ing real,rv. rhe pr inoptes ott - r . ' unr!(hal grdmmd' l . { rurfacc general izatron rn a language whicb.

C : 3 In nrmc Pf i tp, \ed gramnarical de.cr ipl 'on. r \ tegarded as an acci-

- | - dentdl con\(qu€nce ol rhe Inlcracrron ol other Independend,I I s reouired pr inciple\ and hence d\ nor deserving of r ls o*n formu-

C = l i lar ion rn rhc prammdr. I or e\ample. In cunent versrons ofGB. tb€^ | -- ob.(nxlr , ,n lh,r a pa\.rre verh alqa)\ has an underly ing objeat ast I 1 i l . .uhtccr r . regarded d. an cprphenomenon. since i t &$d!sC |

'a suromatrcr l t ) t r ; lhc intcract ion ot lhe requirements of two

c l--cfJ

eplstemic modality 92

modules, Case Thcory and Theta Theon. ,.ll, epiphenom€nal/'eprfe nDmral/.

epistemic modality /epr'sti:mlk/,. The area ol mood concefncdwith knowledge a d belief. including at lc:rn lhe €rpression ofpossibility, probabilitf and certainty (as pcrceived bt the speakeri.and, in some views. also the e\pression ot the speaker's degree ofcommitment to what she/he sats. as. for example. b! the use ofeyidentials. Cf. deontic modaliiv.

Equational Granmar n. An algebraic approach to ltrammaricalcharacterization proposed bI G craid S anders ( 1 912 ) . A brief inrro'duction is provided in Sanders (19801.

equational sentence /! kqer:rnl/'] ialso cquativ€) A sentence inwhich one noun phrase is idcntificd witb anolher onc: llirJfti,rgrotwai the Ji^t Americatl Presid.nt. An equalional sentence can bctumed round sithout infclicity: The hrn Anleti.an Prcsidrnt $usWaihingto n. Cf . as.riplive sentence.

equadYe /'ek$.tl!/ n. or alj. 1 A construction in !\'hich one entitlis characterized as haling some propertt io lhe same extent asanother entity, as in Lird's French it us.qdod ai Ptcl/e'r. *hichilustrates lhc usual English equati!e consrruclion. 2 Sce eqr€tional

F,qui-NP Delet ion /ekwj. i rkwi/ , . (also Equi) An older nal. l ' .for a conFol construction. The name derives from the oblc.!atronthat. iD a controi const iuct io . tbe second of iqo idenl ical \Psrequircd for sernantic intcrpretation is absent. as though it had bsen

Equi-verb See control rerb.

€rSative /'3:g3trv/ ,r. or adi. l- me distinctive case form markfugthe subject of a transitive v€rb in morphologic"ly ergstiv€ latr'gurg€s and contrasting there witb the absolutive, used for intransl-tive subjects and direct objects. Vatious other names for this caseare founal in the literature, including 'agentive', 'active', 'transitive ,'operative' , 'energetic' , 'instructive', 'narrativc' and 'relative'; thesenames should be regarded as obsolete, though some of them con-tinue in use among specialists in particirlar ergative languagesUsualty cre.tited to Dir (1912), but Alexh ManasieFRder has unoverededlier ses by Sidoey Ray, Johanncs Schmi.tt and Alfredo Trotrrbe& Rav3mrelated l@tile se is trom Lalin erSz neit to, io*ards r lhe dodem s€lse

ergative language

i5 pre$nablr frod c.eer ./8,r 'work. 2. (more fully. ergative-absolutive) Denoting a grammatical patrcrn in which subjects ofintransiti!e \erbs and direct objects of tr.lnsitive verbs are treatediiien!icall! for grammatical purposcs. while subjects of transitiv€rerbs arc lrcared differentl,v. Ergativity can be manifested morphol.gicalll (molit lypicalli. in lhe case marking oi argument r-ps andin lefbrl agreement) or rtnracticall! (e.g., in the conrrol of pronorninalization or in thc coofdination ofVPs). See Comrie (1978) orDixon (1979). r_oE: ihis ls low rbe esrdblishcd sense of the rem ergative,:rhe iolloqin! quile diifercnt senses are idiosvnclaric at best. and should be!\.,ded L A label somctimes given to a canonical transirive clause*hose subject is an agcnr, such as John reatl the bool, as opposed rothe non-ergatite Jor, knew thc truth, or to the subject NP in such aclause. Andeturn (1911). 4. A name somctimes given to the transitivepattern erienplified b! thc scntence Jre opened the door, as com-Dared $ith the intransiti\e The door opened. or to the subject NP inth€ iransitive construction. reflecting rhe observarion rhat thepalicnt NP ,ie drol lunctions indifferently as intransirive subject oras transiti\e objec.. wirh no change in the morphologyofthe v€rb orof the \P. much as bappens regularly in mo4rhologicatly ergativelansuages. This usage effectively equates ergarives wirh (a subclassoi?) causatilesi its urilit,! is debarable, since the patt€m is far fromb.ing tull,! producrive in English: *hile a number of v€rbs partici-pare in it (d/r'. .oUup\e, fr!, dtuwn), sor:.e othen show lexicalslppler;or (dielkill. j.Ll .Irop. rccoverlcnel anJ still others require\ arious complex expressions (get Lost/Lose. b€ bomlbeat, blushtmake. . . blL$h. erklbring . . . ixo eristence). Ha]lid^! (1967). 5. In cB, alabel somerimes applied to fiose unaccus:rtiv€ verbs which caniuncfion both transirivell and intransirively. such as mett in The icemelled a.dlahn neLtedhe i.e. Buuio (1981): Keyser an.l Roeper (19Ea).\oE, th. rcrm erSatn. has somclines been nnundentood and applied inra\s ihai are n'rpl\ eroneous. panicutarlt before 1970. A detailed accomt ofthe hi\ron orrhe retu erSrrjle is given in Seet), (1977). ,4bsr. n. €ryativity,/3rgr lrv(i./.

ergative language rr. A language in which ergative (sense 2) mor-phologi or syntax i! proninent or predominant. In most ergativelanguages. as in Basque. ergativity is co ined to th€ morphology,bul some ergative languagcs exhibir €xtensive syntactic ergativity.In a fe$ Australian languages. rhe best known of which is Dyirbat,the s\'ntax oflcrares almosa exclusively on an ergative basis (DixonL9-il) \evenhcl.ss. th.rc are iew if any languages which are

li

{rs{r

z-lc'l

clel

ii:!:le!lt'- l

ii

ij

93

essential variable

exclusively ergative in their morphology and stntax. ErSalive lan,guages are much less common than accusativ€ lahgulges. bur are farfrom rarc. See Dixon (1979). Cf. active langusge. actusative Len-gurge. and see splia ergativity.

ess€ntial variable l'sentjl/ '. A variable tlhose value may b€ anyarbitrary striflg. Cf. abbr€viatory variable.

essiye / esrv/ r. or ddj. A case form typically expressang the temporary state or character of some entity: Finnish potkdff'as a boy'(poi,ta'boy ). It may also be used as a comPlemenl ofthe verb'tle':Fin sh lsdni on pappin My father i5 a pnest'(poppj priest )-

EST /i: es ti:/ See Ext€nded Stsnderd Th€ory.

ethic construction /eolk/ n A construction indicating that anindividual is affected in some way by an action, such as on |ne in theErglish The do9 died on me. lt is very common for languages to us€a dativc form for this purpose: the construction is then called anetfuc daaiv€. An example is B^sqxe Ama hil zait My mother hasdied', literally The mother has died to me-

evaluation metric /I,!4lju'erjq/ l,. The set of criteria in terms ofwhich an eisluatron procedure is aPPlied

evaluation procedure /preo si:dso/ n. An explicit Proccdure for

choo\ ing dmong compel ing glammars in term. of \ome sel or cr i_

leria con\tituting an evaluati.. m€tric Cf discov€4 proc€dore'

decision proccdur€- Chomskl ( I"-5?)

evaluative /I'vsljuetrv/ ddl. Denoting a mood-like category. gram-

marical i , ,ed in some langurgc' . shich \ene\ lo express lhe

sp€aker's attitude towards a slalcment the truth of which she/he

acceptsl among the attitudes which may be so expressed are sur-

prisc, incredulity, disaPpointment, warning, apProval or disap

proral . For erample. the Trbeto Burman language Li \u erhibi ts a

ser o[ eraluat i !e srnlence-6nal panicles. includrng (among otners,

n 'surprise'. /€ warning , iri wonder'. -rr 'comPlainf llu 'conhr_

mation'and m expectalion. ln the stnct sense. lhe evaluanve ls

not a mood. sinc€ the truth of the proposition exPressed is not In

doubt. See Palm€r (1986) for discussion

evasive /r velsr! / ddl . Denol ing a grammalrcal form u\ed lo atoid

choosing belween other forms marled for sc\ or Sender ' such as

Fngfish llcy in exampler like son"bod, h!\ fotzo Pa thcu

rmb.elld. conen ( 1984).

excesdve

eventive /r vcntr!/ 1. adj. See dynamic. 2. n. (also evcnt) In some\ersions of (lase Grammar. a label for an NP which expres!€s ane\cnt. rhc lcrb in the same sentence typically b€ing almost emptysemanlicalll. Eramples include an aryument io they're having andrywn?t and the sssassination i^ The assassinolion took pla.e inRerlin.

er'idential /,evt denttl/ n. or alj. A, grammatical category occur-ring in \ome languagcs by which all statements (and sometimesolher sentence tpes) are overtly and obligatodly marked to indi-care the \ource of the speaker's evidence for her/bis utterance- Aparlicularl) rich syslem is thal of the PapuaD language Fasu, in\hich thc EnSlish sentence /r'r .rnin8 has six distinct translations,dist iDguished as fol lows (Foley 1986):

apere l see i t . 'perarakac l hear i t .pr. . rrcrp, ' I rnter i r f rum orher er idence.pesap.rkae Somebody says so. but I don t know who.'pe\ar ipo Somcbody rals so. and I know who. 'pcsapi I suppose so.-

E\ idc n t ia l s) stems. which arc sometimes called verificrtior syst Es,arc \omctimes regarded as forming part of the mood systcms inlanguages erhibiting thcrn. See Palmer (1986) for discussion. Abrr.n. €r ident ial i ty / evrdcnt j"elr t i / .

exception /rk sepJn/ 'l. A particular item or construction which iiinconsislcnt Nith the statemcnt of a grammatical mle. For exaDple,Ihe noun ndr is an exception to lhe rule tha! Engli3h noun! forhIhejr plur l l in r . andthe lerbgo is an except ion to thc atatcm€ntthar jnlr i rn\ i t i \c vcrbscannol be passivized:. t ie ir gon . Adj. rytional /rk scp.i.nl/. Cf. counterexampl€. and see rbe discussi,o!

exceptional case marking n. In GB. the ability of raising verbs toassign Objeclive Case to the NP subjects ofnon-finire complemeDts,such as to LrJd in ./r4"d Lisa thamin9 and I cotlsidc, Liso to be m,best \|tdtnt. Such constructions cannot b€ handl€d by th€ ordidarymachin€r)'o[ Case Th€ory. See Haegeman (1991) for discussion.

excessive /rk'sesrv/ rl- or adr. In some languages, an inflecled formof an adjcctivc. forming pan of its system of comparisoD, *,hichexpresses a superabundance of the qualit_v in question: Balquc,.n./k!i t(!r big . trom ld,.li 'big .

z-lz'l

clclelCT

;i:I;t;I;T:t:r: l'_l

:t:llt: l:t:t:I

ij

94

r r

n{r

95

exclamation

exclamation /,ekskle'merjn/ n. l- One of the four sentere typ€sof traditional gammar, typically expressing a more-orless emctionalcomment on something and often characterized by a gram-maticafly distinctive form. English examples are What a nice day iis! and Hoh, lucky you arc! 2. Any utlerance serving to exprcssemotion, regardl€ss of irs grarnmatical form. which is often merelythat of a word o. a phra*, such as Whtt a bummer!, Hooray!, Shit!ot No u)ay! Adj. exclamative /rk'sklemrtrv/.

exdam8tive adj. The mood category represented in an exclrmrtioD(sense l) .

exclusive first person /tk'sklursrv/ n. In some languages, a dis-tinct pronominal form expressing the meaning 'I and one or moreothe.s, excluding you' and contrasling there with an imlusivc ffr.stFrson. In Hawaiian. for example, the exclusive first person dual*aar'I and h€./she' contrasts with inclusive mrrir'I and you', andthe exclusive plulal kakou 'I and ihey' contrasts with inclusivemko!'I and you and he/she/they'.

Exclusivity Conditiotr /,eksklu'srvrti/ r,. The requirement that,ofany two distinci nodes A and B in a tree, one and only one of thefollowiog statements should be true: (a) A dominates B; (b) Bdominates A; (c) A precedes B; (d) B precedes A. This condition isuniversally accepted, except by those few who advo€ate the use oIwild tr€cs, in which precedence is undefined.

exha[stive constlnt partial ordering /rg'z.:strv,konstent,po:Jel '.:drrD/ ,1. (ECPO) The prop€ny of a gralnmar in whichthe left-to-right ordering of sisters is always the same, regardless ofthe identity of the mother. Only a gammar possessing this propertycan b€ formulated in the ID/LP format. Cazdd ed Pulluir (1981).

exhaustiv€ domination n. The relation uhich holds b€t*een anode in a tree and all of its daughters taken together. The completesequence of constituents dominated by a single node is sald to be'exhaustively dominated'by that node, which is the mother of all oIthem.

existeDtial se etrce /,egzr'stentJl/ r. A sentence which asseisthe existence ornon-existenc€ of som€ entity, eitherin general orina specifred location: There are no unkons, Tharc's a watp on yourbac&. The entity whos€ existence is al issue is alnost alwats rePresented by an indefrnite noun phrase (obligdorily so in somelanguages). It is very common for languages (o make use of a

exp€rienoer

distinctive sentenc€ pattem for this puryose, as does Engish, withits There islmere arc cotlsld.uction.

eroc\eDhic /,ekse{r'sentnkl adj. l. Denoting a constituent whichhas no h€ed. The existence of exocentric coostituents is prohibitedin most venions of the X-b.r system. 2. In older usage, denoting acoostituert \lhich contains no lexical head or which contaiDs alexical head which, when standing alone as a constituent, exhibitsa substantially different distribution from the larger @nstituent. Forexample, the category Sentence is exocentdc in most anal's€s, sinceeither it has no lexical head (the LFG anatysis), its lexical head is averb which does not in geneml exhibit a distribution similar to thatof a s€ntence (the GPSG analysis) or its lexical heed is an abstractlexical category of unique distribution (the cB analysis). The cate-gory PP is regarded as exocentric in many analyses, on the groundthat a PP has a disrribution fundamentally different from that of apreposition standing alone, but this is debatable: I knew her beforc,re par do€s not seem so differer.t from I knew her before, if theanalysis of belore in ihe second example as atr innaDsitive pr€po6i-tiotr is accepted. ,46st. ''. exocentricitt /eksausen'tr$rti/. Cf.crdoc.trEic, and .efer to the discussion there.

exoctniric comlDund See bahuwihi.

exophor /'eksafc:/ r. An atraphor (sense 1) whose antecedent liesoutside the sentence containing the anaphor, amd *hose refereDcemust therefore be determined from the linguistic or exEa-linguijticcontext. For example, in the utterance .lt€ lef t rr note for you, thepronouDs Jr€ and /on and the demonstmtive ttir arc all exopho$.Adr. eropboric /ekss'fonk/i abst. n. erophorr /rk'sofore/.

exp8$ioD /rk'spenJn/ r. The rewriting of a category as a string ofcategories by a phrase stiuctue rule or atr iDmediate dominancerule. For example, when the rule NP t Det N' is applied, the Npnode is e4ratded as a sequence of a detemitrer and an N-bar. Th€t.nD ea indod!@d by We[s (1947), d.aping on edlier work by Haris, ihoughWclls's conceptio! of expa.sion wd based upon the r€placement of prricula!horphmes by lod8er 3€quences-

e4rerienccr tl'spreriensa/ n. The s€m&rtic rolc born€ by an NPwhich €rpress€s the animate NP who is the passive recipient of as€nsation or a mental exDerience. such as ada in Lisa has a head-ache and Lisa is happy. Expenencer is one of the d€€p €Is€srecognized in Case Grammar.

a-c-c-e-e,eeeecc

ri!f

9196

cccc

c-c-z-L,e,teeccaaee

e

I

{

99 exlernal theh roleexp.rientisl 98

erD.-iieBtial ^k splari entJl/ a.//- An aspectual 'atcgory exPress-

ins the notion that an event occurred at leasl once dunng a certarn

oe-riod up to a cenain Point in time This i( onc of lhe tunctions of

in. fngii't' p.'i..t. rs in VIt€ "r

dorA l in ld7an' bnt some

laneuaies haie a di ' l inct i \ r form et l re 's ing thrs mcaning 'uch as

the"Jao_"n.st _t , (oro g, dru con\truct ion i l luqrat<J in thr J"Pane\e

translirion of rhc pr(((ding c\amplc v'|tc ^d \ihn Jc harcrutta

explrrnatory adequscy /lk'sPlsnetri/ See Lrnder adequacl

exDlet ive /rL sph:tr ! / n l . Sce dumm! l A t*ear $ord fanrcu_

lartv ont insened in(o lbe mrddle of a Phra$ a\ d meanrngress

emotional intcnsifier. as in Whcre's that bloodr- cat? Tnc ed is

d€nled from rhc langua8c of in'sr' in r/hich ir olieinall! meant a *ord or

Dbrde iDsened t(, fill out a lrne'

exDletive infixation /rnfrk serjn/ n tlc curiou' ftG.'ett b) qhich

u'n e*pt.r i t . (sensc 2) i ' in\er leJ rnlo lhe middl( " f " word as 'n

i."SirtA'lziti, and the class;c dotrn in Tunho'bloodt-Runba'shootin

kanla' b Io odY roos

exDonene,t I .Prunens/ n fhe oter l Ieal i /dtron " l a crar lmalr(al- ; i ; ; i i ; ; h" a nart icul l r morph sec vatrhc$\ tro?r) fol

discussion.

exDoDent /rk rp), ,nrnl / x A morph *hich erpreir fs \ome gtam-. i r i i .at

ai . t 'n l ' "n foI e\ample in rhe Lat in t(rb furm 'r ' r ' r r:it"i"rr" r**:.,rt".a' lt,he cxponent ofimperfecli'e aspect w'hile I

is the cxponent of lhe third person s'ngular'

exnonent ir l t im€ / ' r l "P)nenrf l tarm/ d ln comPural ional--i'"*'t,i.t, o characr.'n'ric trl dn slgorithm for rhe appliLar:on ol

*ri"t i-r,. trn" required increases b)'somc q antity raised to the

-*. r, *tt"r" n is the length of the inPut string For example'

Lrtain non'linguistic problems. in lhe most eftcienl approacn Pos!-

iur", i"q.ir. ,i'"" = iu". wtrere i< ana c ̂ re consrants lr has been

oroved ihat lransformational Sranrmars of the (\pc current rn lne

Lia-isf0.. *tt"n lrnpl".cnte'1 in parsers require cxponcntial rime

[o"t "

iio* u.ingi Exponentiai time is an exrrcmel-Y undesirable

.ii."*;t:,i. i. u.le.rirhm. since it generally means thal the real

titrc reouired to obtain a resuh in a Particular inslance is impossibly

lon! fo; alt but the sho(est ;npuls' Cf pollnomial tine .rnd se'l

B;oo . , '1 ' lesr) r(1r qJlr 'e di i { '<1' ' l

t !

.,n

extended exponence /rk'srendrd/ n. The phenomenon by which asingle grammatical distincrion is ovenly exprcssed ar two or morepoints within a word form. A simple examplc is the Ccrman nouoplural Wolre''words'. plural of lyo''word'. in which pturatity issimultaneousiy expressed by the vowelaltemation and by the suffix.A more elabora(e example is the l-atin verb form cucurristi ,you(SC) ran . a p€rfccrive form of rhe verbal roor .rr- .run,. in whichperfective aspect is simultaneously expressed by the reduplication.ll-. the suffix ir- and the choicc of ri to mark the second personsingula.. See Matthews (1972, 1974) for drscussron.

Extended Projection Principle n. In CB. the requiremenr that apredicate must have a subject, especially when rhis is combined withthe Proj€ction Principl€.

Exiended Standard Theory n. (EST) The v€rsion ofTransformational crammlr current in the mid-1970s. differins in anumbcr of re\pecr! f'um rhe Srandard Theory ot d ter. years eaifier.but mosl panicularly in rhe way in which synraclic strucrures receivesemantic int€rpretation- The EST was based on work by NoamChomsky (1970. I97l) and more particularly by Ray Jackendoff(1972)i it was conceived as a response tc, criticisms of the StandardThcoD advanced by the proponents of Cenerative Semsnrics in thelare 196{k. In the late 1970s. rhe EST underwent fnrth€r modifi-cationsi rhe revised model, ofren called the Revis€d ExtendedStndard Theory. *as in rurn supplanred by covernment-BindinqIheorj In rhe earl ! IaSrl \ \oa . rhe namc F\T r, oner,nes founa rn rhclirerature for rhc lalcr developmenr now usuallv callcd the.REST..

e!.lension hk stenjn/ ,l. Of a category. a s€cond caiegory which isconsistenr with rhe firsr but which is more fultv sDecified. Theca tcpo f t l \ - ' r l l sap 2 l l p ,R \o \ l t l vvHFH p ,uk l {a rh i rd pc rsonplural :'lP) is ao extension of the carcgory [N(n,N]IBAR 2l (an Np).

external argument /rk'st3rr / ,. In cB. an arqument of a verblyrng our\ ide rr\ \ubcateg,'r i larion ,ramc. parncuiarty a \ubiecr Np.

external conditions of adequacy See under &d€quscJ.

erl€rnalized language See E-tangusg€.

external thets role r. In cB, a th€t{ rot€ which is assisned bv alr\r( ,r h(,J r^ ir, . lbiecr Pa-r\c\. ' rNing !erh. anA uniccu"ati,e\erh! are asrum€,j .o a\. ign no exrernxl thera role. as a resuk of

$

sa.$'

aaa

I

It

extraction 100

wh'ch thc srructures in whirh they appear undergo obligatory Np-

extraction /rk strakjn/ r. Any of various phenomena in whichsome clcment appears ovcrtly in a position differenr from itscanoni-cal posilion. Examples includ€ WH-questions, relaaiy€ clsus€s, topi-caliation. adrerh preposing rnd dilloca.iotr.

extraposition /ekstrapa'zrJn/ n. l- The construction in which as€ntenrial snbject appears in final posirion. the subjecr Flosirionbeing lilled (in English) by the dummy n. as in lt surpises me thatGu! is sti hungtl. The complement clause in this position issaidtobe extrapos€d. 2. An] proposed process by which such a strudure isderived from the corresponding non*xtrapos€d structure. such asThat Gk\ k eill hung sutp^es ,ll?. y. ertrapG€ /ekstra'p z/.Jespck-n (l!6i- \'II:1.18)r oriernall. the positbn. ratherihatr rhe corstruclion

er{raposition from NP n. The construction in wh;ch a p.ep- €

factitive / i€ktrtrv/ l. d.r. Denoting a \erb er{prcssing a calse$hich p.oduces a resull. such as nruk.. build or ti1l. ()r a clauscconrr ining such a \erb. l . , . ln some vcrsions ol Case crammar, aslnon\nl ib. result.

fbvourite /'fcnarrt/ rl4. An occasional sj-non,vn for canonical..rpecirllr in connefiion with clause strucrurc-

f-command / 'ef k i mo:nd/ ' , . In LFG. n relat ion \ \hich m$ holdbct*ccn el€menls in an f-structure. It i5 stated as folloss: aranieccdent A f commands a pronorninal P i f f (a) A docs not containP. and (b) ever_v nucleus lhat contains A also conlains P. Herepronominal is uscd in rhe LFG sense of an o\cri pronoun orrejle\irc. and nucl€us in the LFG sensc (scnse 3). F-command isrnlokcd o handle binding relations belween ̂ -Psr it doe! much clthe \amc $ork as crommand in GB. but it differs from Ihc morefanliliar command relalions in thal it i\ defined over l-strllcturcs,rathcr than over constitucnt structures.

FCR Sce feature cooccurrence restriction.

f-description / ef dr skrrp.lnl r. I. I-FG. ihe set of requireme.tsrrnposed b) an annotatcd c slructure upon the corrcspondinq f-srrucrure. A c-structure and an f strucrure may be indcpendentlyq'ell-fo.med, but they can onlv combine ro provide thc complereslntactic representation of a singlc scnrence if the f-srruciure satisfies the i-description provided b) the c,srruciure- See Sclls (1985)

feature /fixjr/|,. (also synbctic f€ature) An! one of the ctcmenrsprovided by a theory of grammar and available to mako up part ofthe structure cjf a cat€gor] (senses I and 2). A featurc present in acaregory represenrs some characterisric of that category io whichthe rules ofthe grammar and the principles ot rhe rhcory mav refer.Tlpicallr. a featurc mal have a yalue which represenls onc of thecompeling possibililies for the realization of the cat€gory €onta:ningili in si)me svstems. the value of a feature may ilseu bc . lcarure. Aleaturc shich has onlv two possible \'!lues is said to be binar,v i a

zc'cee?ececcIccc

osrt iondl phra\e or a rclal ive clau\e which i \ undentood as lormins . . Ipan ol an \P i ' {paraled from lhe r( \ l of that \P by interv." . ; : Imrrci^l A woma4 tuned up uho I 6ed ro work r h'in Liveryo; C a^a

n

('

{r

and I boupht a book lhLs motntnq ahout hanstett C iexlraposit ion grammar 4. ln computar ional l ingursr ics. an e\ len- e :

sion ol :! definite claus€ grammar qhich perm;ts the recognition of t, Inon-adjacent .equ(ncA of element\ qhich are more uslral l ) adjac- -

|enr. q. rulc or rhe lorm S , N? . . VP. for exampte. may be u'€d C :to ds\ocr.r le a \rP wrth Jn appdrenr \P shich is arbi trar i ly far ̂ say a lf rom i t . as in the ( \ : rmple thc book the prcles,ot t?con^mded is: I\ood. : I

exlr insic rule ordering /rk,strrnzik ru: i ,J:drr0/ I Th. : Irequircment rhat ccrtain ruler in a grammar sbould apply in an t Iordcr srrpulared bt rhe grammar. Extr in\rc ordering was a r€gular z- Ilearure or de.cr i l t ion< si thrn the S(andard Theor) oiTC. bur f ;w i t t Ian! f ramesorks mdke use of i t toda!.

I I

l l: lIt- l

s:;!c

feature cooccufienc€ restriction t(D

LLLLLtLeLe?CCCCcCccccCCI€

cCsC5Iccc-

:

?

;

a

ar

.!"

a.

103 finitc

Head FeatEe Conrenti{,n (onc of lhe tcalure insrantiarion prin,c 'ple!) requircr that rhr \ 'a luc insi i rnr iarcd on lhc noun mus! bc thcsame as tbar innanriatcd on thc ! , !holc , \"p.

feature instantiation principlc a. Anl of se!cral p.inciples $hichhalc the effecr of connraining tl)e latues assigncd ro fcatures ondifferent nodes in a singlc srmcrurc_ CPSG_ the trame$.ork makingthe mosr c\plicit use of \uch pri'ciples. recognizes three: the HeadFeature Conlention. rhe Fool Fcatur€ p.inciple and the ConrrolAgr€€m€nl Principle. Thc iuncrion of thesc principtel is ro ensurethat conflictine features do nor appe r in a structure_ Cf. featurec(xxculrenc€ rest.iction.

featur€ matdx /'merlrrkV Scc complex lrlmbot.

feature value /'ralju:/ r. Any onc ot rhe mutua y exclusive poss,ible specifications lbr a leaiure which it ma) ass mc in a partjculnrinstaoce: see the examplcs undcr frature.

feminine /'fenrrnrn' ddl .\ rradirx)nal tabel in ceItajn $ndcrlanguage\ r 'or a gendcr clrr \ \ qhich sho$s some degrcc of semanr;ccorrelation !rirh temrlc \.\. Sc. the remarks under gende..

filler-gap dependency /irlr q.tp/ ll. Any d€p€ndencr (sense l)inrolving a gap and an o\.rr c ldmenr s hich rs inr.rpreted as oecup!.rng thc posir ion ot thar grp. Er lmptcs include ropicat izat ion andtlH-)lovemena.

f i l ter / ' f r l t . / , . A rcstr icr ion dn fossibte synracl ic l r ruc.ures rhichappl i€r onl l to a singlc lcvcl( ' f 5 lructurc ( in a deri !xt ional rheorv.usual\' thc most supcrlici l one) and \rhjch has thc effect otblocking cc.tain structurcs rcgardtcss of lhcir source. An oxanrpte isr i l .e that- lhat f i l te. . which srarcs rhat no Engl ish senlcncc maycontain $o consccuti!c i)c!urrcnccs of the complementize. r/!rlthis tilter prelents rhc gcneration oi slructu.es Ikc +[That lthu n1esmokeil bothers ftul surpriscs n(_ in conrrast ro c\rraposed \crlions likc lral it hoth.rs rou lhat she \nokes) rrrrplreJ,rc Clconslraint. Filre6 "ere inri,duc.d n\ Plrtnurtcr 09-_l). $ho ci ted rhen\urtace strucrur. coonrai.6 .

finite /'farnart/ adt. (ulso lensed) Denoring a form of a \erb orauxi l iary which can in pr inciplc scne as thc ont] lerb forn in ascnrence and rvhich rvpically carries rhe maximum in morphoiogicalmarking for su€h carcgo.ies a\ tcnsc and agrecmcnt permirrcd in a

eramDle is the fcatur( [PLURALI in Fnelrsh qhich c 'an only

ha\e the values l - | and [+]. repre:cnr inP singular and plural

number respectively- A fealure which has more than two Possiblevalues is said to be muhivalued or 'n-ary'l an example is lhe

fearure lPERSoNt. which has rhe values [l] [z] and [3]- rep'

resentin; first, sec;nd and third persons Features are indispens'

able in ivntax as a wav of dealing with cross'categoriation and

\ irrual lv al l cur l(nl th<oric: , ,1 Prammar mule e\t in ' i \€ u'e " fth€m. ihet, hav€ long bcen used in s-rntax in a sporadic and (,t/

,or wav. but explicit thcories oi fealures have only becn d€vel-

.p.A ,n .ynrr.r ' i theory . tnct ahoul l r )So lhough lealure\ havc

U!.n " 'a ir

u ' . .1 tn c( 'mpul,r t ron l l ingui ' r rc\ ' rnce thc Iai(h See

complex symbol. cross_categorization

fealure cooccurrence lesir ict ion n {FCRI An\ starcment in d

n.u..u. ot, tft"n.v uf grammar which limits the Possible combi'

iations of features or thcir \alucs silhin a single categor! Ohat

i . . ""

, r i .*r . nodc) For r \rnrplc rh( FCR IIF\SFl IVFRBIreo,rre. rnir Ihe rcarulc lTt\St l mr\ ' rnl \ b ' pt( \cnr in a crt-

eson,which also contains rhc l€ature [ \JERB]: in other \ords'

n 'ntr otoi . . r 'on' of rhe lc\r i r l c.rrrSon Verh md\ b' marl 'cd Lr

r e n * e . S i m , t . , , t ' . r h e F ( R I I \ \ I ' l c U \ l l \ l r e q u i ' - ' \ r h r r

un inuc.t"a .ui.gn.y mrst bc ,r finilc auxiliary lerb Obsen_e lhe

rol lo*,ne norar ional d,st in(rr , , r | rhe F{ R lXl IY] r 'quires

'r ' r" " t ' i "

, r ' . t ( r 'urc lXl n l t r( 'enr ' thc t(aruI( l \ I mu't .bc

"trJ"i,-*rl " thc FCR lii > [ Y] requnes thal when [X] is

p.""".1. fvi must also be prcsent and carr) the value [ ] Cr'

feature insrantiation principlc

feature instantiation /rn,sl.rnlji'erJrl/ ,l lhc assignmcnt of a

lalue to a featurc b) any mcrns othcr tha default assrgnmenl or

.ti"rl",;." Ut *r. li i..onrenicnl to think of instantiation as a kind

of"free choiic made b]_ lhe grammar in generating scnlcnce struc'

;;res: instantiation ls con.triinc<1. hoseler' borh bv the featur€

cooccurrence restricrions rnd bI the feature instantiation principles'

For examDl(. whcn -,mc ruk Inlr ' 'duc( ' a cJreqo^ \P into- a

srr ucrure. ihen. unlc. . rh. , l lar l r(ulrr tul( r t \el l \ t rpulalc ' a ! ) lu( lar

the lertutc LtLl 'RAl l *( drc Stnctdl lv i re{ to choo\e er lher l - l

i : , r " J " i , ; ' t - l t p l ' r r " l r o . r h . ! r l u r o ' l P l u R { L l t t h ' c h e \ e r

ralue \ \e choo'e r ' ' r id r , , h( Insldntralcd nn lhal \P \o$ lhe ralue

oi ipr-un,qI-l mrst also bc inslanliatecl on the noun which rs lhe

i"-i.J i.^J.i tr'" Np, ,his time . thoush thc choice is not freer th€

sl

o- "Q' i . tos foot f€rture

finite automalon 2- ''

ransuase.2.Denotinsacrauseconta,n,nssuchalerbrorm cr ?- 1, T:f*:"";l#f,lT1H'.:;,}lffi:lT#*l ;lmll:non fitrltc Z- ;' ;nderstood to be part, as illustrated by The plate hawallaftiyed,

firite ailtomaton See ffnito.strle autornaton. e - ' in which the quantifier a/ has 'floated off' the subject NP all /re

finitr cfosure n Th€ closure Prop€rty exhibired by an oPeration e ? d"y-t-rriicfis

not atlowea to apply io its own oulpur' For examPle in a e {j floid ir,u"*itit" /Alrdl adj. Dexoting a pattern found in some

GPSG-typ€ graminar. the (finile)sel of immediale domrnance rules a 1: actiw lerguag6 'n whicl, inrransirive verbs and pr€dicares can

is closed under the aPplication ol metarules - -- appear in erlher lhe agentive or the non agentive Pallem to exPress

6nit€ language n. A language containing only a finite number of 9 )) 9iff""* degrees of conirol over the acdon. Foi example, in the

- *"rlrorrn'"a i"nt"n"".. Since,a natural tanguug.s app.ar to -.ke €.- i; acliv€ language Eastern Pomo' the verb ce r4fta 'slip', 'slide' can

"*.i'.*"..r, f;"grl"" are confident thar io n.atura-l language is a C a^, take either ageot subjecls like id. '[' (agent) or non'agent subiects

finite language. ' ^ like pj 'I' (non-agent) !o express different meanings: H6: ce:#lka

finireness result /,rarnartnes ,z^lt/ n. A,propertv or aov rormar t :: .t#;l'g1f"1fitiltPc'se)' b.ut w ce:xitka'I'm slippins (bv acci-

rheorv of qrammar which pernils only a finite number ol drsirncl v

-ili,".?"J-rt."*."ry a finite n umuer ot tanguages. Noexisling C ii focus /'f:uk.:si n. special prominence given to some elemenl in a_theorv

of crarntnur is known lo have this property. At times tbe - <: !€nrence which represents rhe mosl impo(ant ne\t informatioD in

oossibititv ot a nniren."s result has been regarded as an'tolerestog - ; rhar s€ntence or which is expliciily conrrasted with somelhing else.

ouestion:but puuum (1983) dismiss€s il on the goutrd thal 'lirute- rn lE t' ln Engli.h. focused elements are frequently marked only by stress.

Jtrls "onte*r

*outa m""t tikely mean an inconceivably large nufiber. e

'-3 though deft conslructions are sometimes used. Some other lan-

finite-state automaton /'falna,stelv (FSA) (aiso tuite aoro' i '-i *"*o *nouslv mark focused elementsby the use ofpa(icles' asin

nator) or nnitFstste trsnsitioo *t*o.r i#rij7ftJ'q4::1 : i [:#,'J.'1'fiT.'lflXe;: $i:"1': ;f"$;:iff!5#";:H3:1ff"*.nffffiJ.::il:i:s.".ilfi;ff#ru; e iii -"-l:d'",in'whichaiocuiederem;ntispraceddirectrvbeforethe;fi,;;Jiil;;i;ected bv directional arcs wiih actions or C |

'i vern

londitions'anached, with no additional machin.'v: T! hngu191t

6 | ,3 fotl etyDnology /'fauk err,moledji/ n. The process by which agenerated or recognized by either the tetenninistic or non'

I I ,,. *"ra or phrase, usually one of seemingly opaque formation, isaElc r . l cu u , P ,ucr ( . usuc , ' t uur u , . r ( , , , , , ,B t t

det€rministic FSAS are exactly the rEgular langutges Nffi: srfl-i' b | _ arUrtrariJy reshaped so as io yreld a form which is considered to be

an FSTN is an abstnct repr*liation whilc an FsA tsd inplemdlatioo orlr g i li rn*" t.intp"t"nt. English examples include sParowslars (forfor a paniqllr puJpoF, but the ditrere.@ is rarclv significdt

e lG fpTST), Webh nrebit (fot.wetsh .abbit), ooyfish (tuom.Frcn:h

nrtre-srrt€sr8mnarse ;1":::,?,ff1-"*i::,W""$:Io:ff'*11"T&"1,?i'11.""1i111frite-state la4nrSe n. (FsL) A language which cat berecogDrzeo e

- | G, ,.",'1, r'.- si^nish .anahoria. ot Arabic origln.

i,Iff'f3",!ff"i'l;tr'1ffiffi#::'ffff"'ffi#''** € iG'''"'tr"'sPanishzanahona'otArabicoris'n;'nililffit,

"il;il-""ir."i.*aairii, iuch as English are 9- i 3 fo"t r*nr"" /fut/ n. IncPsc,anyoneof a d€sisnated s€t of features

demonstrably not finite,state languages. $- | i *tti.tt u.e subject to the Foot fealure Principle. Foot features differ

nfstperron/f3:svn..,":f""i1:"j:g:3*y:i;1':.1::n".j:fff e lc,'.",:.ffis:::":'fl11''::i:,'4ff.':,f::Jfi,j::ffJ":1,:l, . i r i " i r"" f* * *o*sented in Engl ish bv the pronounsl and tv?

l . l ' t . i f l i ' ' ' ' *" r" tud"tucuB"rsrr"u!" ! \ rJJ

- , .. .,,,y ro a hcad daughrer. The most trequently invoked foot fearuressee ab; erclusive frst person and bclusive ffrst Person

:,| .] ar" ttose,rsea to landle filler-gap dependencies and those used to

flat structur€ /flat/ See non{onfgsrstion l structu€. ! |

_ mark conslituents containing reflexives, reciprocals and WH-items

flectionol l$guage /'flekJen!/ s€e inneding languace. !-i

l: '* t co*rol the asreemcnt features required in rh€se items

e,--

Foot Feature Principle 106 r07

, -

e,4,,

Foot F€ature Principle n. Onc of (hc featur€ inst nriation prin-

ciplcs of GPSG. lnformall\. it slate\: n fool lcalure present on anydaughter m st also be Prc\ent on lhe mother'

foregrounding I'f.rsroundl!/ ,r l. A gen.ful lernl tor an) dis-course phenomeDon lhar pro\ide! special pront'nencc tor some Partof a scnlence or ullcrancc- pariicularll for fotus 2 Thc cffect ofany discourse phcnornenon $hich has rhe cffcct ofcitrning a narra-t ivc along. such as ( i t i r c lairncd) tr t rDsi l i le. larse slructure. tel icand \ol i t ional \erbs or lunclual aspect r iopPcr and lhonrln,n (1981))

-1. Any syn(acric proces\ \hich has the cifect of movins a non-pivolNP inlo pivot posi l ion (usual lY \Lrbjcct posi l ion). ruch as thc Engl ishpassive. Fol$ and van !alin ( t98J)

lbrmal / f . :ml/ d/ i I Pen! inin! togrrmmatical fornr\ . as opposcd1o rhe mcrnings or funct()ns of lhose fl)rnrs In thi\ \cflse. iorm,rl-conrrasls with funct ional.2. k)f a gr mnar) ComPletelv cxpl ic i t ile i ! ing nolhing kr he f i l lcd in b! the reader '

formal complexily ,. A !-vnonrm for generativc caplcit}- otlcnparricularl) for *eak generatire capacit] Cf. computational com-plexitJ.

formal grammar n. A full] c)iplicrt deli.c $hich speciiies. for agi len ini l ia l sei of c lcmcnts ( lhe \oc: lbulary or 'a lphabcf). thccomplcle sct of nrings of thor. eleftcnts $'hich arc in the language

dclincd b,v the gramm r. A grumm.rr which rs full! tbrmal consti_

tutes a lineuistic use ol \rhal mathemalicians and logicirns call a'formal syslcm. Mosr contemporar! approaches n) g'ammar pur

po( to bc fornral in this scn\e al leasl in priflciPle. though In

practice somc iramesork: arc considerablr more e\plicit than

olhers;sec, for examplc the acid remarks in I 'u l lunr (1989)

formalism / fr;m.llznl/ r. -An! full). eriplicit nolrlional dclice or

sel of such devices. The rerm can b. applicd. for c)iample. to rhe

Kle€ne slar. 1o the x-bar slstem or to thc entirc framc$ork of

GPSG.

formal language r. A hnguaSc gencralcd b! a formal grammar' A

formal languagc may or may not rcscmble a nalural language: one

of rhe goals of .erammatical inlesligalion is the construction of

grammars which generxte tbrnral languagcr relembl iog nrtural lan

guages as €losclr as polsiblc.

t_a,IattLcIccc.eeet-tee

c

€

CCsccece

d

2

IIlIIIIIIIIIIIIl

lice r€lativ€

formal univcrsal /l. A universal of langtagc which pcftains r() rhelorm ! sranrmaf can lake. Ihe modDles of ( ; ts. ihc l l€ad l€tureConrention. rh€ Thcra Criterion. thc Bi ding l,rincipl$ isec underEioding Thcoe) and thc principlc of functiorul cohcrence rrc aUfo.mrl uni\er:als !rhich ha!e bccn f'rop(^cd in (nrc rhcory oflrarnmar or anothcr. Compare substantir'€ unive.sal.

fb.mation /f:r:'merfn/ , I An! rruiali\'(' proccss hv shich some!r. ]mmati .al l i r rn i i construcle( l I rom rhe eramnrrr 'cat rc loufccs ofx lalrgu:rsc. 2. An! part iculrr grammatical form. whcn rcgardedfrom rhe point of \ icN of i rs sr.ul lure.

formative / f:):marr\'/ n l. A nrorphern€. particula.h onc \\'hicht lals a parl in svnra) i . such as thc Engl ish complemenl izer .r1ornossessivc J. 2. In morphology. a bou (i form which is addcd to arool l1) derilc a stem. For cxamplc. the I_arin lcrb rool ./'r- tovc.takcs lhe lbrmal i \e .r ( i t r ' thematic vo"cl ) in r l l i ls t i ) rms; to thisis addcd a funher formativc to dcrive erch parlicular slcm; ,rd- toderi\c the inperfect stem dr?ab./-_ -!i- l() derivl- the perfecr sremitnati-. -tu- 1() derive the supinc stem ./rdrr-, nr k) derivc thcnarl ic ipial s lcm d,zrr . and so on.

lbrm class / 'h:m f t lo:s/ " .

A gcncral lcrm for any cl ss ot i tems\hann8 morphological . and usual l \ also disir ibLrt ional. charlcteristics. Examples inchrde rhc class of nouns in Enlli-.h. thc class of a-slem \crbs in Spanish and the class of deponen! rerbs in Larin.

lbrm word Sce grarnmatical ,'rord (scnse t).

fragment /fr8qm.nt/ ,. L An urterancc \rhich consists onh of. , srnple phr:F(. l - . i , i 'menrs Jrc prr l iLulur l \ rnn)mun r\ r( \n,m\(\ro qucst ion!: lor examplc. the quesrion Wrcr. .r 1_,rd? mjghr bcrns$cred b\ a fraernent s\t h ̂ s tn rc tihrartor Vi:iitutg hcrlu .2.See gramma. fragment.

Irce ifri:l adj. The opFsir€ of bound. in alt senscs of lhat term.

free form ',. A form which can srand alonc as a complete word, suchas book. *ent or u'kler. Compare bourd form.

free morpheme r. A morpheme which can stand alone as a com-Plcte ro.d. such as toot. g/e€n or({r. Compare bound norph€me.

free relative /r. {also headless relative) L A rctative ctaus€ whichha! no le\ ical herd and which rhus consl i rures a noun phrase byir\elf: e.g., hlrd€rel r./ll /,d in rhc sentencc Whoeret di.l thut k in

fre€ word order 108

trorrle. 2. Sometimes also an adverbial clause inroduced by prer-

ever ot wherevet , as il I ll leave vrhenever Lita leaves .

free woid order n. 1. The phenomenon, observable in certainlanguages, by which the individual words making uP a sent€nce or aclause can be freely permuted into virtualy any order withoutaffecting either the wellformedn€ss of the s€nlence or its ProPositional content. An example isthe Australian laoguage Dyirbal, inwhich the meaning 'The woman hit the man', most typically ex-presed as bayi tara banggun dtugunbiru balgan. literally 'the manthe woman hit', can equally be expressed as banggun balgon yandyugumbiru bali, or as any other sequence of these word_forms.Free-word-order languages do not usuall)' permit the mixing ofwords from different clauses. 2. By extension, and very commonly.the phenom€non, observabl€ in certain languages, by which themajor constituents of a claus€ (NPs, PPs. AdvPs. elc.) can be freelypemrut€d with one another, and sometim€s also with the verb,without affecting either the well-formedness of the sentence or itspropositional content, though often with a difference in themalicstructure. ln Basque, for example, lhe meaning 'The studen6 fromBilbao brought their new teach€r some home-made sausage thismoming' would most tlpically b€ expressed as Ca ur Soizean Bilbokoikasleek irukasle beniari eteko Eorizoa ekoni diore, Iiterally lodaymoming-in Bilbao-from students teacher new-to home-made sau-sage brougbt Aur(', but many other orders are equally Poss;ble. suchas Etteko txorizoa Bilboko ikasleek ekati diote gaw goiaean irukLtlzbe iai. Howeler, t|ne phtases Bilboko ikasleek 'the students fromBilbao', irukasle bc iai to the new teachel and so on can in oocircumstances be broken uP. It seems misleading to refer to lan_guages like Basque as having free word orderl ideally, the termwould be rcstricted to languageslike Dyirbal, and Basque sbould besaid to have fr€e phras€ ord€r (as suggested by Matthews (1981) )'but this alternative term is little us€d, and in practice th€ label 'ftee

word order' is applied indiscriminately lo both cases-

frequentltive /fn'kwenlstlv/ n. ot adi. A syflonym lor ilcrstive.thougi a few analysts draw afine distinction between the two tenns.

fronti[g /'fr ntld See pr€Posing.

FSA See ffnit€-ststc automeron.

FSL See fnitc-stete langusge.

FSTN See under fnite-st!1€ autom.lon.

f-stiucture /'ef stl^ktje/ 't. (also fttnctiooel struct|re) In LFG. oneof the two grammatical sEucbres which toSether ate regarded asrepres€nting the syntactic st.ucture of a s€ntenc€, the other beirec-structure. An f-structure consists of a set of pairs of featurei('attlibutes') and iheir vaiues. Three kirds of values are oossible:(l) an alomic symbol. such as [Sc] in the specificarion INUM SCI:{2) a seosntic forn. such as the value of PREO ln lp-neO .tovi:(( I SUBJ) { l OBJ))lr (3) an f-srructure, such as rhe value ofSUBJ in

v-a-c.,c,e.a

1@ fructlonal

eeecQce

rt

- - l.* . . , ," ' t lII. ll

SUBJ f PRED

I o".F-srructures are used in LFG to express most syntactic furforuatioDorn€r lnan constttu€ot structure informatiotr. but most panicularlyto handle Eammaticd r€lations. F-structures arc subject to tlethree requirements of fr|trctional uDiFen€af, thrcdo|Nrl colararc€and fu l|ctiord complclarcss.

FUG /ef ju: 'd3i:/ See Furctiond Unificstion crrEmrr.

ft!|| phrasal crtegory ffuV r. A h.nn.l projedior, partiorlady ofone of rhe so-called mqior letic.l catagoriEs (Np, Vp; Ap, pp).'CLiDtermediate ptrrsd cstagory.

full *ord See lciical r+ord.

function /'f,rgkJ/ n. | . Any formal expression which acc€pts sotr|etorDar obJec(s) as input (its .argument(s

)') and rerums sotr|e siogleformal object as its output (its .value'). This basic mathemati-calnorion is $idely us€d for a range of purFoses in a variety of th€oriesor gatrlmar. r.or exanpt€. the f-sEuctulrs of LFG are functiors. asare the fearure marrices (.caregories_) of cpSG. 2. Any paniculargrarnmatrcal purpose which may tr served by some form or con_struction. J. See gremmrticrl ftltrction.

functional /'f^0kjenl/ adl. 1. pertaining to rhe clmmudcative andsocial aspects of language use. 2. pertaining to the gnmoaticalpurposes served by constituents, rather than to their form, Foreiample, the functional category edverbirl may be realized by almical adverb, a prepositional phrase, an infinitival complemeni ora subordinate clause, 'Functional' in this sense contrasts with formd

.|

functional annotatiod l l 0

a- .'?- . 'z- -'e, a:Q- !:

e. a,e 1'-e{:c!cca1

111 Functional Unificstion Grsmmar

etc.), often downplayinS the role of constituent structure in theprocess; examples are R€lational Grrmmq', Role-and.ReferetrccGrrmmar, Sysl€mic crsmmrr. 3. (capitalized) A particular theoryof g.ammar developed by Simon Dik and his colleagues in the1980s, one ofthe most prominent examples of a functional glammario the second s€nse. Dik's FG was inrroduc€d in Dik (197E); Dik(l9m) gives a brief introduction, Siewierska (191) a more substan-tial one. NoE: LFG is id facr a fDnclionat s.amnar in eN 2, bur iK rdederiv€s al leasr p.nly hon rhe inpo.tance in thar ftam€wort of nlDc{oB ir rhematheDati€l $ns.

futrctiotral schema (pl. schenrts) /'ski|ma, ,skilmeta orski:'mo:tal ,. (also fuctio l annotstioD) In LFG, one of theannotations on a node in a tree representiog the way in which the f.$rucbre of that node is integated into the f-structure of the tree.For example , in the rule

S + N P l ?

(1SUBJ)=J 1=J

rhe functional schemaon the NP (read'up's subjectisdown') meansthar th€ f-structure of the NP (the down arrow) is passed up to theSubjed pan of its morher's f-structure (tbe up arrow), while that onrbe VP (read 'up is down') means that the f-structure of the Vp ispass€d up to the f-srruchre of its mother; the latter notrtio! i[di-cates rhat rhe VP is the functional head of the S. Such ichcEatarepresent the p.incipal uay in which f-stru6u.es are linkcd to c.structures in LFG.

fudctioDal structure S€e f-sEuctur.

(sense l). 3. Pertaining to s€mantic roles and/or to grammalical

rclations,

functional annotation /aneulelftL/ Sec functiontl schema.

functional coherence /kec,'hlerans/ n. In LFG' a condition on thewell-formedness of f-structures- It may be stated as follows: an f_

structuie is locally mherent iff the govemable grammatical func-

tions that it contains are govemed by a local predicate; an f-structure is coherent iff all its subsidiary f-structures are locallycoherenl. The Purpose of lhis constraint js io rule oul structures

containing additional elements which cannot be functionally inter_preted; for example, it blocks * Lisa smiled me, in which the NP me

;eceives no functional interpretation (i.e-' it is assign€d no semanticrole, since rnile assigns only a Subject). Cf f nctional

functional completeness /kem'Pli:tnas/ n In LFG, a co:rdition on

the well-formedness of f_structurcs. It maybe stated as follows: anf

struclure is locally complete if!it contains atl the govemable gram-

matical functions thal rts Predicale Sovems: an f-siructule is com

plete iff all its subsidiary f-structures ar€ locally cofiplete' The

ouroose of this constraint is to rule oul stmctures lacking requiredgrammatical functions. such as *Z,rd Sdve m€. which lacks one of

ihe panicipant roles required by the verb give. Cf. tumtiootl

functional control r,. Th€ LFG term for cases of obligatory cont'ol

Obligatory control verbs like lr) and sem require their subi€cl to b:

rntemreted as the subiect ot thetr complemenl. a\ in LAa tQd to lurhe iatuurenor ̂ nd Lita seems rc b( haPpv l-unclional control is

represented by arcs connecting attribute values in f-structure Cf-

ansphoric contml.

functional grammar n. l. Any apProach lo grammaticai desctiP.

tion which;ys particular emPhasis on the communicative and social

aspecrs ol language use and which consequenlly atlempls to Inter-

orit qrammatical forms largely In lerms of these factors: a promt-

nentixample is Systtmic Gr&nmar' Explicit aPproaches which ate

funciional in this sens€ arc usually also functional in the s€cond

s€nse, though the levene is not necessarily the case 2 Any

aDoroach lo Prammatrcal description which atiaches particular rm-

oonance ro- crtmBatical r€lati}ns (Subjeci. Dired Objecl'

bomolement. eic.) and/or to s€mrntic roles (Agent Palient Goal'

Iaccceccccci1.Gll ici(i '€ i i"€ i G Functioo"l Urification Grar|Dsr r. (FUG) A.n approacb ro€ i ii. g.-.",lcal characrerizatioo propos€d by Manitr K_ay (f962). FIJO! I 1r. s,-"",". o oy Marutr Aay (r:,uzr. ru('-_ I -- combrnes a hrncfionat approach to reprcscnriDg linguistic intor.b I

\" mar'on wirh a u nificatio; ;pproach to maniputatilng tf,e gramoar.C-i 3 ,ctt I'nguistic obiecls are rep;es€nted by s€ts of functonei descrip.- - | -. tions consrsling of arlributes and their assigned values: functioDal

l- | ) q.*""l.ns ari in rhe $me format alt levets. Two tuoeionett' I .s' oescnp(rons either are incompatible or can b€ udfied inio a single

C-l -, descnprion. FUc isnot so mucb a theory of grammar as a fratn€--

L- sorr wrrhin !rhich various theoriesof graolrar may be exprersed in

|> | < a un' l . rm drd clmnutar icnal lv.onvenient way.

e5c---.=

e-112 L-

{.- "

fuzzy groDmar

at

€iciciei5isicis-icis-i

:lT

113functional lrniqueness

frrnclional uniqueness /ju'ni:knss/ n. ln LFG, a condition on thewell-formedness of f-structur€s. It says: in a given f-structure, aparticular attribute may hav€ at most one value. This coNtraintprevents, forexample, two different NPs from being assigned ro theSubject function in one clause.

function word See grammatical word (sense l).

fused exponence lti\r|zdl n.'Ihe morphological phenomenon inwbich two or more morphemes which are in principle distinct ar€merged into a singlc morph by regular phonological processes. Forexample, the genitive plural of the Basque noun Itzo,

'man' is inprinciple formed by the addition of lhe oblique plural marker -e-followed by the genitive case ending -er. th€oretically yielding*Sizoreer, but the phonologically r€gular merger of adjacent ident-ical vowels ields the actual form Btao,en, in which the plural andgenilive morphemes ar€ fused. Matthess (197a)-

fused paniciple r|. 'l-he use of a g€rund with a preceding NP in theobjective case, rather than in the genitive, as in I dblike fou estingpeanuts in bed (in the sense of 'I dislike your eating peanuts in bed').Fovler and Fo*ler (1906)-

fusion /'Eur3t/ n. The morphological phenomenon in which a wordconsists of several morphemes but in which no one-lo-one corre-sr,ondence can be established bct\'reen morPhemes and morPhs.Examples incfude English leet (: Uootl + {Plural}) anC too* (:

{rake) + {Past}). Sapir (191)i Sapils use of the term do6 dor quit€orrespond io ihe defitition 8iv€n here.

lusional language i'fju:3rnl-i n. A languaee in which tosiDtr isprominent; an inflcciing latrguage.

ftriure /'fju:tJa/ r. or adJ. A tensc form whose primary corelation is

with future time. A pure future form is pr€dictive. but very few

languages seem to have such a form, most future tenses in laDguage"swhich have them bein8 also widely used to express volition. The

future tense of Spanish, for exampte, is chiefly used for exPressing

?romises and determination, othe. foms b€ing preferred for sifiPlepredictions. English, il is p€rhaps wonh pointing out, has no fuffetenso; il uses a variety of'present' (non-past) forms for exPressingpredictions, intentions, promises, determination, obligation, Prott-ability and inevitability.

future p€rfect n. A verb fom combining furure tense with perfectasp€ct. sucb as lrrin rmaye.o .l shall have loved .

fuzzy grammar /'f^zil n. (also don.discrcte grsDE r.) An approachto grammatical characlerization which makes crucial us€ of the ideathat such notions as well-fomedness, category Dembe6hip andrule applicabifily are a ma(er of degree, ralher rhan (as i; mostapproaches) an absolute eirher/or matrer. lnstead of sharDlv dis_ringuished calegories, lhere are fuzy categories which shad; bbone another along continua called squfuh€s; a lexical iteD can b€characterized. for example. as'0,3 Noun, and a struclure catr bccharacterized as '0.6 well-formed'. Fuzzy grammar was intoducedby George Lakofi (1973) and was developed itr a series of paFrs byJohn Ross and othersi its proponents addresscd a wide varietv oiproblematic dara. bul. not surprisingly. ir has proved diffrculi toformalize in a useful l,ay, and it seemingly attracts little interest atpresent- See Newmeyer (1986) fora brief summary with rcferetrces.

LL,€_

e,eecqeIeg-

c,cceccccCC5sss-c-s-s-e-

gap lqrpl |. A lo.ati()n in a scntence in s hich no clemenl is o\crllvp;csent elcn lhough some elcmenl appears to be in some sensegrammatically required. The following examples illusrratc gaps: lhegaps positcC are reprcsenled h! the con\enti()nal sinrbol e: wl,o

were you totking tu e?t l'har bird we vw e *us u Cntohttu \'atble.

This book I n certuinh rc.otnnend t: I con t sP?ak french. hul

Lba can e, Lisa speaks bet?r frcnth lhan Piiru e: I boughl Re

botttes of tut *ine und r,!o e ol ||hit? rine. I otulcrcd heef illttd'as

ond Lisa e thicken Kash ir', Which paper\ dtl |ou Jila c withoul

.?adftA e? Thcories of gramnrar diffcr in therr trearment oi gaP!:

GB treats them as cmpt,! nodcs preseDl in the \vntacric slrucaure bur

unlilled by any ler.icrl malcriali GPSC lreais lhcm as features on

the mothcr node: LFG trcals ihem as relations within f'structures

See rlso fiUer{ap d€p€ndenc). empt! categor} parasi'ic gap-

gspping / qapi!/ 7I. ]'he phcnomenon in which an aPpare'l 'oor--dimre-structurc

Iacks a \ . rb. and n)metim's addit id ' r l consl i t t r

enls, in al l conjunctr but onc ( in Engl ish the l i rsr on€) the resul l ing

slructure rppearing l{) consisl of a coordination inlolving non-

constiruenr sequences E\atflfles: I onl(cd bc.J Uadtu' atul Lisu.e

chrcken Ku*n1ir; EIton gar( thc nus&D1 t1 puir ol glosses and Rod c

e u tee4hitt I'ta ^ vritinS un (sa) o,t il nigtutlls- Siobhnn c e c o

mnuri, luigua|(\ und .\liso,1 e c e ot1 ttt Frcnch \cadctn''

Gapoea conitr"itions are nokrrioDsl! dil-llculr lo anallse and no

iompletely sarisfacrory lrerlmeDt is currentlv a!nilable n4

gtpp€d /gapr' Ro\\ (lgarr' le'_(rl

garden-path sentencc /gu:drn por0/ n A scntencc \rhich rs \o-conrrrLr,r .J

rs ro mr' leru lh( h(arur rrr l ". ruclure Junnq lr ' \1\ trng : , rd ne1.r pe h ' l \ inro rr .rardrn$ In ' :

scntence .r \ r l ' l ' r rn.J sh(n .rn rrnrcmJrk:rhlc s( l l_ lnrmeu rn_

ierpretarlon is a'a;lat're, 'th( horse \hot frcn tr nah!( fetl ovr' .A

g"ri"" pr,L senrenle in\olvcs a lffal ambiguitr- and it lackr the

prdi\ proptrtJ.

GB Se3 . in. . .nBeal-Bindi ic ' thenrr

| | J

z-c-?ee2eeeccccccc1cieiei

:i:i: l

il ,.i.

generslization

gender /'d3enda/ n. L A grammahcrl cstegory found in certainlanguages b! which nouns arc divided into two or more class€srequiring differcnl agreemenl forms on determinerc, adjectives,verbs or other words: e.9.. Frcnch un vieux livre'an old book' butune rieille maion'an old hoDse . in which both the determiner aodthe adjcctive rellecl the g€nder of the noun. The number of genderclasses varies from a minimum of two to a maximum of about eightor reni tNo or th.ee is most usual. cender may or may not bemarked olertly on nouos; ofien only some nouns are ove(lymarked. There is usually some clear semantic basis for the genderctasscs in a gender language. tpically involving such obviousootions as size. shape. animacy, humanness and sex, but sometimesinvolving more unexpected notions such as edibility or danger. Inlerv fe* gender languaees, howev€r, is it possible to predict thegender of every noun from its meaning alonel lhe semanlic corre-lalion is usually much weaker than this. S€e Corbett (1991) for adeaailed accounl. r'o,ts: most Europear lansueses otber rhan English haveseflde! srsleds sho*ine soDe degrec of conelation with sexi a a on*quence.matry nonlinguGts (and some linguiscl) needlesly onflse gender with sex.This confEiod sho d be aloided: scx is a natrer of biologt. while Sender is amanerof glalmar. Md one wbich has nodeccsary @ntectio. wiih sex. {Mosie'called feninine- rouns in French, for example (like miroa). hav€ noonn.clion pnh the female sex ) 2. Sometimes, by extension, and as aresult of the confusion just referred to, any grammatical or lexicaldistincrion correlaring with sex, such ̂ s English helshelit ot dukeldrcr€rr. This extension seems objectionable and is probably best

generalization /,d3enaralar'z€Ijt/ n. A statement about thegrammatical facrs of a language, or about thc facts of languagesgenerallr. which holds true in all cases or in nearly all cases. Allcontemporary theories of grammar consider it a major goal toideniify generalizations (at leasl those which are 'linguistically sig-nificanr'). to state rh€m explicitly within grammars or theories ofgrammar and to explain them as far as possible by deriving themfrom fundamental principles. lt ;s by no means obvious d priori,howe\cr. which generalizations are linguistically significant oreven which generalizations exist at all; this last poinl arises panlybecause linguists disagree about how many exceptions can b€rolerated bdore a proposed generalization musl be abaDdonedand panly because denvational theories of grammar permit theslaiins of generalizarions which hold at abstract levels of

canr g€neratirstion. : ,. ff.afv: elnnar n. t. A-Srao.Der for a partiodd language

ceDeralized pbrase srructu-e crammar /d3enrrrra "" , 2 r, H"ff:':fr'iiffiffiilj;TfJ#;1ffif,lfH:(GsG) A theory of Srammar develope d by Geraltr cazdar and his i 1: suace- In th; case

"r " r.ig,r.g" ;oi;! ;y a 6niac nunbcr ofcolleagues in th€ 1980s. The class of grammars permitted by cpsc {E ' '

sentences, a mere list of tiesJsentenccs Joua'u"iatty satisty oeis strongly equivalenr ro rhe ctass of conrexr-ft.. €r"'n,n;^, ";;

C :: defnilioo. Th€ ooty g"o"oti"" g"-_"r" oiiy mercst, bo*cver,GPSG represents the major attcmpt at characterizing oaturat tan. | .. are thoce which m'eJt

"t t""t i." oi ti" -oditio1s of.dcqoac,,

Suages In lerms of conlr{Ffree Srammars. Among the disrinclive : :- which.bave b€€n formulated; iD any cas€. narurat taoguages arecharacterislics ol thc frameworl are ih monostratal representatiom € ..' agrccd to cootain a! hfdte number of seotences, and. $nce trsm-olsvmadrcsrru.rurc.ir\reiecrronofgrammaricalrela(ions.irswell- g7 rt mars are nomally required o be 6nire. a;;;reuve gramrDar ofaalliculated theory of fealures its acceptanc€. of the nrte-roruk ! .i n"tural hSguage Dusi of Decersity provia-e some more priacipled

hlToth€sis and _its separation of grammatical .r"t"-"nr" into "

{9 tl basis for c.fu;dcrizing s"nt"o"e". it partiJar, sucrr a graomarmefagrammar (containing m€larutes and other gen€ralizations g tr m]l.st p.rold.e_machinery for trestitrg rrnrrdoD, the pheiomenonabout lhe rules of the Srammar) and an object grammar lcontaiaing I ...^. which is chiefly responsible for the

-ut imited size of natural lao-the rules whtch directl) liccnie local subtree5). CPSG makes ni ] l] euaees. such a graonar difren froo othe. approacbes ro gratnfteti-

claims aboul psl chologica l reall y l the framework isdesigned purely g 'i cal_d€sc.iption in thar it is fully exFrlicit, leaving aothing to be filled

:'""f'*1"'T:"::"-1^T:-.'i::'llll, '::ll1''l' :,1 'ilry:'i: € (i :-9 1.1y,-T y9:: .Te rotion or a^generaitive s;-* i' thi"

vC€neralized Phrase Stiucture Grammar I 16 C-

?- ' - lll Gerersfiyc senelldcl;:l?ff".*;,*i ""t"n the surrace sce arso ri'g'i"rurv 'goin- f' 1:

phenomena. Its development signalled a rerurn to rtre tina ot ] ]^ sense was inEoduced by Chonsky (193D, and rt ms aomtnatcdformal expiicitness which had been advocared by chomsky itr ,tr" C I l] c'ork in s,' ax ever sioc€ (though sci sense a). cboDlly (1961). 2.1950s butwhich had largely disappeared from synracic rheory in rhe C | (i: Any partiqtartheory ofgrannai *hich tas as is goal thi coos;uc-

inlervening J(cadcs. fhe fir.t major presentition of- cPsc was ; I --. tion ofsuch gdffna; for panicutar tanguagei. :. -Tte

e1tcrprise ofC""lar {1c82): ihe mosr comprehen\ive sratemeni of lhe tsarne- : l'; constructing sucb rheoriei of gramm"tl a.- ut tt" rec€nr qork orwork rs.Ga/darPrzl {1q85).seesell}(lq85lorHonockstlssT)for C l {1 loarn ctomsty aod his asdares. * "pp-""b

to Sraomaticala brief 'nlroduclion. See also Hcad-Drivco Phrase Structlre 2 | /. characterization which focus€s on the identioqoon ol utrivcrsalGrath''r

: I ; yid|6 of grammar-- c€nerative grammar in this s€n5e att ches

setreration /d3enr,reiJn/, rhe process by which a o*.** : i I l*:r#;,r"*":j**;lJi*x*:J#;grar narenumerates and characterizes the senrencesofa language. - l -. ntler tdr Edi.al tbd it hrs roderiD6 b.€! n.d€ ro llp.{, strE at lcstS u c h a g r a m m a r i s s a i d t o ' g e n e r a t e ' t h o s e s e n t e n c e s . L l * * . . t a n o * k y ' s a s s & i . t c a @ b c u r d e * r o o d a s t n d r 6 i n i t r s t h a r n a r u r a l

g€neraaiye /,d3enarairv/ adj. l. Denoting any approach to gra,nma- : ! ::

-** * mi s.rudlv o.ve s'*a'" ir eff€ 1'

tical characterization invoivi ng genersti;€ gram;sr(s), in a-ny sense ! |

s' Ge&rstive S€Nmartics r. A version of Trusfotus6o1al cr1r*of that term.2. Denoting aoy approach to gram.tr|atical characteriz- Fl rs whicn rcgards sFtax and semaltics as a si[gc utrmed are! ofation which is tully explicir. which iscompletely formaiized. C-{ G

inYtg"loD atrd whicb re8ards rte semaDdc structure ofa sentctrce

senera.ive crpaciry A.s'pesr,i/,,. (aiso power) rhe ranse or s-l g r*"?,1",1i:'f#f""SffiH1il,"..%:f$j3?H;sentences which can be generated by a panicular class of grammars. (i-: ? ::l:ll.€s. The underlyinS stmcturB posited e." typi"atty ucryWe distinguish. betweeo w€{k geDerative capdg, in wbic! tbe !J - ab'stract and iDvolve a good deal of ledcrl accoopoatir; a aasiisetrtences irrc regarded merely as linear srrings of elebents. -d : I : :xaD.ql€ $ thc higal struclu.e ofttc s€ntetre noyTtrotc * gtus,.Eotg Scner.dve clpacity, in which the strudures ersigned to tho6c C-i ? puetuy loya d.i it Floyd cawc becomc gtass breat. Cercitivestrhssarearsoconsidered;s€etneremarksuDderthceenrfies.

qj i ffitrf.?:ffifffiffiT."',:HI#?Hc-: 2c12

getr€ric 118

z'aeeeeeeec

,n

l l 9 gorernnrg categor!

l i tnguagcs. L t - ln i !crsr l L Pcr l i r inrn! &r a compl . r . \ rn lencc.ra lhcf lhdn to onl \ prr t . i i i : non ktcal L ln chssl f . l l I ( i . p( r l r in1n! n, , r coml let . d , rn\ r l ion. ra lhcr rhrn nr , r paf i icLrhr s t i rgc ot

g lobal ambigui t t , . An rmbigui r \ t re \cnt in a \ r r iD{ r ) r \ordscorr .sponding to t$o or more eorrp lcr . senrcnc! \ ( l lor r lanbigui l ) .

global constraint (!l\o glob.rl rule) Sce drrirational coDstnrint.

g ioss rq ins/ n. A ! r n \ lxr i ( )n o l a word. l ,h l1rs. of ser tcnr . i i rnrnhcrl rnsurS! . e\pct i . r l l \ or re $hich is i r r r fn( le , l mcrc l \ r \ r !u i i lc ro ici IP lnr \ rnrate me. tntns or nructur t A !k \s o ia r ing lc le \ ier l i l . r i r iscnlkxcd jn in \er led comma!- a\ $hcn c i l ing Basque ! i :d , man:rhe n i r rque e) iamplc ( ; i .onuk e,wt / r r man Det Erg g i \ . -PastPrr- lS! l )O Au\ lSgI( ) lsgsubl fhe mrn grvc i l to nre i l lLrs t f l t tes iheconvfnt iorra l manner o l g lo! ! ing complcr cxpressions. y . 8 loss.

gnomi( r n : romr l / . r r t . (n lso e€ner ic) Dcnor i rg thc aspcelual Iorm!\prcs\ ins a gencrr l or uni \ers l l r rurh. rs in Rir , . r / / ) /&r . r . , ' .tdv,r)us. t\arcl boils at l0A d<ft\,\,!^r1Tl!1 Rontu ! r,1)rc taqns.Ver\ le$ laoeuages \ecm to har . a d i \ t in l t i le ibrnr exelLrr i \c l \ iorL \ f r ! . r 1 j { n u m i ( : ' \ f c ( l : I n n \ o i ' i n . . , . I n I r ! r i . h . r h ! r , n h ^ -krs icr l l \ s i rnplest iornr o l !erbs and \cn lcnccs is used.

gottl /qiur r. Thc sem.rnlir rol€ bo.ne tr\ rn \P c\p.f\\ini thc endpoinr of morion in an ;rhstracr of corcrelr \cnrc- su.h a' 1 o/r.l(//1 ;nt nt llins to Lonilon ^nrl tll,1t .o".ht\k,t in Ha\t rtid \ou t.d rhati , tn l$ ior? Goal r \ onc of rhc decp cases rccogniTed rn ( la \e( ; tur l r r l r . r r : i t is somcl i r r rcs conf la ied $ i th l lcncf ic iary.

governcd / g . \ \ .nd/ ddl . In an! casc of gorcrnmenl ( in serr \ . \ I Jnd: (J l lhr t lcrm). denot ins the. lcmcnl {h ich is su l r ic( t t ( , rhcr q r i ' . r ' n . ml '^( . j \ ! rh . . .c .nd , i , 'n( r r i r . gotcrn, , r

go\ern ing calegory /q\ \anr t / r In ( iB. a rpeci f icd l t )c : r l domain$!rh in sbich thc pr i rcrp les of ts inc l i r rg- Ihcoy appl ! . ' lhr f rec isedcl in i l ion is somc*hl t complex and ha\ undcrgi ,n! 1)ccasionalnx)( l i l ic r t ion i thc lo lkr$ ine is e i \cn in l l . rcgcman (1991): thc go! ,crn inS crregor ! ofan \P is the min imnldornr in conrai inq that \P-i r . . r ' ' r r " ^ f d n J a r ' , . ( * h h , " h , ( . r I n r h c m - 1 o r ' r r , i r r r \ l d n c e \ .th i \ \ l r tenrent can be reduced ro thc fo lbwing: th . qolern ingcr l rgon o i an r \P is thc smal lest NI , or S conrai l rng rhat Np

St ndsrd Th€ory of TGi the ke! figurcs in its develoPment were

Georce Lakoff. Jamcs Mccawley' John Ross and Paul Posral The

framirork was evcntuallv abardon€d as impossibly ambitrous but

man\ of i t \ rdea! had a la. t ing innuence "n !he IaleI J<\ 'elunmenl of

aen€;arr\e erdmmar Sce Newm€)er I la8hr lor an ac\ 'unt of thc

;se and fall of the framework. bLorf (19'76): *'inen l%l

generic /d3o'nerrk/ Se€ gDodc

qenitive / d3enrtr\/ n or ddl ral\o posscisive) A di\rincti\e case-forn

rypicatty martrng a noun phra'e $h'ch \e^e' a posse\\ ive rolc

wirhin-a larrer noun phrase. Examples are Lua r in Lisa s ne|| book

and Basqu; Anoftn Ana s in Antlten bikini iofi lhat bikini of

Ana s'. 1ie genrtive is unusual among case forms in thal it does not

normally exfress an argument or adj nct of the verb: nevertheless'

in languagei with well-developed case svstems, it is usually inte-

grateirno,"rplologicalty into the case syslem See also poc!€ssion'

eerutrd / d3€rrnd, n A lradir iondl nam( lor lhe - ia8 form of a rerb''"

f""f"fr "r'."

* *^cs as a verbsl noun a' I n Sbnnng it good

etercie. Lisa's going roPless upsel her father aAd I eniov watchng

.dcker, or for a verbal soun in any language The Eqglish Eerund is

alwav' idenlical in formalron Io rhe imp€rfedire Participl€ bul rl rs

none lhe les. grammalicat l ) con!enienl lo dr\ t inguirh lhe rso

Manv analvsts ;ould restrici the (erm gerund in English to "8

torms in wilctr ttre uerU relains its abilit-! to take verbal argumen's'

adverbs and complements. as ir Deliberctel| bo\|linS bouncen Ls

urfri^ ^ **tu.La *ith cases in which the -'n8 derivative tunc-

ii"t ".riehtf"*".afy

as a noun taking derermrnels adjectivet

and otberidnomrnal.. a\ in lhi: Jtlibe'ae bowlnq 4 houn'ers ̂

givatr /glvrn/ a. i / {of the Informdtion conre\ed hy ctr tarn.ere_

mcnts 'n an ul leranc(l A\rumed to hc dl 'ead! Inoqn lo lhe adores

scc, and hence s€rvlng only as a bacLgrorrnd for the remalnder oI

il';;;; wlicrr lxpresses new'informadon ln the €xample

lhc ooera vou rc rh;ntiig oJ i' ru'ondor' the \P the lrta pou te

rhinkilnc oi ianspatnrlt expre\<e: 8r!cn Information ADr" n

8lv.[ffi /'gw.nnas/.

tr l / 'q l tubv ddi l ComPrehenrr{e $rde IanginS fhis Ialher- l*"

"Ai .- i " . is much faroured b1 ' !nlact ic isn' sho are rncl ined

o icgniue some proPosal ar a glohal aplroach ehen lhey.mean

trrcly tbal t iey hope i t wi l l worL tn " \ar iet \ of cdse\Ina!arrewol

c9ccccceeeeecI€

eI

6ccIccc;.1

"-i?- 'tm C,agoverrme

and iB govemor. See Haegematr (191) for some explication of theunexplained complicatrons.

goveriment /'g^vonment/ n. 1. Tftditionaly, any instanc€ of adepeDdeDcy in which the mere preseDce of one element (the gover-nor) imposes some reqrnrement upon the form assumed by asecond element which is gamrnatically linked with it (the govemedcategory). For example, a verb or a preposition which requires anobject NP standing in the dative case is said to govem irs objecl, orto govem the dative case. Ceriain iDstances of what are tradition-ally rcgarded as sgrceme are strictly instances of govemment,such as the conoord in gender tretween an adjective atrd the noun itmodifies; see ihe remarks undet .greeme . 2. In GB, a particularstnrctural relationship which may hold between two nodes in atree, and *hich is regatded as being of central imPortanc€ in thatftamework. The precise definitron of govemment has varied con-siderably over the yeaN; a rec€nt version (hom Chomsky 1986) isthe follovring: a node A govems a node B iff (a) A m-commands B;(b) no naximal projection intervenes between A and B; (c) A is ahead. Govemment is essentially a special case of c.€ommadd (or,more recently, of m{ommatrd) in which c€rtain additiooal require_ments are met. It pla,s a cnrcial role in GB in the assignment ofCase and in constraining the distribution of emptr catego.i€s. Thenotion was inlroduced by Chornsky (1981) and significandy modi-fied by Aoun and Sportiche (1982). See Haegeman (r91) fordiscussion, and see Barker and Pullum (19q)) for atr attempt atextracting the common core of the various definitions of govem-ment which have been offered; see also proper goY€.nsent. 3. Serl€xisl governmen|

Government-Binding Theory n. (GB) The nost p.ominent aDdinfluential contemporary theory of gammar, the dir€ct desc€ndaltof the various versions of Trmsformstionsl Grammsr. GB difforsradically from other approaches in its emPhasis upon tbe elucidationof abstBct universal prbciples of grammar; it devotes litde atteD-lioD to $e writing ot rules and tbe conslructioo of grallmars for'particular

languages, and indeed iis Proponents often mahtain thatihere are no sn"hihings as rules of granmar, only the p nciples and

the psrameters whode values can vary ftom latrguage to latrguagewithin sperified limils. GB is a derivationsl tbeoryl the slatacbcstructur; of a s€ntence is leprcsented as an ordered series of tr€es'three of which are designated as bei4 of spe4ial sigdfrcaace:Ilskrcture, S-cfuctur€ and L.Sicsl Fdm (LF). These rePles€D_

127 grSm|Dlr

tatiom make extensive us€ of qull elemeots call€d €opty c.t gorb.There is a single very g€neral transformatioDal opention calledAlphr Moy€d€nt whose itrtrinBic overgeneration is constlaitred bythe requirements of each of a large set of semi_autonomousmodules. The modules are X-b'r Thcory (concemed with basicconstituent stnrcture), Thete Theory (concemed with the argumentstructures of verbs), Boudabog Theo.y (soncamed *ith consttaintson movem€nt), Cnvernment Th€ory (conc€med with the Position-ing cf overt NPs and empty categories), Cs€ Theory (concernedwith the distribution of NP argumeats), Bindirg Theory (concemedwith the distdbution of anaphoric items and empty categories) andCootrol Theory (concemed with the interPretatiotr of claus€s lack-ing overt subjects). Each of these modules has access to information

Fovided by the other modules, and hence the modules are not'bformanonally encapsulated' in the sens€ of Fodor (1983). GB wasdeveloped by-Noam Chomsky and his associates; though c€rtainaspects o{ the ftamework had been adumbrated in the 1908, th€Binding and Case components were fiIst Presented h Chomsky(f980), and the first tuf description of the whole system came idChonsky (1981). Since its inc€ption, GB has undergoDe variousmodifications, rctably in Chomsky (1986). A brief inEoductioo toGB is provided in Horocks (1987); a more compreheosive pr€sen-tation is Haegeman (1991).

Government Th€ory n. One of the modules tecognized in GB. Itsfunction is to ensure that certain t'?es of structural relations holdbetweed nodes in hees; its princrpal requirement is the EdptyCategory Piinciple.

governor /g^vene/ n. l ln any case of SovclnEent (in setrs€s I aod2 of that term), the element whos€ presence imposes a requirementupon a second element, the govemed category. 2. In GB, any orcof c€rtain categories d€signated as caPable of bearing the relatioD ofgovenrment to another cate'gory. In recent work, a[ heads areregarded as potential govemo$. 3. (also coDtolhr) ln a d.Fo'd€trcy F€r, the single word (normally the maiD vcrb) on which aIthe other words in the sentedce ultimately dep€nd.

GPSG See cencralized Pirsse structuI€ GrlmtrE.

grade /grerd/ S€e degt€.

grasmrr /'qrEme/ n. 1. The system by {,hich th€ words andmoiphcEes of a laaguage are organized into larger units, psrricdady

e,e.'.'e!'e('cl le!:c:.ci;ci.ci ic .- ic i ic(acl ie '.1

eeecc

:iii ir.

U,,?.

grammar fragment 122 2, a . nj grdnnrtical word

into sentences, perceived as existing independenlly of any attempt 9 ;- or--"0- morpheme n. A morpheme whrch has little ot noat dcscribing ir. 2. A particular description of such a system. as ? . semantic content aDd which serves chiefly as a grammatical elementembodied in a ser of rules. L Thc branch of linguistics dealing with ; (. in momhotoet or syntar, such as o/. rre. the coEplemenlizer t/t r.1hs 661511g6116n 6f ruch descnltrons and wrth lheinrestrgation of v

,. the -ing of gir,rnG and paniciples, Plural or Past tense. Cf. l€dc.ltheir properties. convenrionally divided inro norpholog] and slr- ? ..'

,|torptcoc.|ax. See also tradilional gra'nmar. generative grammar. universal ) l:grammsr, theory of grannar. /di. grarnmatica,

; a: grammaticlt relstion r. (also g.an ndiicrl tlrncdon) Any one of

grammar rrasment n. (arso roy grammar) A snar grammar which a ,. ;Jff:t;.1;ft;**-f,:T:i"ffI".*;i$ t#ffi:i:"i::

[?:#J:r,1Tfitl#:hor a lansuagc' intended ar an 'liustration or

i i it'ions are soriocr, direct obj€cr, indi.€cr oblccr and obuque; .'- obje\G't: some woutd add ScDitive and objd d coEFrison' aod

grammatical /grr'mellkl/ .r,.1/. L perrarnrng r" gru--"r. in ! '-'

,"ln. c/ould also enend the concept to drc gramdetical roles

any sense of that term- z. See *e1-forned. ibsrr._x. (!cn5e 2) 9 i, played by categories other than NP, such a3 lndlcat or comF

gramma.icarity/sremarr'ksr,til. i :-, ffJ #;::X;"ttf.'rflllf,:.'fiff'fl:;;ffif,{iif;grammatical category r,. Any of various caregonc\ disrinclions C ii semsrtlc roL. bome by those elements. Gtammalical rclations

within which arc expressed by variations in the form of lex'c.al or C ii were i&ntified very early in the history of European linguistics:phrasaf constituenis. Among rhe most frequenrly orcurring gram- : .- Aristotle's division of s€ntenccs into subiects and predicates wasmatical categories arc person, rumb€r. gender, c!ia. tense, aspecr, I D€rhaps the first step ever taken in syntadic atralysis.mood, voice. deg.ee and deicaic posiaion. but other rare. on€s exist. e 1i iqetentreless, granmatical relations were largely ignored in-Grammatical catego.ies are quit€ various in their nature. Some (the ; ,. twentieth-centuif linguistics until the 19ft, wben a number ofdcictic categories lite person. t€ns€ and deictic position) serve ro s "' linruisrs, often working ourside rhe then{urr€nl transfomationale\press contextual learures of an urn rancc. Others. I'kc mood and e

'.:- rJo.rt""rn. began lo point oul ihe synractic imPonance of thcs€

aspect, expr€ss rhe speaker's pcrception ofcenain (haracte ristics of C 1i: relationsi panicularly inffuential was the pap€r by Keenan andthe proposition embodicd in her/his uuerance. Srill others, like : ;,. Cornrie (th7), which set up the NP Acc€sdbltitt Hiersrchy. Atnumb€r and gender. rcpresent the grammalicalzatron of certain g i. around tlie sam" time, Perlmutter and his cotleagues were puttingperceived semaotic features of referents, or s€ne chiefly "s C ii" toSethcr R&tiood crrEn|I. a version of g€nerative CrammT iJlrefereoce-tmcking deviccs. Yet others, tike roice and case. sene : ... wh'ich sammatical relarions were taken as the fundamental Primi'Iargely to express aspects oflhe internal gnmmatrcal srructure ofa : l'" tves. ioday mo6t theories of grammar incorpotate grammaticalsentence, or to express the relative prominence of elements of the e i in rehrions in one way or anorher, though GPSG has nothing to saysentence. whar lhey all have in common is lhat. when a lramrnati C | ,;. abour them, and CB regards them in large measure as secondarycal category is present in a language. a choicc amonglhe available : | ): and darived &om constituent structure. Some recent work hasforms expres\ing drslindions wrlhrn thar careporv ; obtilatory i" 5 i in

-orooo*d exrendine the convenrionat inventor) of grammatical re

specilied circum(tances: one or another of.rhe compet;ng forms e

- i ll. Ltions by adding iucb novet retarrons as primsry objert and s€t-

,narr be us€d. Thus. for example, in English. in which nouns ar€ ^_l .- ||drt'v obl€ct.rnus. ror exampre, In r.nglsn. In wnrcn nou's 4c -_l .__ o|d|t'y obl€ct.marked for number. one or lhe orher of the rwo compeling forms l | '$(singular or plural) must always b€ used; there is no possibility of 9- I ir" ganruaAcat t/ord n. (also empty word, folm word, function word)avoiding the choice, even when the number dislinction appears to r^- | --

-1. A word with little or no intrinsic semantic content which primar-

be inelevant l-t I ily r..t". *rn" grammatical purpos€r oJ, tr€. 2. An occasional

srammaticrrruncrionn Anothe,namerorsr"..",'-**". !i I ilX"E|;i#r'trfi::::H;;:.$T,Xi":""::l'.i:'ll;l;prefened in cenain frameworks. such as LFG. ! I ? :c{ a

avoided.

c=?

c'?

r24 cgraph fheory

graph theory lgtotfl n. A branch of mathematics dealing withobjects called graphs. A graph is simply a collection of points whichmay be conn€ci€d by lines ('arcs'). A number of linguistic objedsmay be usefuly regarded as graphs, the most imponant being he6.Graphs of linguistic interest are usually of th€ particular q?e calleddirect€d .cyclic gmphs.

group Senitive lgrlutpl n. The English constmction in which thepossessive affx -3 is attached to a large NP in such a way that theaffix is sepanted from the head noun of the NP. Examples includeThe Wile of Bath's Tale, the h)oman Jou were tnlking to's husband,the south of Frunce's populanon boom a':,d that wonun youreseeinq's mothet. lesperen ll9i3).

habitual ,ft.'brtJual/ adl. (also consu€tudinal) The aspect categoryshich expresses an acrion which is regularly or consistenrty per,formed b! some entirr. Tle habitual is a subdivision of theimperfective aspect. English has a distinct habjtual form in the pasrtense onlvr the 6pd r, construclion. as in 1_,:? ared to.\moke. Someother languaSes have a more svstematic expression of habilualasp€ct. such as Spanish. which has a disrincr habiruat auxitiaryjal€riSkete pasar pot aqui'He usually comes rhis way'. See Comrie (1976)

haplologJ, ,ftrp'lolad3i/ ".

T}|e morphological process in which oneof rso consccutire morphs of identical or similar form is droDD€d.For e\amph.. rhe Bd.quc $ord for 'c ider. d compoun,j ot ;8d,'apple a n d a.zlo wine . oughr. by rhe usual rulcs of word formation ,to hale the form *sagaran:lo, bul lhe actuat form is r.Saldo, in\rhich onc of the -a. sequences has been droppcd.

hatmony / htr:m:ni/ n. In iypology. the degree ro which differentr]- nological characlcristics corr.lare wilh one anothcr in a consistenrmanner. For example. as sas shoq,n by crc€nberg (1963), SOVword order. lefi-branchinB construciions, posrpositions and cases!stems all lend stronglv ro corretate: a languagc exbibiring a ofrhese shows a high degree of iyp()logical harmony.

hash mark /heJ mork/ r . A symbol used to denore rhar wharfollo$s is svntacrically well-formed but semanticajj\ bizar,e: #pautit a Rtuish trun?etlt bu! u Frcn.h.e bt.

HPSG See Hegd-Driren Pl'.€s€ srruc.ule crstlD&.

head fted/ ?r. L Thar clcmenr of a constjtucnt which is syntacticallyccnrral in that it is primarily r€sponsible for rhe syntaclic characrerof rhe consrituenr. For example. in rhe Np rrese o/d boo*r. thc nounbo.,kr is usuall) regarded as rhe head (rhough see the attemative!ie! suggcsted under determiner phrss€). fraditional grammariansrccognized a rathcr inexplicir and limited notion of heads: thenotion was dc!elopcd b\ the Amcrican srnicruralisrs and extendedlo most constitucnls. Earl! generalive grammar effectively

?e?eeccaacccccceeeecC€

eees6Ccccc

iII

II

i , ,

. i

{ '

abandoned the notion for some years' but since the rise of the

X-bar svstem in the 1970s, the concept of a head has increasjngly

been se;n as syntactically cenlral Today almost all constituents are

s.n"tutl! ."guta.d as projeclions ol lexicrl hcad\' ln thc example

i t .* , rr ' . r i*a of rh; \P qould nos u'ualh be reparded as rhe

N-bar old booftr. whose head in tum would be the noun ?tookr'

*f,l.fr i" tf,. kxical head of the full noun phrasc- There remains'

houever, considcrable disagrecment as lo which categories are

i"aas: se" vuy"ten (1982) for a sunef of conflicting views lt is

u.u"tty "t

u."i tttut " "ategor)

has onl)' one head but coordinate

,t.*ti.". u." ott"n analysed as containing as many heads as they

trrr . .oniuncrs 2 ln \ome \ ie\s oi morpholog) a nrorptreme

*i i . t ' ' . . . .n ,r ptruing d rnle in sord rolmal ion comparable to thar

prr i .Jt i "

' l t* ," t ' .ad l - ' ' 'cr"mPle 'ome qould argue rhat rhe

I'iri'. 'i"' ii thc head ol thc $od happnc\' T.hi\ non \tandard

'i"* ** "a""*.a

bv Lieber (1980) and williams (1981) and

criticized bY ZwickY (1985)

Head-Driven Plrras€ Structure Grammar /hed dri\n/ n'i-ftci e tr,."'v .r g.ammar d€veloPed in the mid-1980s bv Carl

;;il;'; I;'s"*;om Pollard s e;rlier H€ad Grammar' HPSG

;.ln ecf"cti" cra-"*ort which bonows heavily from oth€r theones

t "r" t . r t

i i rn"y u" u'erul l ) t reqed asd develonmcnt olcPSG

"n'.i i. t,."tit ri'n*nced bt carcgorial Pramrl-ar and bf LFG

upic .r** "f,i*r

u\e ol unitication and i( rs PerhaPs lhe.mosl

"t.ir;-".", ""a tft. L*t-dc!c''lcd ol lhc !ariou\ unificarion based

itrc,.rie.. curegotic. incorForate information abour lhe categones

i;;;;;;il;";il' incruding s'bcateg.rization rnrormation and

r,"ri.. t..v r"* rule\ arc nece\sary' all rmp'rtant. 'vnlaclrc. ano

.".^t ," i -*** berng drrven b\ Inlolmal ion in lexicdl entnes

ffr" f rr . i*- f rs pre<ented in Pol lard and Sae t lqR')

Head-Driven Phrase Struciure Grammar t21 heavy NP

. \ thcrt fornluL!r ion of i r . bul ! l t rhcories oi Srammar make use of i rrn onc rornl or rnolher.

llead Grammar , (HC) A thlory of grlnrmar proposcd ily Carll ' { ) l lard {19t1). I jonsisi in! e\senrial l } ot a hr-br id of CpSC and..it..goral gramnrar. Head granrmars. which incorporare wrap oper,r l ()n\ . charrctcnze a wcl l dcl incd sct ol lan.euages which are ap()pcr super\ct ol the conlcxGircc langu.rgesi head grammars a.e,howc\er. onl) mi ldlv conrcrr-scnsit ive. and computar ional ly rheyxrc onh \ l ight l \ lcss l raclablc than CF,grrmmars. The framework$r\ lirter elabordrcd rnto H€ad-Driven phras€ Strucrure crammar.

headless relative /'hedlas/ Scc free .etatiro

headl ine language / hedhrn/ , r . - l -he synracr ica ! disr inct i !c styte

u\.il in ne$spapfr headlincs. characterized b]'' an abscncc oi finire!r 'hr and ( lc l . rmincrs. lhc usc of the simple prescnt to rcporr' .ccnt past c!cnts rnd thc cxlcnr i le use of nouns nodify ing otherr'(uns: Aorn giv6 l d o (roats, Pir,I b risit US antl Rtit||ay\t ion tnu t.r itqri^ shock.

hcad marking / hed mo:krr} / n. A g.ammaricrt patrern in l rhich arul .rr i ( )n bet$ccn a head and ir depcndent of ihar head is morphological lv markcd on rhe head rarher lhan on the dcpcndcnt.t:\nmples include possessi\e consrructions marked on thc possesscdhrrd rather rh,n on the posscssor (as in construct statc and izafet. , )n\ Inic l ions) !nd the marking of granrnal ical rc lat ions on tbe verbr irh.r than b\ lase forms on Np argumcnrs. Head marking is\onrftimcs rcgu(lcd as a typological chirracterisric of tanguages.\hibi l ing i t . al d€pendent marking. and tcc Nichot\ 0986) forvrnrc d iscU\ \ i ( 'n Ian \ 'a t i f ( l i ) r5 )

Hcud Parameter n In (lB. lhc propo\cd paramete. by which apirr t iculaf languirgr chooses r l ) put t r l l i rs hcads eirher to thc lef t ortoIhc r ight of rhcir s isrerr. I r fact. !cry icw l nguagcs lppear to.or lorm nrairhrf , )r$ardl ! ro cirher pai lcrn. rnd ihis proposat can' i n l \ \ , ' n . r i r : , r n ( . 1 $ r r h . o n \ r J ( r a h t ( I n g c n u r r \ .

heav) NP / 'hc! i / f r A noun phrase which is lery long. Hcavy Npsof lcn contain rr l t i !e claLrscs or complemenl clauses. and thcy oftensh( '* . r l .ndcnc\ l ( ) occur al rhc cnd of the sentence. regardtess ofrh. canonic,r l IJ{ \ i rk)n of qrnnrmrr ical l ! s inl | t rrr \ps Sec heavy Npshifi

t26

azzzceceeecaeCGIeecccc

5

, :

i " :

head feature n. A f tature shrch rn \ome paniculrr analy ' i5 i ' l -

de\renated a5 herng subi(cl lo the Head F€at r€ (onrmuon.rrc I

greai maior iry ol synracr ic tcature\ drc nlrmal lr l rearco as tr(au 6

.eHead Feature Convention /kan ventjn/ I !mc) frt.ll1i'^'L C

features.

lilf, i;:l'$il:l:',I:T,i:,'l;:i':;il" iii"." *".,0.1u."' e"i i

'r, ' i .r i J,"grrr. ' rhis con\enrion is in\oked ror.a qide ranse t

"' p"'p..... r- .'.l".pte ror PUaranrecins.thar a

llTll Ili: *."": 6i i r i-r, i*

" pr"*r norn as irr head Tlrc HFC 6 prrt i ! ' r lnrr\ a"ocl

l"iiit" &tl.'*; ;;; ;;;;;-;;* i.' p-i'." " c'rn'reter! cc6:

heavy NP shift 128

z'zL

{.

i..

IIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIItTITIT

_I

et?eecccIccccceeeeeccCIICCccceee

heavy NP shift /JIfi/ n rhc phenomenon in which a heavv NP

occr;rs at lhc end of its senlence in defiance of the canonical position

of srammatical l ] s imi lar \Ps. I leavv r ' - I 'shi fr is obsened lery

wid;li in the languages cf ihe world For exarnple in the SOV

lansuaee Basquc, an object \P normallv precedes the !erb but an

objecr whictr ii a trea'y xP usuall] folloss rts verb

hedge /hed3/ n. An expression addcd lo an utlerance $hich permib

thJspeakcr to rc<luce her/hiscommittnent 1o what shc/he is saying: /

think,I suppose, t fancy.I ||ouLd g ess . I takc n, it seens to me '

hendiadys /hen'dalsdls/ ,r The joining by a coordinating conjunc-

tion of iwo elernenrs which proPerly stand in a subordinating re-

lationship. such as /ricl drd Hdln tor'nicely wa'm or trr and do it

for 'try to do it .

hesternal / hestenl/ adt. Denoting a tense form occurring ;n certain

lan!uaq(r $hrch r\pi( : r l l ! rder\ lo etenr\ In Ihe rc(enl pa'r ' includ

inc- re-.rr 'dat hul rol err l ier loda! Bolh lhc Banlu languagc

Kimta and rhe Carib language llixkarvana' for cxamplc have such

a tense form, coDtrasling with a hodiernal pasr ( earlier today') aod

a remotc past ('morc than a fe\\ weeks ago ) Daht 11985): Latir

/]€rt?rn!r'related li) Yestcrday

heterocategorial head /,heteraukate'goriau ' A head wbich is a

oroiecrion it a different lexica) calegory from its mother' For

Lximple, in Drinking the water 6 not adrhed'1hcVP drinkins the

w/k/ is arguably the hcad of alr NP

HtrC See Head Feature Conlenlion

HG See Head Grammar'

hierarchical structure /harar u:krkl/ See conligurational struc-

hierarchy / 'harrrolki / , r ' Any of !ar ious l incar scales along which

certain grarnmatical elemcnts arc ranked wilh respect to one or

..." gti.."i."f proccsses Among the mosl promineflt ate the

NP A;cessibility Hierarchv (ihe Relational llierarchv) and the

Animacy Hierarchy Croft (1990) presents a summary oi the pnt'

cipal g;mmatical hierarchies which hale becn recogniz€d '4d]

hierarchical /haIar orklkl/

histor ic preseni /hr ' ' rLtrr t n lhe u- or a l r+(nl l (n\e lurnr

$ r l h P a - l l i m c r e l ( r e n c e d \ ' o m e t r m ( ' ! i ! ' r r r \ ' n n u r r J l i ! e \ $ r l h I n e

I :9 hyperco ection

tunction of adding\i\ldnc\t: Thi' 8t1r conrcs in, liqht? He Soes up lotht har aat asks l.n a vhisk'"

hodiernal ,,]1iudi 3:nl/ ddl Denoling a tense form. particularly apn\t-tense fo.m. occurring in certain languages which typically re-i.'\ t1r events occurring on the day ol speaking. A hodiemal Pastf trrnr occurs. for cr.rmple. in Bengal i . Kikuyu. Qnecha, Zulu,Hi\krrlana and European Spanish. and apparently occurred In\. \entccnth-centur! French. according to thc Port Royal grammar.Drh l l 9E5 ) . Lah / r l , , r ! d l odav

honori8c /Dna rr frk/ / l or.rdl . A dist inct i \c grammatical or lexicallorm used con\ entionalll. and olten obligalorily in certain contexts,fti c\pr.ss fespect towardj someone othcr than the speaker. Ar.\amplc is rhe Japanesc prcfi{ o . attached to nouns, adjectives and!erb\ in rhis function. as in o kilct pretty (respeclful form; f,/r'€i isrhe unmarked forln). Ir{orc complex examples are provided by the-rripene\c honorilic \erbs: !he ordinary verbs dgeru'Ei\e ai.l miru'se. . iff e\ample . ha\ e corc sponding honorific forrtls o'ugt ni narulnd.(o.d, ,l ndl&. as lcll as more elaborate honoti{ic forms.

hortative /'hr:lrtn/ a.4. The mood category expressing ar exhor-ration- ttpicall! represcnlcd in English by tlle dblinctiv€ structurcrihrstfated in 1 ei:! -qo .'r Lds sce what can be done.

host ,/hau\r/ n. I b€ elenent 1o $hich a clitic or sfir is phonologically

hot ne\}s perf'ect /hot njurz/ n. A particular function of the perfe€t!\pect in Engli\h and \omc other languages, by which the perfect isuscd to e\press the prescnt relelance of a recent past event: 7'r€Pr.skleN llds bc'ln shot Sce perfect. Mccawley (1971).

hJ-pallage ,4rar p€bd5i/ 11 Inlersion of the normal ordcr of word!ibr rhelorical cflect: the trumpet's Tuscan blarc.,4dj. hypallactic/ha1pa lrktrki

hypcrbaton /ha: p:Jrbatrn/ n. 'fhe use of an abnormal order ofciements ior rhctorical effect: Us he dewuted.

hJ-percorrection / harprkr rekJrt/ r. An error rcsulting from aronlused rttempt at avoiding another error. such as the use of..r1,.., rorr an,/ / b) speakers raught ro aloid lhe use of rne in. .r t i r in oth.r . i rcurnstance\. /dr. hrpercorrect / harpaktrekt/ .

. -

.:.

hyphen r30

hyphen / 'hartun/, A con\.nr ic inal s lmbol for marking the bouodrn,i ill a bound form. a( in th! preiir p/e or the sumx -re.

hypocorism ihar pDkrrrzm/ (also hypocorisma /harpaka,flzme/),l A diminutile. pa icularh one uscd as an endcarmenr or petnanre. such as Mikey or Lut)kins. or as a euphemism, sucb aswklies or hank\ /4rlr. hypocoristic /harpak. rrstrk/.

hypotaxis /harpa tak!r\/ See subordination. Cf. parata{s.

hypothetic /h.!p.'edrk l n. ot adj. A label sometimes applied ro a\crb form used rlpically or c\clu\ilel) in conditionat senbnces.

hysteron proteron / hrst:rroa 'pmtomn/ n The inversion of rhek)gical or(ler of clements. z, in thunder ond lightninq or in thel)ascball rerrn ir'r drd nr, (denotjng a play in which (he runningprecedes lhc hi t t r ig).

"-l"l|- l

ilc;cl

:i:i;r

!l:r:t

ij

':.._

G

aa.

I Th.;norc r . .cn! \ \nr l r ,1 t{)r l \ t : t_.

I:\ rrr er/ Set llcm-.rnd--\rransomenr.

IC rr s i ; / Scc immediurc consl i ruenl.

iconici t r /ark. nrs i / , l . , \ d ir(r t corrchl jon bLrween a conceptuul.rnr)n or dinincr jor i ,nd rrr t inguisl ic refrererr. t ron. Iconici ty hasnor Lrrualh hccr c,rn\ id. ' feJ r pronrin! .nt fearure of grammaticall rructurcs, but r .cenrlr rc\err l 1 'nguisrs hn!e poinlcd our intercst ing.a\c\ oi ' r . notnhl\ t l , , i rnrn ( I ( . /8:) and nyhee I tgSr). For exal iplc,: t r ' \ r rggestod lhir lhe ,)rd.r i rg of r€ns( .rsp.cr . rnrt mcod rnarkings$rth rcspect l , j i t \crb rr-m is mosr ol ien icdr ic: aspccr. whjch is. i )nroprual l \ nr( isr t ; !ht i ! bound ro rhc lerb. is Inorphologjcal lymr,r lcd clo\ ! \ l t ( ) rhc \ ! rb sreIn $hi le nr(rd. conccprual l ) thc lcasrIrghr l \ bound. is markrr i iur ihcn from lhe verb stem, \ai lh tense jnber$cen in borh rcstccrs 1i t / . iconic / i r r kD rk/ See also conccp-

IDc-command iar di : \ i ; / n (atso l -command) One of the com-mrnd relat ions. I t , ( [c\ A no(tc A ID(. commands anothcr node Brr i \ \ morhcr , lominrrc. B . l t )C-command i \ thc mosr rcsrr icr i lc.r f \nral lest . , ) l f . l l rhr c()mnrrnd reial i t )ns. pulum ( j986b).

ideal izat ion /rrdretar z.r . ln, rr The phelomcnon b\ whjch .rl , - " ' , " " . 1 , . , ( n r . : r . i 1 m ! , r . i , :

" r t , . , . n o y r r m m a r . c h , , o . e . r orqrore cer larn comptrcirnons or cmbarrassing ol)scrvat ions in theia\ dara. f {)r rhe sLrkr oi obluinins rn clcganr. economical andr f ! , r r l u l . , ( r . , U n r t , , n . n , ' r u , r O i n r i , t . a i . . r p l i n e . n c . e . s a n t !I n \ ' , r \ u . \ r n r . ! t e p f e c , i t J . ! t i , , . , t r u n . r , ( r t r n g u i . , r . . i . n o r \ c e p r i o n .but n. ural l ! rhere arc controersies (ncr the qucsrion of lusi howmu.h rdeal izar ion i \ n.rrni ! ! iht .

ideophone / r( i i ! f :un/ / r On. ot a pranrmatrcr y djst inct c lass of$ords. occu.r ins in ccrt l l in tanguagei. wniclr t l .prcxt l ! exprcss ei ther, latrncr i \e v)unds or \ i \ual l \ di i t inct i \c iypes of act ion. In lan,g" ' r ( . ' l . ,ar h.r ! . ' t , .n ' . , , ' .o1'r . ,n. . ar( . U!ui tr \ l ( r ;gidt) convenI r o n . ' l . n l o r n ' . r h , r { , , r d , . r h n u e h r h : \ n r } . . n r , r m r . e \ h i h r r

z-z.

idiolcrt 132 a ia: Ii-l immedia.e consti.rjltTty.,t,j

excepti. 'nar phonorosicar charactenrr,cs. \u,h ,\ \e.rmen,\ ni', Q t.. "l ' l"l ' lh':l"l: ': i: '11'.t"tl: l l l:1^e.:*i;l-"19:tt:i?l::f:l iexcepti.rnal phonological characterirlics. such as segnrenls nor z

",.

crt\ ol e\hlurillit conshn' p:rrtral oroenng Dul lne r:L rt/ proper(\

uil,enrise aftesred. Herc arc a ic* of rhe mrn) ,r.ophone\ ,,, rhc ? : : apfcirr!,to bc r'"'i:l i" :f' q*''il: 'll

ll:'i 'I'j p,:'l'l'-'|"

)cmak.p.rrr,..rr';unp l : :, "1ll':'r 1"":-"r": J"l1gn-'"11:l':,'l:.)pT'lL':T::l:.f11_f:.( dr ih languaP( \P^lat: k| tc kuh AulP l l rugl i ro:rr / . ! , r , . i iurnp o 1linro canoi.r sr. . r , rol . ropd . fal l i f lg inio the qdrer tur Lr i r scream : | . ,^

\ iour l \ bfen m:rdc b\ I numbcr oi l inguisc, thc 6rst ful ly exPl ic i l

i n g . ; r ? t ) s e k _ y , c r e e p D p . i r y l r r 0 i f e r s o n $ a l t r n ! . n . \ ! r ! 1 u r c j : : ' r a r t m e n t . f I h . I D / L P f o r n r a r q r s g i l c n t ' \ ( i 3 7 d r r a n t l I ' u l l u m

t"u;"; , ) ," , - , . , , , ar- , ^ | . . (1981) $irhin rhc GPSG frnmc$orki f t ' ( tay. thc formal is widely'hamm(xk swinging: utoluto ' t r .cs fal l ing: rrar l r , ' i i r r i r . t a ; . :approacn . : l , . empkr\ ' :d in \ ' r rrous orhcr l r i rmetrorkr '

ei.-id iolect / ' rdi . lekr/ , . Th! sp€cch ot a parrrcula nd,! ,Jual 14 I ! :

lD ruk s" immtdial t dominance rule

idiolectrl ̂ dir'lcktl/. IL /r: c, scc indr\€d hnsuaqe.

idiom /'tdiem/ n. Al expressron con\rstrng of tso or nro.e \tords 9

^ IL r" : c, Scc indr\€d hnguage.

, iom / ' rdiem/ n. A| express'on con\rstrng ul t$r ' or nrore q'Jrds j | . ._ l - languagr .r j , / r ( . r1\o iniernat izrd taneuage) A language scen as l tw h o s e m e a n i n g c a n n o t b e s i m p l y p r e d i c t e d f r ! ' m r h u m t r r , r n d s o f r l s 9 1 ' ' * , , , r , , ' i " '

" n A p r i n c i f t c s i n r h c r n i n d o r a s p c a k e r . a p p f t r x i m a t c l y

const i tucnt pans: / . t r le cot o| t , , f t t t , tag. t""orrt 'o, .dptt-r e l , i rhr.alrre not ion i r ! compcrencc. Cl. E-hnguagc. chonr\k! eN6).

1). ,ke. For sernant ic reasons. an idiom requtR\ i t \ , t$n l ( \ rc" i cntn . l_ ,^_i"";"";: i l : ' i l ; ;;;;;; i l ;;,;;;;. ' ; ,.,r;;.;;: ' ' , ' c i : ir i l t iverrr'1tl17 I or ard '\ ca\r torm t)'pi! ' [v cxPrcssing thc

i l lustrared by ihe examplc Tht,Mt ha, but! iet our,1 r trc hdg. n C : . : ' .nrrnl i . n( i t i . ' i ( , i lnFrion) inr l ) : Finnish ldn)o, int . lhc house'

which the i ; iom tras unttergone passi\ izarton I I le ott l Lronsttrre i ! . : ' rdlo h(- ' \e )

struclufc. ,4dr. idiomatic /rdii mctrk/ : I : iil-formed /rt f:r:md/ ,d (rrso unsramn'aticat. detiant) I)enorins

idiorr chunk / tJ^!k/ , . A porl ion ol an idiom qhich '5 \ep"f ik, i : | : a ' \at lct ic s lmcturc $hich is nor perni t lcd hv thc rulcs ol the

from the restol the idtom rn a Parlrcular senten.". l " tnc exumpre C i : l gr lnrmar 'n tr prtr l iculrr languagc l l l - formedncss is con\cntbnrl l !

Thecat has becn ee antt t rut , , , t i r outoftrc hag.rhe phr! \e l 'd.dr is € I . . - indi . l red h\ an xstensk preccding the str ing represcnt ing rhc struc-

an idiom chunk const i tut ing part oi the,dn,m ter *" ." t ow,1 *e / | | rur ' a\ in the t \anrpl" ' / i fd vr ' / ' 'd ' r r" s ince a \ t r ins normrt l l ] '

b.8 : i; ;l:;:m,$:1.::illlT:,11:i:Til'1,;llil,J*.iti:[[,]i:iD/LP format /ar dir el pi: f.rmet/ n. A r"rmar t'.r careeoriat -

| ,] norrrnn,rt maleriat. \uch ar brackds. gaps trr rcitrcnrial indices. rorutes in which these rules are separalcd in1, ' t$o \c l5 (n \ talemenrs: !s

I € idenlr t \ unambiguousl\ thc \ l ruclLIr \ rhich i \ bcing characlcr ized as

a s € t o f i m m e d i a t e d o m i n a n c e r u | € s - s p e c i l \ i n q s h i c h n | o t h c r 5 c a ' l c r . i l l n ' r n 1 c | l ] ' j , l , p l . r { d ' l l / l . . / | . , J J ] . ' n dha!e whi(h dlughlc|s. dnJ " \er of l in€ar precedtncc rules sfc '1r\ ^ a -ingihc lef t- to-n;ht order of s istcn. The ID/L-P l , rrn"t ap."r ' - t '9 I

i ; i l loctt t ionarl force /r l : 'kJu:frnr i ' f ' : i / n ' rhe comnruni ' ' r i i \e

e s s e n 1 i a l . s i n c e t h e a l t e r n a t l ! e l s t o p r o \ t d C . u t . . ' p . . i r r , n g h . ' . h e : < d l . l | n f ; o n { ) l ' I n U l l e r . n . ( ' \ h i { ' h m , ! h . l h i 1 o l a r e ( ] u c s t i i l I ' a c l i ( ) 'rypes of informatbn l i rnulraneously. and rhs inc' i r" i r r me.,n' r t rar I I - . a r( !ue\r f f in lormari"n- rn ordfr ' a $xrnins :r prt)misc 'n ol ler

r i re same prcceoencc informati l )n is{aled,^er," .r*" , ,s" ' " i " " 1I I o. I thr l ' . r r . orolmrn! orhtr p,)ssibl . such intet\ t ions rhe i l l ( ,c

number oi disr incr rules. ei th conscquenr tos , , i .eencral iz.rr i , ' ; r ' e ; - ur! ' r rD lorcc of rn utrcr i rncc is in geneft l indcpcnd.nr d i ts

For example. English has a larSe numbcr ol Pr*.rt'le .tpan'ront n'r 6 I - gnnrmitri'rl f()l nr or \cntenrc tvpe Aurrn { 1e6l)

t h e c a t e g o r y \ r P . s u c h a s V P - \ ' . V P - \ ' \ P . \ P - \ ' P P V P - - f - , i m m e d i a t e c o n s t i t u c n t i r r r r i : d i : r ( / , ( I C ) A o n s l i t u e n t o l a

V N P P P , a m o n g o r h e r s . a n d i n e l c r y o n e o t t h c t r h e \ c r h P r c c ( d o t l |

- c a r . r o n $ h i c h i s n , r r M n r n i t u l n r ( , r a n ) u n i r w h i c h i s i t s c l f airs sisrel ! . This general i rat ion is not\herc e\nrL\€d rn th. t radr C = 7 con\t i ru. r of lh.rr cnregof\ . \ \ 'h.n rh.rre rcprtsenrat ion of cont ional phrase structure iormat. but. in thc ID,tP form3r. lhe tu a a -- \ r i tucnl J l f t rcturc is c. plolcd. immedrrre c,rnst i tLrcna i : s imply arutes simply srate the possible daughters of vP qrthout \npulJtrng : f : r r tn\m lor daushtera n y l i n e a r o r d e l i n g . a n d t h e n r h e l P r u l ( V ' X ( a t { t h f r c c c ( ] € ( f ' = airs sis.en') prol ides the r€qurred g"n.r" t , . r 'nn ln gtnirul rhc e I Z

inrmediale const i tutr l t analts is /antt l rsrs/ n ' fhe exhausi i l 'e

r D , / i - p f o r m a r . r D o n r r b e u s e d i n . r n , o n ' . . , , p , , . . ' " g r t ' c p r o p - L -

j x n r r " ' i \ o r ' ! s e n r e n c t i n r r r * c ' i e s ( i l i r n r e d i a r " ' r n \ r r k ' r \ a r r r h e

Ie-- ?

c,- :ac' ::

l"'T.dL,:.*l*i uj|l diasram 13.r e 3 ].I_, i.ry-".| "gT9",."way do$n n' rhe rndi\ idual $ords or norph<m(\ $hich l re rLs t " imparisyl labic / Imperrsr l .ebrk/ ddl . Of a noun or verb in anul l imatc consri tu.nr\- prf l icul !r l \ qhen su.h rnr l \ n. r \ regarJcd d\ 1 2 rnuccrei laneuage) Ha! ing di f fcrent numbers ol s! l lablcs in di f fer-displat ing thc lun(hrr(nl i r l \ \nra.t i . \ t ru.rur. u ' rh. \enren((. th( j , . .nr lnne.ted forms. such as Lal in /1r 'k ing. genit i lc /e8|J. ctc- Cf.rerm is comnunl) rpt) i icd lo I r .presentr i , ,n oi lunerruenr rrru!- pa. is"v. l lnbic.r u r . i n k h i . h n , r h \ . , r , r , ' r l d h ( l l ( , 1 i , ' r r h ( i ' . \ n l " c t i . c d r e e ^ ^ . e . -thoush tn some lcrsio,rs hcad\ .,rc ,...s"1;"; .;J;;;;;,;:;; ;;" ] ^ imperative ^m'per.ll\/ n or a.t. (aho jusrire) I'he mood cat-

crassirie(l rs cndffrntric. ",*""t.r.

.. .*;;i,;;". ia;;;i;,;; "-:

t " egory associated $ith th€ utterios or comnands as in wdsh vou'

unknown bciorc rhc rwcn,t"r i ' . .u,u.r , .oaiunnuie;;" ; ; . ; , ; ? : : / rai .k l Manv lansuases have no speci l lc srammatical rbrm for this

only a limitcd conccplion of phrases and ne\er de,velopcd a cllar a .3 purpose ofren empioving (like English) tho simplcst possible form

notion of consl i rLrcncy. rr is usual lv consioerrJ,r ," i i i : , ' " l l ' i , *r . I , j of the Yerb. but manv othcr\ have a spccial izcd i rnpcral ive inf lect ion

introducedbyuloomlield(1917. l9-r l ) . and thar BloomfrclJ was rhe oi thcve'b such as spanish: w 'eeni l 've ga an' l vengun ate al l

f i r s t l i n g u i s r e v o f l o r r k e r n a n a l ) l i c a l ! i e w o i s e n t e n c e s r r u c r u r e . i n t i r i s p e € i a l i z e d i m p e r a t i v e f o r m s o f t h e v e r b t " i r ' c o m econtrasr ro rho clr l ier s\nrhet ic ! ie". in \hrrh r \enrcncc \A C | , i imperf€ct / rm,p3:frkt / n. or.rdj . A conlcnt ionat labcl for a verbregarded rs an rsscnrhl \ ol l rords. Perce\al ( j r rhr dr.nurc\ rhtr I | - i - . which simultaneousl] cxpresses imperfect i le aspcct and pastr iew. arsuing lhir l l ( rnal \s is *as in l -a. t inrrodr.ed b! rhe try lhu- 5 | : r ime reference. such as Spanish bebla I used lo dr ink , . l waslogist Wilhelnr wundr (19(X)). and rhar Bl"omheld $.1s mrrcl \ C i . i A. inUne.. N(,8: rhis rern mur nor b. conruscd wirh rhc disr incr temtJ(\( lof inr u,r lJ ' . l ( . , . b loomfie\J m,rr q(1, hdre L'((r - | -,nnuenci jdbv\\undr.b" i ,h""",r ,* .p-, . ; ; ; . ; ; ; " ; -J,*J c j 1 t-o" ' r* t i*

in frct k) bc nr)re rdminilcenr ot depend.ncr -qromnlnr thnn ,'t C : € imperfectire /ImPa fek!r\' n. or adi. A superordinalc asPeciual

consiiruen.) rrln)nrir. and \\ undr ( graphrcal reprelenratr,)n\ lu,k ^ | ^_ .ut.gor) making referonce to lhe intcrnal 5truclurc of the acrivity

\er) much t i t r dcp.nd.nc) rrces (sirh untab;t led drcs). haf i ! E | : erpresscd b] the verb. and contrast inS * i th lhe perfect ive The

ceniul.-\ before tcsniarc. Bur *hijrc\cr \!un(ir rn.r hd!( inr.1de,l. C i 3 in,pc.tective ma-v be subdilided into vari()us more sPeoaliz€d

ir was Btoomtictd \\ho inr(xluced IC nnar\,r\ inru rh( Incutsrr( ;, I r, aspectual distinclions. su.h as habitual. p.ogressive and it€BtiY€

mainstream. uhcr! i r s i ,s picked up rnd elc ' . lopc, l bi rhc i . | - s. . c. . ;e (1976) for disculsbn'American stru.ruralists norlhl! b\ \\'.ll\ rlql-rlrnJ \,drILr:ll

I I j imperrective participl€ n. (ats., prcsent psrtkipte) A Frticlpteand where it le'l ulrrmatel\ to thc d'lelt'nmtit ii

:'ilr m"9:-m C i

:' n*rt.a tor inperfective urp""r. .u.r' as Englsh ,/.,,rirs in a*d.r

conc€pt ion of const iruenr strucrure in the iqhr l ! \ee 3lso conit i tu C : ? roning m shis. or a simi l ; r form in anorher tanguag€.

cnl s i .D.hrrc: ,r ,1 l r* : I -C i '- impersonal construction /rm p3:sanl/ a. Any of various construc-

immediate constituent diagram / dar:,rre r ,. A rrer ! ! i tions occurring in certain languages in which the verb stands in ancxhibi t ing const i l rcni structLrr. ' . part jcLr l . l r l ) one in { l , rch rh( r lod(. - I - : . rnvariable third person form (an impersonal verb') and th€ NPare unlabellcd f(x thfir svnta.iic caregory. I I

o which might be regarded as thc subj€ct on semanlic or psychological

S i a. grcunds stands in an oblique crsc: thcfe may or may not b€ animmediate dominance n Thc relation holJrne l)rt\ ren a mother ,- I -- additional NP standing in ihe canoni.al subject casc. Some

ancl i ts dsughter. fh?i is. r nodc A immediareh;.mrnrLe\ a dtsnncr i I i "ramptes from Icelandic:

n o d e B r ! ' { , 1 ' r r r r . r { . l l . r , J , n ( 1 r . , . ' r ' h . r n . J . ' r r . n . n ' n e C = 3beiween rhem. ^ | -, Ifig rantat b6kina

t I " 'ne Arr need.rsp the.hool

inmediate dominance rule n. ( ID rute) \ cartgor iat rutc qhr ' :h C i - t I need the book'

specif ic\ thar r far l iculn. nnnher crn h.r \ t (rrL-1in dxuCht.r ' hur C : "

Mig dreymir al lar netur.which speciics no lcfi'k) right ordering oi lhl,re Jaushrcr\ Sec rlre a a 2 me-Acc dream-3sg cver) nightdiscussion under IDA-P format. : l| _ I drcam every nighl.'

c-: 2il z

impersonal passive 136

impersonal passive n. any of various consrrucrions invohing anovert passive inflection on rhc verb and no Iexical subject. Inlanguages exhibiting them. impemonal passives are most irpicallvderivcd from intransitive verbs.lhough nol cxclurively so. A simple€xample is the German Cesten ||ude getan.t 'y esrerdal rhere sasdancing', Iiterally 'Y€sterday

[it] was danccd. Obliquc Nps ma!occur: the Turkish active Hasaa otobiase biruli' Hasan bcarded rhebus', in which the verb is intransitive and orobrir srands in rh€ darivecasc. has a corr€sponding impentonal passilc Otob se binildi .The

bus rvas boarded'. lire.ally 'To the bus [it] $as boarded . Somelanguages €ven allow oven direct objects lo occur iir such construc-tions: The Russian transitive Ra4a poval a derevo The stormknocked down the tree', in which b!/r/a 'storm is nominarivc anddrrevo 'tre€' is accusative. has a coEesponding impersonal passiveBurcjpovalilo derceo'The tree was kncked do*fl by the storm . inwhich 6arel isinstrumental and d?/.,yo is still accusative. rhere beingno surface subject. There is some controversy oler how far toextend the term'impersonal passive'; some would extcnd it toconstructions like the Frcnch (rt yendit la naiso"'The hcruse rvarsold'. ljterally'Onc sold the house'. which differs frorir a canonicalactive transilive only in the presence of the impcrsonal subjectpronoun ,n. See Sic\r ierska ( l ' r l (4.) lor discu*run

implicstional universal /rmplr'kcrJenl/ n. Any absolute or r€la-tivc univelsal which is expresscd in the form If a ianSuage hascharacteristic X, then h also has characterisric Y . An example is: ifa language has VSO basic word ord€r. then it has prepositions(rather than posttlositions). lnplicational univcrsals were introduced by Greenberg (1963) and havc becn most exrensivcly devei-oped by Hawkins (1983).

impr:ecatiye Am'prekelv/ n. An utterance. elpecially an obscencor blasphemous one. intendcd primarily to give offencc: Piss o./f/;Flcrk _toul The disrinctive synrar oI rhese uneranccs is examined br Jam€!Mccawley in his bilarious bul very ob*ene l97l paper. $rinen under IheFeudonym Ouang Phuc Dong.

inalienable possession /rn'erlienlbt/ fl. A iype of possess;veconstnrction in which the possessed item cannot in principle teseparar€d from th€ possessor: air. r e_r.,r, Jolrn i parents. mr tutne.Some languages exhibit a distinctive grammatical tbrn for inalien'able possession. Examples from Hawaiian are alienable *? *i'i dPu,'Pua's picture' (i.e.. taken or painted by her). contrasting with

;nalienable k. ki'i o P@ 'Pus's picrure, (i.e., of herl, and na i|/i oPu, 'Pua's bones' (e.9., which she is eating), contrasting with rra rpio Pud 'Pua's bones' (i.e., her own bones). Cf. aliensbl€ po6s.ssiod.

ilanimate /rn'enrmot/ adt. Denoting a noun or noun pbrase whichi\ oth€r than &nimsrc. such as one denotrng a r ..less obiect, a planr,an abstraclion or a nominalizarion.

inceptiv€ /rn scptrv/ See inchoative.

inchoative /rn'kauatrv/ n. ot adj. (also inc?ptive, iryrtsdv.) Adistinctive aspedual form expressing the b€ginning of a state oractivity- Japanes€, for example, has a producrive verbal af6x _d4r&for €xpr€ssing inchoative aspect hanoshidasu ,start to talk, (/undfii'ralk"), tabedosu 'start to eat' (rabelu ,eat'),

fi./r'lara .stan to rrin'

(fir! rain ). l-atin has aclass ofinchoative veris in -sc-: tremescerc'slan to tremble' (retn e/e 'tremble'), sirercer" .become silent' (nLre'be silenr'!. obdom\cere fall asleep {doznjfp .steep ).

inclusive first person /rn,klu:sw/ 'l. A distinctive pronomioalform occurring in some languages which expresses the meaaing'I and you (and possibly orhers) and cootrasrinq thrre wilh a;elclLsivc firsr persoD. See examples under the lane; entry.

incorporating language /rn,kcrparertl0/ r. A language iD whichincorporaaion (sense I or 2) is promioent. Incorporating languagesare most frequent in Siberia and in North America. Nft: CoErie(1981) re@mhen(ls rdrrictinS rhis rem ro languag€s displainS in@rpoiarionin sense I and labeuing the othe6 polysyDtnedc.

incorporation /rn,kr:pa,rerJ(/ 'l. l. The gammatical process inwhich a singl€ inflected *ord form contains two or more lexicalroots. In the Siberian language Chukchi, for exampte, rhe Englishsentenc€ 'The friends put a net' can be express€d either withoutincorporalron a\ luny-? kuprc-n na-nrd\at-y2on friend-Ers net_Abssg Pn.pur-lPl ,3Sg or in the incorpora ted form nmyar ioDro-nDtar-yzat fdend AbsPl ner-pur-Jpl. in which the noun m€a;ins'net har been incorporared into rhe verb. Incorporation is noiconfrned ro obiecr NPs: Chukchr also allows the incorporation ofvadous obhque NPs into the verb. 2. The realizarion ;s alfi.xcs oflexical morphemes that could altematively be express€d as separatcwords, there being no formal resemblance betwien the comFtingbound and free realizarions. An exahple is the Siberian yupiiE^sKfmo senrence alja-Bk-r-juy-tuq boat_Augm_acquira_c/sat-.158 -He want! to ger a big boaf. This resembles the Chukcbi calc itr

eaal_a_a_,_-

e,

e

ct

(

c(

(

(

(

€

ft

(

c, IF '- l

elI

clI

c-iFI

I

e- le- l

a

-

€

.-

incorporadoo

I

a/e--?. 119

a.-

IIIIIIIIITtIIIIIIItIIIIIIITII

ttee,_

Q

c.ecaCIcCeeeeecC€

IeCcGC.e-e.e.

i-odcfinile i 38

that thc norphenres acquire and 'sant could instead be realized assepante wordsi il differs in that the bound forms of acquire and'want' bear no formal resemblance to the corresponding frce forms,and bence the fiskimo scnrcnce is one word consisling of a singlelexical roor (drld 'boaa) plos a number of denlational and infl€c-tional afixes. No,!: Comrie (i981) rccommends rhar rhe tcrn incorFor-ation bereslricred onl) ro th€ nrst sensc- butin practicc ir 's Fidclv used also forth. seqrnd. f. A label occasionally applied to the fonnation of acompound verb y. incorporate /In'kr;p!rert/.

irdefnite ^n'defrnrt/ ,,t. Denoting a noun phrasc. or its associated determiner, wlich nrosl tlpically expresses a non specific orunide tified refercnt. loch as the \-P a boo{ or the determiner agene!aii],:. tr Engi,sI. ir is quite possible for ao indefinite NP to havea specific rertrcnl, ; speaker \ ho says 1,,? tooking far a book veryprobably has a \pecific book in mind. but cannot say I n looking forrre 6ooi unlcss shelhe can assume thai the addrcsscc already knowswhich book is being Ieferred to.

indefinite article n. A determirer most typically used in an NP witia non-specific or unidentified referent. such as English d(n) orunstressed somc. Cf. definite article-

indefirite pronoun r. A iraditional label for a pronoun which.even in context. has no specinc identifiable referent: Jorrsrrtng.arlDodl,. somctimcs also trorfiin8.

index (pl indicesi /'rndeks. rndrsirz/ n. (also .eferen.ial index)An annctatron added to an clemcnt in a scnlence. particuiarly to anoun phrase. to spccifr its reference. This is usually only necessarywhen r\1o or morc NP! occur in the same sentence. and the possrbilily arises that sonre ol them may have the same referent Seeexamples under coindexing.

iidexed grammar / Indekst/ n. One of a class of formal SrammarsresembliDg conlcrl lrec gra.nmars, but differinS in that the numberof caregories p€rnritred is inlinite. ln a conventional noiation. aninitially finile sct 01 calcg{)ries is expanded b! the ule of indjc€s onnon-terminal nodcsr such a node may bear a linear sequence ofindic€s of any lcr,glh. and indices Inay be added to. or removedliom, rhe left-har;d end of the scqucncc (only) during the course ofa denvation. u hen a rewrit€ rulc is applied. the sequence of indiceson the moiher is automalically copied onto all non'terminal nodes;temlnat nodes never carn' indices. Rules of the forrn A[t] J W'

indcxed grammar

$ here W is a slring. are lllo\.\'ed i such a rule can onl), be applied ro anode A bearing thc index l t l at i ls lcn hand end. and i1! appl i .ar ionresults in the copr ing of the indc\ sequence on A. mhus [ t j , onro al lnon lermrnal dau.ehters. Rulc! of the lbrm A r B[ l ] . wherc B is asinglc non terminal- are also al lowed; the appl icar ion of such a rulerdds thc index Ll l to rhc Ief t of the s-,r ' rcncl un A and copies theresul! onto B. \ull produdicns !r€ .ho permitted. Th(j tbllowinginde\.d grani i i . , r gen,rfute! thc l i guage {a"b" ' t"d '" : n,n > 0l

s - . r [k ]r j rlilt - I "r ' - r 'L i l

. \ i ' l - aA

. { i B

BLi] , bBB lk l -

"

cti l + ccC - + DDLil + dDDlk l+ d

f ' - A C

i lere is lhe derir r t ion i ree l tn ubbcdd.

s

rtkl

rt i.kl

.rt i . i .kl

T l l i . k I

A l i J . k l

B t j . . l ' l

b i l i .k I

b B t k l

c t j j , k l

D t i , i . k l

d D l j . \ l

d Dtkl

indexed lsngulge

c-e-

140 c,

r.

a

$

I . l l infix

Indexeal erammars are interesting because they are only slighlly nore e

oo*erfuirhan conr.xr- , ,ensirrve grammar. but arc capal le of hand tiine cross-s€risl dep€ndenci€s as the Prammar above illustrates: ,Da;sinq lhem, howcver. require\ exPonent ial l ime Yanous equNal- --ent noiar ionsexist torthcm. the one used here Ntaken from Panee?l e

,1. (19q)). see Gazdar (1985) for an introduclion Aho (1e't'8) e

indexed langulg€ n. (IL) A language generatcd bv an indilcd egranmsr. The ,ndexed languages are a ProFer supeBer ol

.the econtext iree language\ and. if null ProductroDs are e\cluoeo a aproPer sub\€l of lhe conlexl-censrl ive languaSe<: lhe\ dre rn lact w

.ildty "*t*t_*ttitit".

a

indexical ln'dekslkl/ r' or o.li. See deictic G

hdlcrtive An'dlkotw/ See decl.rstive C

lndlr€cl command /Indal'rekt/ n. Th€ r€Poning of an otat' tV !

lndhecr speech: shP /old mc b be carc[ul C

lrdlrcct object rt. (to) fie gremmstical ]tlation erPressrng lne-"r,rlt" ,"tri.i ; ttt. ,..iprent or beneficrar) of the aclion of the lerb C

in . .nten"es rn $hich lhr\ enniy is clear l) dtsi incl f rom a dirett eobl€ct. In some languages. such as I atin and Barque_ 'ndrrecl aobiect! are clear\ and consistenlly marked by a dislrnctrve danve -

ca;e torm. In some other langlages. howe\er' {he rdentificalion ol e

indirect objech is more problematic Consrder rhe rwo English esenrences / SavP Ltsa the bool at'd I 8at' the book t? !"o, -Tradrlional grammar regards Ldd as an indirecl objecl rn ')orn b

sentences. M;n) conlemPorary analysts hoqevcr' d'sagree Some Chold thal Lira i\ an Indirect object only tn lhe lir\t cas€ bul an alUiior.

"Sr." in the second Olhen hold that / ird is an Indirect i

oui . l io"r i in tr ' . . "-"d case. but a direcl objecl in lhe f i 'st St i l l €others minlain lhal Fnglish has no indrrecr obieds al all ooly ci i ' . . i

" l l . . , t and ohl iqr ie obiecrs see Fahz { lc18l and zrt and I

Sheinluch t 1979) {or discu5sion.

lndirect questlon t (also emHded question) A question.*hich O

forms a subordinate clause wllhin a larger strucrure: LLsa asked m? '

1"i)tn", t *^ cominsl. L'sa ||anls lo know lwhal.:he rhoutd do) 6

and Cat you rell me lthct? I con buv hamsrct Joottl' C

hdlr€c{ sFech /spi:lj/ n Tle reponing of what someone else has e -

laid without usinP her/his exacr words as tn L$o tatct

c-

com". If lhis wer€ expressed in direct speech. the result would beLisa said l'I come'.

inessive /fn esr\'/ n. ot ddj. A case form occurrins r0 cenainianguage\ whKh rvpical ty rxprcssc) the \ensc of Engt i ; i r : Finnishtrrorra' in the hous€'(rdio 'housc ). The rerm ' inessive' is usualvu,ed Io express a conlrasr s i rh othcr cases expre,sing locarion. such.rs the adessive.

inferential /rnfe'rentjll n. or adj. A grammaticalty distinct formernployed (usually obligatorily) in some Ianguages ro indicare tharthe speaker is drawing a conclusion from evidence. An examDte isthe Turkish verbal affix -"'f: compare ,1// SeAi

.Ali cam€' (I sawhim) with A, geln4 'Ali came' (l didn't see him. but I have aoodreason to bel ieve he came). The in{erenriat forms parr oi rhcelidentiql system in languages exhibiring it; see rhe discussion andlurther erampl€s under rhat €nrry.

infnitive /rn frnrrrv/ n. A non-ffnite form of the vertr occunins in:ome tbut not dl l ) languages and l lp ical l ' sening ro cxpress rhemeaning of the verb in rhe absrract. wiah no marking for or rest.ic,tron rn tens€, aspect. mood or p€rson (though some languagescxhibit two or more infinitives distinguished in rense or aspect). Theinfinilive is often a distincrly infl€cted form. as in Spanish yent,'come : EnSlish. howevcr. uses the bare verb srem, as in the infini_tire cdmc. Infinitives are most often used as complements of otherverbs- but can also have various othcr uses; they are commonlv useda. rhe cirar ion torms of rerb< in l rnguage\ pos\ee9ng rhem N.,Ftradirional eranma. .esercs ihe nam. in6nitir€ in EnSlish fora sequencesuchas ro.ouc. bur this view is indefeEibtc: sec ihe .emarks under ,o.in6nidie.

infix /'rnfrks/ n. An rffix which occupies a position in which irinterrupts another single morph€me. In Tagalog, for example, thelerbal roor rr{/dr'write'(a singl€ morpheme) exhibits such inflectediorms as.ramrlar and siraldl, with infixes -un- anc -rn,. NorE, ,t,s\er\' ommon ro *e thc r€m intir' used merely to tabet a morphem€ *,hichcomes berwcen two orher morphencs. For examptc. rhe Turrish verb srenle-'eaa forms an adive infnirive )det ro eaa and a passire infinitive ye,,.t .robe eaten : some sriiers would label lhe parsive markd -,, an ,inlix

, ds rhoughle,nel *erc diredly deriv.d froh ],.n.t. but thc anal)sis is indefensible. and'he Turtish p.$ive marte.is oora rruc idnx. bur mcrcl! a sufrix *hich,recedesccrta,n orh.' sufli\6.

?-zzcte?-e?ecIg

cg

cceeeeeeCCeCcCCcCeee

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIttIIIIIIIIIII

-t-IJ

l l 3 intcnsive reflexiveINFL 1-12

INFL / rnt l t a. ( I ) In GB. the abstracr calcSor\ $h'ch is posi led as alocus of tcn\c rnd agrecment. and ! \hich in recent uork is intcr-pretcd .rs a ler ict | l cr lcgorl- \hose mal inral ln, jccrron I" is ident i t iedw;rh rhc tradi l ional caiegor. l - Sentenct. Sce l lacgcman (1991) fordiscussxrn. chom{lt' ( 1981 )

inflecting language /rn flcklrl/ /] (!lso fltclional languag€) Alanguag! $hosc nx)rPholog) is prcdominrnt l \ character ized b\inflection. thal r\- h\ rhe drr.tl !ariarion in thc nrm\ of words forgrammalical purposc5 b! morphological proccss.\ olher than mereaggtntination. I}irrnplcs are LaIin. Ancjcnr Gr.eli and Russia^

The labol has oflcn been rcgarded as of r\pological imPortanc€Comparc isolating language. ?lglutina(ing language Schlc-qel (r8lE)

inflection /rn ltckjn/ ,r. (also infle\ion) l. The lnriaiion in form of asinglc lexical itcn s required b' its various grammatical roles inparticular senlenceli. Distinctions oI infleclnrn refrect the variousgammatical caiegotielt qhich occur in a languaSe and the distinc'

t ions \hich are madc within each 2. A Parl icular $ord lorm

assumed b) a lc\ical tlcm in some ,qramnrrlical en\ironment For

cxample. gdr? rnd 8na', arc two infleclions of rhe lerb gn". 3 A

particular bound morf'h expressing an infl..lional disrinction- For

cxamplc, one crn spcak of the English plural suf{i\ r or the past'

tcnse suffix a/ as an inBection. No,L: rhc sP.itine i flc\ron is tradnional

in Brirish Fnglishl lhc slrclling inflccltun . lrldnn)nnl in Anrcriczn Fnglish 's

now freqlcnr ako in 8ri'ish usa-8c.

irflectional class ln flekjlrl 'klors/ n. Anl' class of l€xical ilems

in a language whose membcrs exhibit sifril'r inflectioral mo'-

pholog!. such as lhc classofnouns in Fngl ish oladject i !es in French

or Geiman. ol -o-srem 'crbs in Spanish or oi d-st{nr i rounsin Lat in

inflectional morpholog) n.-thc branch oi morpholo$ di'aling

with ihe variarion in Ibrm of words ftrr grummi'l'crl Purposcs as

iflustrated by cutlruts and ealltatslak'lulitt!:l?nttn Cf. derivationrtmorphology.

ingressiv€ /rn gresr!/ Sec inchoativ€

inherent ambiguity ln herenl/ n. -Ihe pr()pcrlt of a language

which can onl11e generdled by an ambiguous grammar. ln other

words. an inhcrenll' ambiguous language is one containrng some

stnngs which must nccessaril! recei\e t!\o or more dirrinct analyses'

Natural la guaSc! are usual ly assumed lo bc inhcLrnlh anib'gt 'ous'but. as pointed out by Pul lum (1981a). this assurl lPr ion has more lo

do.sirh our idcas abour t inguisr ical ty adcquatc descr ipl i { rns thar)qrth an\ proiable rcsulrs abour narurrt hngurtc\ i ls sets of nr ings.

inheri tance /rn 'herrtrns/ . , . In cerrain thc.{ ics t} f fearure dicl . i ,bution in trecs. thc procedure by which a fcaturc locared on a nodcis autonrat ical ly passed down tos drughter. usuai i \ r ihe headdaughter. i f no conf l icr ing requirement inreNcncs.

ini l ia l symbol /r ,nj I l \ rmbt/ r t r t \ , \ tarr srmbotl In a r i , rn)algranmar cmptoying ihe re*r i t€ ruk iormar_ thc (DofrnaI),unique)caregorv srmbol *hich is initially provided for expansion by therules and $ hich is lpro rtcro the carego.v oi rhe tr.. it.u.n,rc *t,ictrre{,r \ tn.mn\r \ ! \ rem\ this r \ rhecarcg,,ry 5 r \(nrenc(r rhnugh InL' tr rr $, ,uhl f resumabt) ha!e to be Cp I S brr L See rt .o centrat i ty

insertion ^n s3:Jn/ r,. In a derivarionat lheory of granrmar. anyprocedurc by which some el€mcnt not previousiy presenr in arepresentalion is_addcd to that represcnrarion. An exanrple is thcrnscrtion of rhe durnmy n in some derivauonat accounls ot exrra,posed senrcnces like /l rurprises ne rhat sht has snnett smoking.

instantiation /rn,srentji'erJn/ See feature ln,_sntislion. r,.itrstantiale /r n srenrf iert/.

imtantiation of metayariables /,mer. vcrriabl/ tr In LFG. lheftrmal fr , (cJur( b ' whi(h an annularcJ c^f iu.rure i . marcheJ unqlrh a (r ,rr( \ lnnJing f . \ l rucrur( r . \ nr, \ id( . r (ompte(( 5ynractrcrepresentatron of a sentence.

rnstrum€nt / rnstram.nt/ r_ The semsntic role bome bI an Np*hich exprcsscs lhe inanimarc means b), which somerhin; is done.such as /r. te}. in Lisa opened the door ||ith the kej ani The keropened tltc .loor. I nsrrument js one of lhc de€p csses recognized inCase Grammar.

inslrumental rnsrr) .menrt/ . r . ^r a, / / A rJ\e torm ̂ ccurr ing In. .m( tdnguaSes shich Llprca y e\pre\\cr thc rneans by l r hich . , ime-rhrng l \ Jonc Ba.que l ,nd. .wirh a pen t luna pen ) in Luma./dar:r rr l - t r ,vrot( t t l r | lh a pen' .

intensilier /rn'tensrfare/ See degr€€ modiff€r.

inlensi\e reflexive /rn tensrv/ n. {al\o inrenjive pmnounr A nF*hich Joes nor occup).an drsumenr pGir ion in i rs

scnrencc. bur serves m€rely !o intensify anorher oven Np with

iDterlix

which ir is coreferentjal. such :rs /r./scff in Lird lkr\rll dkl ir or Li'a

interfx / rnt.irks, r. An empl\ nroryh occurring hdlsccn n sremand a meaningful sul_1ir . For crample. lhc Russian f i roper namc6lr'nla lirnns a relational rdjecti\e a;11"&o!Jti.r \tr (;htkinskij.

wherc 'kt is thc relat ional sui f ix and , t ' or t r is an iDter l i \ .

inter jet t ion,nt! 'd3ekJ4i, A lcxical i tem or phrase \ \ 'h iuh lenesprimari l ) 1o cxpress enrol ion rn, l Nhich mosl t )Picalh fai ls io enterinto ant syntacric strucrures rt all: ()uth!. Hootut' t'ippee .Damn!. shi t ! . M\ God. 'A fe$ inter jcct ions. chicf l ! th! prolane andob$ene ones- exhibi t a ren l imited.rbi l r t l to ctr ter rnt() svntactrcstructures. as illustrated h\ t)urltt t]1(..)/irrdodl xnd (rlher coatsebut famil iar locuttorts.

int€rmcdiAte phrasal categolv /rnla mirdieti , A categorvwhich is hrger than a ler icr l calegor\ but smal ler ihan a mai imalprojeci i ()n. in dherwords. a onc barproiect ion ( in mosr \crsnnsof

itre x-lar svstcm). such as \ har' \'-trar. A-bar or P har- Cf fullphrlsar category.

r : r r ! i r , . i r l i , , i .ar l , i r \ r l t i , t

\ i r l - r i l | . : l l l r l r r . I i- i t , l i r r l r \ . . r r . , . 1 , | , : r i

r i r . . : r ) r ' r : , r 1 . , , .

. , j , r . , i r i i ( , t 1 l r . i n r ' r , 1 . ! \ . r h r ii . , . r , 1 i l i \ * t i i L l l r f e s r a i l

i , 1 \ pr . t , (Js i i r ) : r i j l . r j , l j r i , r i l wi j rh. i . i , . i I : ( r i : , 1 1 1 l i , - r r 8 k i r h e

\ r . \ , i r . . , i , , . ; / . . t . : t . . t a r i i t t . . o t .

l.++

zz?eeec.eecI€

aeg

Cceee

CCCe55CsCcceee

it

{r

III!IIIIIITTIIIIIIIIITIITItItIItTt

internal argument /rn t3:nl/ , .\nlocated wirhin a vcrb Phras., such

internal conditions of adeqJact a

argument of r lerb $Lich i5

as an objecl NP. Cf. external

i r l . See undcr adequac! .

interna.lized language /rn l3rnilarzd/ See l'language.

ir terrogal ive /rn r mc:r ' ! a ' r . { fhr mood .Jr( i"r ! J"or iated si th quest ions. A fe\ languagcs hare dist inct ive \erbal inf fec

lions for this purpose, hul lhe interrogati\e mood is mort

c.mmonl]_ expressed by particles. br" distincli\e word ofder or

merclY bY intonatron.

ilterTogative pronoun n. A Iraditional name for n \l'H'item qtrtcn

is syntacticall-\ a pronoun: *ho. r'hat.

hter-s€trtence relation /tntrsc tans/ tr' AD! oi lrnous sJsfem-

at ic relat ions between twu tenr"n." pon..n., , i rhc gcncral form I f

the language has a leu' formcd senlence of pal icrn A. i l a lso hai a

*e[-foinei sentence of paltcrn B involving rhe samc lc\ical itcms -

F oi l iar exarnPles in Engl ish include the rclrr i t i t l ' ' r t r \c ' r lc l r \ '

and passivc sentences and bel$cen exlraposed !nd n,'rr_ertrapLrsed

int i t lnsi t i \ r pr{rpo\ i t i , )n

intrinsir rule orderilF

do beiot.l..ompil$tin $ith Wr.I dti I'ou do before the war?,:;gests thar ,e&/e rn the iirsi erample is an intransitive preposi-t ion. fhe:. ' i i l )s is of such advcrbials as preposi l ions is widelv burnoi u'ri.iersali) accepted; a difficutty is that ven few prcposi(ionssh.\r slch bohivrour 2. A particle shich forms pan of a phralal!erb. \rher this is rcgarded as b€longing to the lexical categonPrtf.sition. ln !n (j\amlle li]t.e She tutrcd the liqftr of. lhc panicleo// is sonei imes anahsed as an inrransrt ive preposit ion.

turtrinsic rule o.d€ring /rn tnnsrk ru:i r:dn!/ n. Ord€ring ofthe rules ir a grammar. n.)t bv nere stipulation of the analvsr. buton the basis of some general principles. The clearesl cises ofintr;.s;c ordefing arc thosc in \hich rule B has nothing to app)y tountil nrle A ha( applicd Iirst. so that rule A is intrinsicalli orderedbefore rrle B lvhich othenise has no function. Nlost discussions o{.ule ordering. ho{ever. ha\e extendcd the concept of intr insicordering ro embrace larious othcr prirciples, strch as the principlcoi md'{irnum utilizairon. by $hich rules are ordered so as io allo\resch ro apply lo rhe iargest possible number olcases. Rule orderirgwas a hot issue in thc Iate l96il-( and early 1970s. when grammarswere typically written wnh large numbers of highly specific rules:the reduc{icfl in thc number ol rules ir the morc recent descendantsof TC. and the dc!elopmeni of non denvaiional theories of Sramma.lackin8: i r i concept of rr i lcr ing. hale now rendered the rule 'ordering.onlrovcrsies largelt i r rc levanr.

intuition ,'intju: r.ini ,. An) linguistic judgement utade bl arati!e srte.rker aboul the gramnratical lacls ofher/his language.,uchas, fbr exanple, ajudgement about the Nel l - formedness o. lack of i tof a paficul r e:{ample or about the possibility of coreferenceb€twe.n two i_Ps in r lcntcncc. From ;(s earliesl days, generalNegrammar h.ls strc\scd thc importance of intuitions as a sosrce oflinguislic dala in prei.'rence 10 thc recording of spontaneous utter-ances favoured bv the American structuralists. This Policy has beenvigorousli crirjcized on a number of grounds: the inconsistency olintuirive juAgements, the obsened discrepancies between inturtrvejudgemcnts aod lponlaneous usage ard. above all, linguists' prac'

tic€ of relying purell on their o\rn intuirions in cases in which theyhave a thcoretjcal nake in the outcome. Sce Labov (1975) for

discussion.

ltrverte person marking / In!3:s p3:sn mo:kl0/ r. A gramma-tical taltera e{\ibite(l in .rertain languages. noaably those whose

147 ir.ealis

grammars featu.e a cbsitr-of-being hierarchy, in which grarnrnaticatrelations are morphologically marked on the verb, the relationsbome by argument NPs bcing unmarked eilher by case forms or bylinear order. Inverse p€6on marking is particutarly common inNorth American languages. fie {oilowing examples from Navahoillusffate il. In Navaio. NPs arc ranked on the hierarchy Humao >Animal > Inanimate, and a lower mnking Np may neverprccede abigher-ranking one in a sentence. When the agent/actor precedcsthe patient/goal. the verb carries the dhect ma{ker /j-; s,hen theparienvgoal precedes ihe agent/actor, the verb carries the invgrse

'ashkii at'eed ]iyiiltsa 'bov girl ]isaw''ar'eed 'ashkii biiitsa 'girl boy bi-saw

'The boy saw rne girl.'*to dibe 'ayiil eel 'water sh€ep )i-swepr-off'dib€ to 'abiri eel sh€cp nater biswepfoff''Tle water swep! the sheep off.

inverse constructions have ofren been describ€d as.Dassives', but iDmost cases there is little or no evidence for an,v similarity to thepassrve constructions o[ European languages.

iryersion /rn'v3rjtr-/ n. i. See subject--suxitrary inv€rsion. 2. Ageneral term for any phenomenon in which the canonical orderingof two elements is leverscd. See Fowl€r (1965) for a catalogue of

inverted comnas /rn v3rhd 'kom:z/ n. ?/. (also quotes) Theconventional devicc for enclosing a gtoss: Basque erre .house,.

l0 /at au/ See indirect obj€ct.

IP /ar 'pir/ 1. r. In cB, rhe maximat projection of the abstractlexlcal category INFL, idenrified in that ftamework wirh the rradi-tional calegory senteDc€. 2. adj. See Itam-and-process.

inealis /rri ehs/ ddi. A label ofren applied in a somewhat ad ,ocmanncr to some distinctiv€ grammaticaj fom, most often a verbalinffection, occuriog in some particular language and having somekind of connection wirh unreality. palmer (1986) recornmencls thatthis term should be avoided in linguistic theory on the ground that itcotesponds to no consistent lioguistic content_

146

t--( .

L.t-t( l;lt;a1tlel

:iil:l: l: ll l;r:T:ri!!rIT:r:r: llrl-r$

€

3

-

e')clc;el

:l:!clclsIelslGl

;!i!;tilil:r:rlr:t:rIr:tlr

i.l

ir

l . - l

- : r . i . - , r , . ; : I . . . i . r i . , . i r . r r r : . r r : . f ' 1 iI n r r i i r

, . i . r l : , r I r r L ) . r r ' r r c l

1 , . . ' L - a i n r : r € s r r h r ! , 1 f 1

: : , j . i : l . i I i , , i : ! , , . i ; ( " . ' . . ' ' : , : i r , . " r l : _ ; ! r r n , r b

( . '

, : . . . ; , , i : r ' : , t i t , r ] l . i ! : r i i r . - t € n t ; ! l j u n i r ' i

i , " . r i . , , i , , r ' r ' : i i r r ' . | . \ . r r . ' r r r r r . ' r r ( l r c r r n r r ' r '

, , ! , . : , : . ; . - , r ' r , , ! . : : , , ' i ' i , : i . r ' r t r r r " r i : f i ' l ' n i r l l _ i

i l j r : r r , , t t ( . r q L - . o n i' i r . . , I , . . : r . . r , , \ r . i r : . . I : I i . I : . 1 , 1 , i l

' a : . : : : , ! '

, ' ; . . : , , . r ! r . 1 1 , . r r r \ 1 . i r' ' r ' i 1 l r ' l I ' r r I L

. r . . t , , . ' t , , , t , . ' , " c r i r ' ; , : l l

, ; ' , r ' , l - , n : r , r : . : a l i f . ' i r ' ' i . : : 1 1 ' a : : t 1 r ' i f N i l _ '

, , r . r r i .d L , r ' i ' I ' l ' '

{ i rn r - . l r i i _ f . i ; a l1qe!1 ] ( r f l l r i i ' i .n r r ! : f r l J fe r : r r l : Jn : r ' t r d / ' 1 I 1 r

L r c r , ) t i , r , i l , r i ! 1 : i i ' r r l ( ) n r l L i ' : ' 1 " r . | : u l r a m n r a i r ' a l c h ' i r a t

i r : i r . l i r , i , ! l r i . . r r , . " i ' i l r ' f r , : r i r : ] ' i n h ' r ' l i ' r f h : l s ( r 1 l r l m m a r l

. , , i . . . . r r r ' . ) ' 1 r , i ' . ^ ' t r ' r i r ' r i $ h r ' h l h c ! m i ' l

, t - r ' . l ' : . r ' . l - I ' ' ' ) r " r ' ! ^ l t c m p h t c \ J n d n r o h i h r r

' ' ', , ,1 . ' . : . . j . , , i : - , , , nr(xi \nrc. i .aF struclur

: i ! . r i r : . . : : r i . , ' ! . f e ' x l l r i ' i r ! 1 e ( i t ' g c n e r '

l n f ) i I i : 1 . i r r f , . j i , t r r , r . i I .. : r , r . . l ; i ' , r . i : . r . , . i , t r . , - - ,

'

, . . r . : , , r , r l ,r i ! r i , t r l l i . r ! , . l r i . r l i , , r i r : r . , t , l . i r : . i , r i r

' . ( r . r i , . , r . , I . ' l

jocular formation /d3Dkjole/ r. A neoloCism detiberately co'nedfor humorous cffect. particularlr- one which is irregularly formed:rarm 'an oulmoded doctrine .

jussive /dj^srv/ 'r. or adl. L See imp€rative. 2. More specilicnlly,denoting ao imperative form directed at someone other than theaddressee. a rhird-pelson imperat ive. ln Engl ish. this sense isofren expressed b! the construction illustrated bv the example Letthem eat cokr!. ||he.e this is intcrpreled as a command directed at'them'. and not as erther lhe granling of plrmrssion or an order tothe addressce. Somc languages cxhibit a distinct grammali€al formexpressing this mcaning, as excmplined by l.llrkirh GeAinl'tr! him

k-command Aer/ n. One of thc cornmand rotations. k nxtcs Anode A k-commands anorher node ts i f f rhc loqest c\e| . . , , ,d.

troperly dominat ing A 3lso pr()perl \ domin.rr . . f t . L l jn,r L) i6)'trigrndll! kommand

Kltene star / 'k l i rn stor/ ' r . A notat ional delrcc, convenhor.r , , , rra\lerjsk. us€d in thc notation A' (a regular exp.€ssion) to indn:nte asrring of any numblr of items all belonging to !he caregon A. 'Ihe

ni)latron is borrowed from the mathematics of formal svst-:rn.. inshich i t normal ly means a slnng {r l zero or morc luch cateS().res.Lrur many l inguisrs use the notxt ion to exprcr{ a srr ing ot,rr . or

orc such categories. which in marhematics wortd be :)iirrcssed asA'-sincethenot ion zero or nxrre is onlv orcnl jonj l i l o i l insuisr i !use. Linguists { i th a mathc|n.r i i f i r l ( ' r comp!lrr iorrL:t on.nr. !r i ( r j lu\ual lv sl jck ro rhe esrabl ished Llarhemaric, l r , )n\eni io| \ . $henencounter ingthisdc\ ice in I ingui ' t ic*orks. rou sh,)utdch.cr i , , . . (whjch way i l is bcing uscd Klc!nc ( t9js)

kommand Aa'nro:nd/,r . Thi i ()r i8 i ai name i i ) r k-command.

,C.lz'1z'1

:l.lcl

iiiii!!llr

ll6.-lCJ

\t

f ; i ; i i i ; { ; i ; r ' ; , i i i i i l i l r l '? i ' / i } ' i , i? i? : i i i l ' , l ' , 1} i l \ ' . t ' / i " i r . tD/ 1 ' r 1r , q} { } t l l }

: : : ,

. -

- ! i

a .'. =

- . 4 - a -

' :

! , r : l

' - j

: 2 |: : ;a. ' :

-

' t !

T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T I I I I I ' I I I - ' I

Jdd d d . ) Od Od O U U \ , O 9oo t r {J o I Oo(,o Ol , OOOO(r0( ,

:

' . ; '

. : !

,l z" , ' ! : : - : r : r - . :

!-"i

NP

''/N P N

Il

N ]

lell^branching language, n A language in which left-branchrng:tructufes Dredonrinrte oler right_branchinS ones Most SOV lan'

-Euager afe I.1t'branching. such as Basque. Tuikjsh and Japanese

left.dislocstion n. A dislotltion in wh'ch some element is disPlac€cl

to rhe front of thc senlcn.c. its normal Position being occupied by

ar. anapbor r .<n.( l r . is In /A,r ' I lAe her Cl r ight dis loc' t ion'

Iopical iz lr ion R'. A' t

lxf tners ( ondit ion / lc l rnr. / ' ] ln CB. the requiremen! lhal a

WT{-tr1ce cannot be coindcxed with a Pronoun io ias left This

condilion is invoked to rule out cases of so<alled $esk cr6over'

sucb as .h€ follo$1ng: 'Mo, (loes his' mother lore l'? Such e\amples

Left Branch Constraint r lefl 'bro:ntJ/ n An island ctdsFrintqbich slat€s lhat. in Engl ish. an NP shich is the lef t branch of alargcr \P is an island. Ihc con5traint is invoked to explain the ill-fl)rmedness of such ..\anlde! as +Which senatot's did |"ou meet eB{e:. rn $hich rhe lefr brlnch of the NP \9hich senator's ||ile hasbeen moled. Ros 1196r)

left-branching / left bro:nrj Isi n ot a.lj A tlpe of constituentslrud{re in whith nroditiers .rpPear lo the lefl of their head' so thalrecursion of nrodi6c* iho$s LtP ilr a tree diagram a-\ repeat€dl)raochings lo the lefi. The principal lefubranching structLrre inEnglish is the r-gcnnne. as illuslrated by Jonet's bovfiiend's

N P

N P N

iJanet s bovfriend s

\.opnan and Spofirche ll98l)

le lc l / ler l / n I h , a drr i rat ionat lhr , ) r l ! i 8r t rnrmar. an! or l r or rn., rdered, .cquenc. o l lormr l L, t r j .J \ (u.uL1i l \ r r ! ! ! j * t i .h r lpres.nrl r r t s l ructure o l a \cn lcnce t t i j . t ! s l i r r ! o ; : t ( J : - . i rar ion and v,h ichl rkcn a l l tosether . con. t i rurr r | - , , .n l lc i ; . rLructure or r f ie senrcnceL .unlh .en, i r ie ! .1. r | ,1 . . , ! l l ! i . ,1 Ls hcrngofspecia l ! ig l ;ncancer, - GB. for . \ r r ; .1 . . L i ! . . r r r r l ) -s i t .ucture. S-srrucrurc and l_ogicalro.m(LFl .The lcr In l . l ! l in rhr \ \cnsc is a synonlm oi s t ratum.: . In a non-dcr i la t ional thcor \ or l r lnrmar in which lhe srructured a senrence c0nsrsts r)l tso {r rr(}rc tbrmal objccrs destribed indilferent terns, an! orc oi these ohjccts.

'th s, for exanrpir, the

c-slructure and thc f-strucrure of ll \cnreoce in LFG woutd bedi f ferent le !e ls ( ,1rcprescntr t io . Cf . s t .srum. No, t : Ladusaw (1988)rc. , rnmendsreshct ingrh. l . .n j t . ! r t r i j rhr \ .c . rd usrgc_ p ieter ing st s tMl,rr thc ,l^t sensc: thii ri.o'nn\'d(txrr ...nx eDinc.rll sonhwhite. bur

: : r ' . \ r l io8 usase , . ( lR r 0!6 l ! \ .

(i lerieme / l€ksi:m,/n. S.e texi.at iren.

1i lexical ambiguit' i teksrkl/,. Arr smbiguitl den\ing entirel! frcm/-: rhe muiliple meaning\ oi a Jrngle lc\ic:rt ircm. as in t'his pan is eery,,r ,l/ Ci. structural ambiguit).

, . lc\ ical cateeorl r , L. , i - \ pl ] r l , ' t spftr 'h sord ctasr A r\ .ne or, . / n r r u / e l . r $ . d . . . . . n r . , q h i , 1 , r h c t , . \ r . d t i r < m . o f a t a n C U d S e a r e- . . ' , \ . , i ( U h \ l h . i r m u r t c , , l , , ! r . J t . , n L i , ! n r d c r i c I . ( h a \ i o u r , . u ( h r s/- : \oun. Verb. Ai l j€di \c. Dcrcrmincr :rnd p.eposit ion. Tradit iof lal/. 3rammar rcco.qnucd ,)nly i'bo|t cight patu of speech. but all cur,r' rcnr theorjcs of granmar h !c ti)un(l ir recessarv to ;ncrease this( : " r , n r l . ( r h \ r h L d J J r r d n , , t . u . h n o n - r r , r J i r i o ; " t c a r e g u r i c { a ,- . D(rern)rn€r Dcprc( Ntodrr i (r rr)LJ C,,r pterncnri , , er. t }er. i . a, yer-- no compr(r( r , , t ' r rr i { l ! $h,cf i le\r ,dt .Jr. lor ie,r . should be recognizcd rh0uuh thc dr\crgenre of v ie\rs is nor: . dr-mari . se( SrhJ,hrqr I tc5Jr. . r . rdl \^ major t( \ ical rarreorj I, . r n u t t . r n \ o r ( . r r h q l , . u r ! . , t . r , , r i L . \ ! , u n . \ r r h . { J r e . | | . ( a n d\ ' Preposir ion. qhi .h in thar i ramc!\ork l re regardcd as haf ing dis1-. rrncri!e propeftics'i. lexical decomposition i dirkrmpr'zrh/ n. The anal!.sis, for, : t rammarrcal purposes. of lc\ icat i tcms as consi5t ing of semantic,r .!.ments regardcd as g(rmmatical or funcrronal formatives; a- ' ranous crampl. is rhe anat\si ! oi the verb t j l i as [DO[CAUSE

II

iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

-t.l

l,€ft Branch Constraint 154

a'cc

- . 155 lcxical decomposition

c?c

ccctacse0ecCeccceI

aeesIcfcsc

l : , . . not hlockod bv rhc , ' ld irrr^ pr i , rc 'ples or ts i Jxrg Ihrory.

IcYicxl cntrJ 155

rt

l : l

lB l :CO\ lL[ \Ol ] r .L IYE l l l l l . I .cx ica l dccos 'pcs i l ion \ . is i i rs t pro

i ) ! ,sr 'd b) Grubrr { l t ! )51: i i fornred a nra jor fealu. . o ; { ;eneral i r .

scnlnlirs. rn.l ftrfe rcccrrrh it has been introdrrced i.t() luonl'gue( ; r imDr. ( l )o$tr l !7 ' r ) r rnd Rotc-and-Rcfercn.e r ; ra 'n. ra. r lorL)

, rnd \ ' :1n V! l iq lq$) .

lex ica l cntry /cn l r i / r . ID . r grammar, that Por l ion o l lhe lex icon

df t r i l ing rh. pr(J t . r t ie \ of i , ' i r : ]e pr . i icu lar ler ica l i i .n) ln l {Cdi

r ion l l ) lhonol( )g ica l an( l \cnrrn l ic in lo l r r r l ron. lh . r ! r ,e l l . l r r r i

inc luc les i r r lSast ruch granrmal ica l rn l ( ) rm: l t rorr a i ih t le \ rca l r :11_

.gor t . rny lubcal egor iz l i l t r fac!s rnd an) granrrrarr ! . r l ' r resu '

lar i i je . i . horh nnr f th . log ical ar i l synt . tc t rc

ic l i t l e \ceFt i { } r t r . \ r ' ! r l icu lar l . \ i . :11 i tem wir ich l . i r l ! 1o ' in . \ :

: . r r e r r l l r i r l ! ( , n q h i . n i r . i ' ( i ( ( J n n ^ l ( ) l h r r n t n r h . s o l r r s f h \ \ f ' I

. i : r n r t l ! . n r L \ l l r r n \ i l ! ! c ! ! r f \ n t r r c l i \ h c ! f l l r ' r l : i { \ r / . ' l h L t l ' r r r '

i I r x c c p r i o n : l t ! t ! r 1 i 1 l i t , , . : . b u r n o l \ ' , ) u r k : r t r . t l h i ! . r ' t i 1

rhus/ i r is r lc \ i ' r r l . \ .L t l ror I0 Dn\ \ i \ r r i r or

i { rx i .a l forn l / j l r r L !C. thal pr I ( r i l i , r i : . iJ ! l f r t t r ! or t r r r ' !d .

f i r r l i ( 'Lr l i , rh ; , r . th . $hr th s fec i r lcs thc scmitnLic r . lc ' r . . i r r i r tJ b i

.h .1 \ ( ' jd rnd th. grr i :nr r l ic r l . .1 . ( i ,nrs (grr Inrur l i . r : fun.r ;oni ) b)

\ \h ich !h. \ i i r . rer l izr 'J ' Ihc

\erh. i : i for err inrp l . . h : r ! rhr l . - : 'cx l

r a r . \ . . t : 4 T ( S U l l , l ) . \ g e n r : ( O B . l ) - l , r r r c r r r '

{ r i i l . i ls t r r t i . r l le . ! r ( , , hrs lh t i3 \ ica l lor r r l

.xr , . ! . ' r ' l - \ l / l lY ( ) IJ . l l= . \ i .n l : i ' \ l B. l l [ r : r ' : . r '

i c \ i . r l lor ins rc i r r . \cnt thc lor lnal iTar i , rn \ t l i j r ln i F( ; ' J l t l r ! l raul

r lonal i r ( , t ion o l d;athesi t I l , . \n f I L l9 i ' r r '

ltelical-l'unttional Grammar rr (i-Fai) A rh'r,.\ oi gramllrr

r l . i . r lo l , r ( l h ! ioa i Br , srxn end Ronal i l Kaplnn i r r r i r . - la te l9 l lx

. rFd e. r r ' \ lg i i lX: " . . o i th . r th fce Inost in i luerr l i3 l .ont .n!Porary

l ia ln. rorks. The i rnr f f t ' l l . i : ! \ rpo o l lhc cenl fu l ch.racte. is t ics ot

thf i rmcwork. l - i 's i . I i i . .o lc o i lhe ]c \ i . r )n i ! ronsi t l . 'ahh greater

tn i rn in n n o:hc. appr . r l rhcs: iex ic . r l entr ies are t laborr le . * i lh

: \ . ry s ingle i . f lccted i ( , rnr ha\ in : i t ! own l .x ica l enrry. and

rhc icricon tiocs much ol lhe w.rrk done b\ rhe stntrl in other

r f t rorchcs. Sccond. ' l r r l rmat icr l re ls t ions (cal lcd .sra i r imatrcarf i rn t l ror i ) . r i l f inr r l i res i f l -FL; T le s lnta. l i ' r l l .uc lu ic o l a

5.r i r .Dce cor ! iqrs o i l r !o fornra l r ,b jects n. i rht r o l ! t b ; .h is ' lenvoo

ir i )m rhe o l i rcr : th . c-st f i r t turc. * i i .h i \ a .onst uenl \ l ruc iu ie I 'ee

c

t(

(

f

t€

cecccc

s5s

sccFe-e-

iII

IIIIlIIII

I!III

Le:;icalist llypothesis

. ) i i i r ! ianr i l ,ar k ind, rnd th! f -struldre. Rhrct, cxr i ic( n. ic,)nstitLrenl illformation such as th. gr.lmmrtical fuf ttions. Vario!!c irr , l j l i . | i o.r weLfformedre\s nrust bc rnet t ) l e;cl i . r f th.se object:separarc\. and lurthef requirenr€rrs rpplt o the mateh-lp bctwecn rhcnr. The LFC languagcs include somc ron-r , lexed lrnguaSes, and rnal not cven be included in the conlcrl rns:til'ljlanguagcs: scc Gazdar and Pul ium (198j) . LFG \\as int i (nluceLl b!Kaplai arr l Br i i inan (1982)i convcoicnt rntruduct ions are Ei!en in! . l js (19i5) and Horrocks { i9871

Ie:rjcal-functional lenguage n. (LFL) A language defi.ed b! epanicdlar lexicsl-fun.tiond granmar.

le\ical gap r. Tle abscncc of I hlpolhclical word which *ould reeInio fit narurally into the i,,ttlcn cxhibiled by c{isting words. Fnrexamplc, angUsh has sets of animal names like rtt'llion. nLare. hots(ar.i hr.{. ,c,e. .}e.. bul the set b!11, coro lacks thc obvjods thitdi(rm ro c()mllele lhe set.

lexical govemment a. The phenome on by which cenain syntacric.xles oiprocesses app)y ro structufes containing certajn leiticai itcn!but not ro those containing other lexical items ofthe saixe class. For!rrnrpb. tbe puuti\e process of Dative Sbilt. which relares pairs of.!ntcnce! !ike lrroB,ed lhe book to Lisa and I showe.l Li,ta the bookrrili.s ,)nlv ;n thc pre5encc of ccrrain lexical verbs. inclirding rlopi,L:t ror. ior ciample, d€monsr.tk: I demonst/ated my techniquz toI i,c 18 nor"l demotstlated Lisn nt technique. This phenomenonconslilutcs d significant obstacle to the construction of grammars.

Itrilrl heed r Of a svntactic category'. thc le{ical item repreienringrhc lc\ i . r l -ategon from which rhat svnract ic category is projecrcdiinto'anel l \ . the Ier ical i lcm wh;ch i ! the head oi rhe head of th. he.rd. . . ( ) f the hcad ofth: l f ( !ntact ic crtc!()ry. Forexarlph. tha: lc\ i .Jhead ol the \P rrdi.lri6l t litlt hatnstur at tlte batk ol th( Lrge;srhe

Iexical insertion n. In ccrtain denvalioDal theodes oi gr.rmmar irtlrhich the siructure of a sentence is notionallv regardcd as beingbuilt up piecemeal, the process ol selecting suitablc lcxical itent\from the lcxicon and inserting them inro a pre-cxistins svntactic

Lexicalist Hypothesis /,leksrkalrst har'pD€ssrs/ n. The viewlhat rule! of \vntar may not refer to elemeqlr sm:r l ie I iFrn x \ in: lLlsord. Th. acceprance of this docrr ine cl i ic i i \ . i ! !cnro\c5 word

l - . - lz-lz'1

elel

iiiii!it

159 l€xico-syntacticlexical item

formatr()n from lhe domain ois\ntar Sr: also rh( St:ong l ,exicat istHygr(hcsis and lhe Wesk l.rxiralhl Hvpothesis. ( h.msk! {r9i0):

lexical i tem n (xl !o lexeme) A *ord rcg,rrded x\ . , compararivetvrbsl 'a,r l object which has . ' nn)rc.r lcs5 coDst i lenl meaning orfu 'rcr ior bur Ehich can po\sihl \ rarr in form for i r ralr)maricl l purpore\ ior -- \ample. th. rrcnr do{. ind r /oj t r( . 1. ,)rh pa icularfornr\ of ihe lexical item DOai. and rdl.. rdter. ru)k. turki g a dlake c al l part icular forms of rhc lc\ ical i tem I AKE. A ler icalr r e n r , . . r u o ' L l I n t h e s e n \ ( . { l i ( h d J r c t i o n d \ . ' . n r a r n \ $ , , r d s . o rin whirh lhe \oc.rbulan of hngl ish contains so man! qords; in mosi{nd ir l l l rheorics of gfamnrrr. a singlc lc\ ical i r rnr rccei\es a singlelexical cntr) . Cf. sord form.

lexical i ty ,4eksr ' t r l r t i / r . ih. requir .mcnt thar r l l l phrasal cat-eg.]r i rs in a gr.rmmar should 1,. projcct ions of I r \ ical caregof ies.The rcrm was coincd b! Korn:r i and I 'u l lum ( l99lr) . wlo rakr i l asthc trimary deiining property oi the X'bar sJstem As these authorspoinl out. hor\e\cr. mos! \ . rs ions of ihe X-bar s\stcm proposcd inrhc l i ter l rure violate this rcquiremenr b\ postulrr ing var ious cat-cgories which do not par l ic i latc rn thc slstcIn. such rs Detcrminer.Tcrsc. Part ic le. ( 'onjunct ion. Auxi l iar) . C,r l l rplernent izer. \egariveand r ' lcn Senlence. In GB. i t l le.rst . thcre is a !ro\r ing tcndencv toadhere Io lhe lct tcr. though not thc \p;r i t . of lc\ ic i t l i r t i bv posi l rnglegions of ghost ly nodes which ha!e no indepcn{l fnt moti la lron.for e\rmple br- placing, j !cr! deternr iner insidc rhe slructure

lD"lD 1,, j l l . e lc i thou-sh D n$er conttr ins anv nr rcr ial orh.r l tan{he dc(erminer itself. See al\o endo{€ntric.

IeJaical morpheme n. A m()ryheme shich prinrirrii\ expresscs realsemanlic content. such as tir/. g/?.n or rhe rrer 11 \tepmotltu. Ctgammrticrl morpheme.

leical morphology S€e dcrivetional morpho'ori}

lexical NP n. In GB. an NP $i th o\cr l phonei ic conl.nt- Cf. €mp.ycrte8ory.

Iexical rule n. A rule which deri\es lcxical eniries from lexicalcntr ies. Such rules are part icular l) important in L.F( i and in HPSG.A simple example is the purelv norphok)gicr l rule that dcnvesEnglish abstract nouns in 'r.$:

l l "d, x l -€rr lN

A more elaboret€ example is the LFG ruie tb. iorming passrves,which, ignoring the morphological marki g. has rhe form

(suBJ) + 0 / (oBL^c)(oBJ) + (SUBJ)

One of the mosa conspicuous trends in recent *ork in sirr.rJi is theincreasing use of lexiial rutes to do r{ork rhat was previously doneby purely syntactir rules.

Iexir:a.l word n. (also fufl r'ord) A word wirh ieat scmanric conreot.s'uch as Breen, kitchen or rpon. Cf. grammatjcd word.

L€xicase- /'leksrkers/ n. A theory oi srammar developcd bySlanley Starosta in the 197G and tgft(X. Lexjcase is a veision oidepend€ncJ grs|nmsr which makes .xicnsi\,- use of rhe basicideas of Crse cramma.r; ir is pithily described b!. Siarosta ̂ s .apanlexicalist monostratal dependency va.iety of generarive bcalist,c case grammar!_ The most convenicnr inrroduction is Starosra(1e88).

lexicon / ' le[ , l ] . r f l / f t . Thar pan of the Bramma, or . , InnCU ,ge shichinclude\ the ler icat eoFies for a rhe $, ' ,d.

"nd,,r - ; 'phem,.. ,nIhe language and which may aho inctude various orhcr informirion,dependinB on lhe panrcul i r rheory of 8ramnr.,r . l .hc te\h1,n hrsIradit ionJl l ) been,een d. lhe 'eposrr, , rv, , f mi\c( rn(, ,u\ tJ(t \rormrn8 prrt ot no general iTal ion. bur rrcen, lh-, , r ic. ur q. .r l l l t r l r lhave jncreasingl) found i t conveni€nt to mo\e eier taiger quanri t iesof informarion into rhe lexiconi even such seem,nSly jmpeccablesvntactic generalizarions as thc active/passive rctirion ire nowstated in the lexicon in seleral frameworks. in rhe lorm of tericalrules. Tlis gro\rin8 imponancc of the lericon is onc ot the moststriking trends in recent work in syntaxl it reachcs its zcnirh in tht:framework called Word crammar, in which atrnosr everv concci!dble grdmmdrical facr r ! s lared ontv qirh,n t<\nnt .ni , , . , . S..Andrews (1988) for a brief summary of jusr some rccenrsuggcsltons.

lexico.syntactic / leksrkeusrn,taktrk/ 4.t. pedaining to rhegrammarrcal pfopcrries of individual words. or morr parricuta.t! tosubclassc5 of words. For exampte. the ctassificalion or nouns i.tr)

i 58

: -

I .. 16l linear pr€.edence rulei c v .

' I t

- i ! :: *hich rhey differ. if ar all. in an aspecturl nuance: rhere appears to-.1 rnr, , , r- : l r t sr.rr , : t r . , l r r ! ! : r . l r . I r l t r"( \ \ '

I | ,e be l i t r le di f ference b€teeer- she gaie hin a ki :s an sh? khted him,!.\:lc,i .vlrtclic i,r.r irr{r'r')n t | :^ but rhere is a p€rceprible difference berween ,!i e took a drink and

rcr is/ tc i r \ / , . I i re!o!nt, ! lan orataru.Lr ' r LJr irur! t : 1 ' She hadasmoke,onth. onehand. and Sr?d/ankandshe rmoked,

^ a .l on the other_ Lighr verb,s occur in many languages other than1 ir'icr 1(8i(al ro'.n

: | ; English: Japaaese szru, Turkish eor3t and Basque egin. alt nean

,-ra, Sef i,axica!-l sn.tntrrat (; ramm !r "

I l- ing roughly'do, for example. all serve to construct latge numbers

i.!1.s :,,,icd-;uncti'n!iLx,gusse I i ;: ;i;:'.?::'";ffi:i:t#:ftr?i:lli:fi,1"'iH:*:;i:'1,5?:liirera.ion nrctiu.ule /tilr)'.rfn ,. t, (il\rl_ .i Inrr:'rul. sh t

: I * atitin available. Turkislietmeft is in fact specialized in this function,

h. i : , !h(.L t . , . j f ro\ 'k l ,n! . .1ueiur, \ i f s i lh ! ! \ur. , i r . rrrr , r : g I

. ' whi lc the JaPanese and Basque v€rbs also serve as ordinary lexical

:.liili::'i.::l,lil 'i.,,11.:;ll.:l:i:":[;. ::, ' '

l:]l : t : verbs respetr!(tr)61 vl:ru);reviledbvca.e'(1e84)

,irLi,r.,ru,i,,ir..,hJ,*.',d(ih-:, ::.i':::..,i:.:,: : ii "ffilnfff"::?friff#'ffi"*li'g,h[Y]"i#1":Jj! . r , . (rn, !c \ i ' . u: : i \ . i ' v r i . r ' r , '

: : . : ' . l l l l i ) l l l l : i . l l : . ' G -: qirhin rbe space def ined by rhe or iginal pracement of the inp;ronth;: ! . l c t l . . : i l l c t u r . r i t ! ' h | . h . r l | 1 i . . ' l | . ! . r : i j ' . , ' : ' " ' ] . l ' " ' . i : , . ^ : c = : t a p e . T h e 1 i n g r r a g e s d c t i n e a t y t t i s a r i c x a c t t y t h e c : o n t c x i . d d Y e,, .cLrr l i ( laughtersofrvPnodcoc.urrn'r( .1.r}d ' l ' ' - """-- : ' i I I hns sges ( i fnutt pioduct ions are al lo*ed). and are hence a proper\ i i t r s , , f t h c y r b j e . r i . P . t h c r c b _ r i n ! ' r ' \ l ' > n " d r i r ' t n ( ' L r r ' t : ! L g l - s u p e r r e r o f t h e l a n g u a g e s d e f i n e d b y n o n - d e t e r m i n i s r i c p u s i d o w nl . i t r - ' r a r i o n n r c r a r u l e s w c r c l n t r ( r d u " ' i r r \ " $ d \ . l a . i i n ' : s i r h f l r r C : a a u r o m a t a ( t h e c o n t e r r f i e e t a n g u a g e s ) a n d a p r o p e r s u b s e r o f t h esrn!.ru.cs withir rhe (iPsO framrq ''\ r'L rF 'r

e ! -- ransuages defined by Turing michines (the reiunivell enumerable

l ' . ! n j i J l g ] l a I s . i 1 s l l ] l , , . r h e p h . | t r ' : l t . | ' . , ',n . r j rer l . . rn t jguf t t ion is ! \ j , , t ; t i \ i , . ,or I l ! lb \ \ .n . iu l . , , r . . i E I : are a prop€r subse t o f the non-determin is t ic lba languages.

,,, .'r ,,1 ,i'. gra'nm rr' *hicl' rnr;\r'L! e'trr Ii t ! I n

"u" g.ammar S€e under regular grsmmar.

rt'r'lgirrrti'ns "'

lic',{ r trr\:r' c :

2 urr"". precedence /presrdans/ ,'. (also precedence) A rerationi ;sa iur( / l r , . jJ l i r r n ( , ,1 ! , I inr ,er ' \ r ' j rLr f l 'enr

l i f ] . i . : "1, : C = "

whjch may hold berweeo rwo nodes io a t re€, par t rcurar ly (but not

::i;'ri;I,'j:'::'l,lill::':li:i.:",:,:.1' .:,":'1 ,,1i.': c I -: ::iJ:;'l:i'LT*:::il::f"::i::::.::*?.1::3TT'I','":'J;l . r l r u r a ' i ( ) I e x 1 ' . | | t . | | q u r r c s l i L g r r . r : . l r l ' ' i r . . . , , ' ' . l ] l ' ] : . : ' . B : - b c i o r c { p r c c e d e ) . h e o t h e r i n l c | t - t o r i g h t o | d e r .

r / , . . r , . 1 , . n r r r r , . r . , t . . . t i . , . , ' . r , L . ' . q r ' - a -

( ,n(| | i ]x{] j .Cl i 'es, | l 'L l ] l l ] . . ,n, .r l lhf . i : ' ' ] , ; . i i ' l ] ' ' -= ' : : , ' . , . : j .Ti . i ." i : ' f : " i ' .H; l ' :$i . : ," :T:: : i . f ; [ t : i "- L, . i ' rd i , , i l r t rr ! srtr [ ; . rL] ! t i . ] r ' \ ! f : ' "

: " '

l . . . : . . , - , . t I Y tradi t ional k ind incorporate l incar J 'rccedence informarion as welt, : , , 1 . , i 1 i , . . ! I , , r i . t l i l t l r t i ) . I . q ' * ' : " ' - " - l ' ^ S = a a s i m m e d i a t e d o m i n a n c e i . r o r m a r i o n . w h i c h l e a d s r o t h e l o s s o i

off |'(rnl on .i hiera.ch\ of bondedn($ ,,hJ _' i I :, generalizarions abour lincar precedencer the use of rhc tD/Lp

mark€r .r rnay hc regrrded as a slfcrrl'/(u rr!'rr' ' : f : formsr, with its linerr precedence rules. eliminates rhis probtcm.

llght verb nart ,. A vorb wiih litllc t.nlunr or iI- b I 1 lin"u" precedence rule n. (a]so Lp rute) In ihe ID/t,p format torl*' *t'i.r, *'.ti*'"irh a (usuarly,ndel,n,re Inr,:'l

l]il":l.:'i.l,: C : "

wnr,ns categorial rures. anv rule lvhich mcrery states that someNP;,hich i tsel f expresses a rerbar me ntrrp

; ; . ' l ; : l , ] l ; . ;J c l ' . categorr musr precede somc orher ca re8ory. when rhe caregories in

$::lli*:x*"ff#t";"i:"';::r";):"":"-:;:,:"';,;;; a !: q"il:.ffi;T::ltifil::::'.x1,ft{:*.'.1'"*,'"="i"";9 'vc a ' " t

" t .ic.t c.nsrrucrio", in Fru,,sh l 'a\ ' r ," 'r ' l t ia. ' i I Z

Cr_?

linear tiDe

C,J

c-c-e-t-c,c,Lee1c-1e1r1clf1ci:i: l;l1iilii1l

lllrT

162 163 locd subtree

lioear time /tan/ n The characteristic oI a Parser whic) requiresv;11 a time proportional to rhe length of the iryut string Thismaxim4ly desirablc time ProPerty is achieved io tle general cas€only by parsers bas€d o! grammars knos'n or b€lieved to b€ linguis_ticaUy inadequate, such as rlguLr grrdDrrs and deLrDlDirdcconten ftce grrddrrl.

lingrdsdcsny dgnnctnt 8eD€rrlizsuo[ /ltD,gwrsttkli stg-'n ikeny n. (IJC) Any tcnenlization about the granmaticalfacts of a language which is, in thc oPinion of the linguist making tbejudgement, an importanl ard indep€ndent fact about the languagewhiih needs to be separately ctpressed in the gammar. Inevitably,this is a subiective notion abour ehich lingdsts can sincerely differ,alld it is all too easy, whca lcading the literaturc' to susp€ct that' inpractic€, an I,sG is a tcnemlization *hich is coNeniently ex_pressiblc in sonclody's Particutar lheory of glammar. Otre might."rr""abty

""f wht a lingtisticdly irsigDificanl gcoeralizatioo

migbt boi [te; lerc is a possible enftple: no donosyllabic Englishvcb *hich begins and cnds s'ith the same consooant fordls its Pasttersc b'y ro*el change: peep, cook, drcad, s$s,lull, t't im and sootrall form thcir t6t teoses with thc suffir _?4 uDlike' szy , take' see or[on6. Fev, if_aly, linguists have ever suSSested that this g€neraliz-atio; i5 atrythi4 other than an uninletesting accident' but theresppca$ lo b€ no pritcipled basis for such a view, and thtre is noguarantce that the next theory of Sra'|mar to cohe aloDg will no'poiot to it"

"bility to

"tpress this Seneralization readily as evidenc€

bf it" "a"*tag"".

See the remarls under genersllzrtion, and seealso allpbetrolneDotr.

IlDker /'lrltt/ s€e lgrhlrt.

LIFOC /'hpDU z. The lenguegeindependcot pldcrr.d or&r dcodt[citr, a putative universal preference for thc ordering of lheelcments oi a;ntence The Llioc is postulated as a udversalwithin Func-tloDrl Grarrmer (sense 3); vaious forEulatioN halcbeen pmpo6ed, the Eost recent being the follocdng, whete '<'

means'precedes':

clilrc < pronoun < NP < PP < subordinate clause

There sre further statements about the ordering of elements withinconstituents. and the whole is considered subordinate to ttle

::TffffT"",1fft*tc structuc (sedse 1)' such as toPicalization

little pro /'lItY S€e pro.

f:T-f---T"ld g.::*ises ro a sFcified domair. ii"-pro "r"

AE,,u, trammaDcat proc€ises to a spccified domain. Examples are:-lhe,s Jubcy Conditionrnd rhe principh thar timio gouJ_r*ii."oa c".. "oien-";rn ;;i; ;;;ilfid:i1.X',Hl

- LEsrkiDg /,el]no*rDl n. In GB, rhe property of being a! complefieor of_one of rhe lexical cateSoriej N, V,_A or p. M'oreF sp€oncaxy, A L_marts B iff A is a l€dcst cateor, (s€ose 2) tba(^ theta-govems B.

e bcrl i 'lr.rkJ adr. C-onfined to a specified domaitr wilbio a tree. Cf.ir

unDounoed

i-locsl abbiguity n.-An ambiguity whicb is appareor onJy when ae subslnng of tbe full string is considered in isolation, and wbicb inpnnclp|e o$appears when rhe whole string is considered. In dre(! srnog ,'|? gut.\9ho cooches ny dau*ht", b a p.oiessionat, rheO suosrnog my daughter it a prcfessonat represenb such a Iocala amDrgurty. l-ocaj ambiguities are alwa's involved in gedft-prti(a scotcncesi i-hey are a panictlar headache in O. cooitru"to'n oi€ lnrsers. Cf. gbbot.mbigdg.

Socat.depeadency ,. A dryerdeDcy wbrch is coofned wirhjn ae :f:l"l

o:y" I"r exampte. cas€ govemmenr by verbs or prepo-

a :rl:1: " --'r".d lo a sinste t? or pp node. and subjeci.verbs agreemeDt is confned to a sjngle S node. Cf. ;boundcda dcpetrdemy.

.l,ocslist Css€ Gram.rnsr /,leukrlrt/ n. A version of Casea Grrmmrr which takes as its fundamental gramhatical elements a-a setof ab6tract locational elements, such as Location, Sourc€, paths and_Coar. Tbe besl-known such proposal is that of John Anderson\r ( l9l).

itotity. coo"t."iot ,oo,kal(i/ r'. (also tocrlty frincidc) Any{agenerai principle of grammar which resrricls tife- apptication oi

h,:5: I ll*.lo.at tr€.) Any parr or a rree consisriog of a<.tn8re oode and the daughlers of rhai node ocly: tte utt oi treeestruclure Introduced by a single phrase structure nrle or furmediateuomrnanc€ rute. Cf. subtrcc,

4

location t64

elc-ieiLi

ii"lcl

!iiiiiiiir

ii

rt,

i

{r{r{ri.

165 LSG

long.distlnce depend€ncy /,lD!'d6tens/ See unbound€d d€-petrd€dcy.

long-distsnce reffexive n. A construction involving a reffexivepmdour \|hich is not contained within the same clause as its ante-cedent. In English, this occurs only in restricted circumstances, as inthe erample lohni bA Mary that pe4unng hinselfi would be amistoke. l^ some other languages, however, this represents theno.mal behaviour of reflexive pronouns, as in Chinese, Japaneseand Korean. In th€ following sentenc€ from Mandarin Chinese, forexample, any one of the lhree NPs can equally s€rve as tbe ante-cedent of the reflexive pmnoun zil 'self:

Zhangsan renwei Lisi shidao WaDgeu rihuan ziji'Zhangsan thinls Lisi knows Warg*! likes him(self).'

LP rule See linear prccedence rule.

LR pars€r /el'or/ n. A t'?e of pars€r *hich recognizes exactly thedeterminiitic conten-fte€ lsnausges. S€c Chapman (1987) for anintroduction.

LSG See nogundicrXy lngritr aDr 86crrlL iotr.

locrtiol narr'kelJD/ tr. (also ptac,e) The sem&dc mlt bome by an

iiP which expresses rhe Place in which somethinS exists or occlrrs'

I-ocation is o;e of the deep cascs recognized in Case Grammal'

locative /'lDkeiw/ n- ot odj. A case forrn occurring in some lan_

suaees which typica-lly expresses the place iD. on o:8t which some-

ifrin's exist, or o(run: Turkish mrrdd, 'on the table (ttdr' 'table')'

Aniaradtt'in Arkata' The term is commonly used in the grainmars

of languages ha\ing only a \ingle such case' more sPecific lerms

being ireiened sith languages making finer distioclions, such as

in€ssiv€..d€ssiYc

I-ogicol Form /'lDdSrkl/ n. (LF) ln GB, orc of the thlee desigtrated

le;ek of svntactic repres€ntation recogrized as having sPecial sig_

nificance.'The notion of LF was inhoduced by Roben May in

unpublished work in l9?7, and its conception has changed over the

ve;rsr original\ it \ as seen as an ess€ntially semanlic level oi

i.or...nta'tion.but no* it is r€garded as stricdy syntactic Itr curren!

v;ions of GB, LF is regarded as being derived from S-stnrctwe

Drimarilv bv the rwo ope;ations of WH-MoieDGDt and Qoa ifcr

iui"i"r.'u" *u.rt aI tVH-items and quantifiers are moved lo th€

f.ii ln"",*ilt "f

lhe sentence. *here they can b€ inlerpreted as

oDeraro; binding variables For examPl€ lhe s€nrence Lisa gre?ted

"iJoa" *ourit"'.

"n LF roughlv of rhe form levervbodv lLis'

nii"i ii. o^r^tt l n tne predicati calculus formula For all x Lisa;eeted x'. see Mav (1985) for a detailed accounl of LF'

loeoDhoric proDor||l /logr'fDnk/ n A specialized pronodinal

titm occurrine aiwaYs and only embedded under a verb ol sa)rog'

thinkins or ;rceplion and refemng to the p€rson whose sPeecb

thouchl or p€rceptions are reponed Such pronouns are esP€qaxy

freou-ent in *est lfrican Ianguages. ln tbe lollowing examPles rom

Yoruba. rhe first shows an ordinary pronoun in the emoeddeo

clause, ihe second a logophonc pronoun:

o r i p e o o w ohq saw tbat het had money'Hei 6aw that hej bad mooey

o ri Pe oun ni owohei salr that hei had money'He, saw lhat hei had money.'

A few languages achiele the same effect by the use of distitrctNe

verb form;, rathet than dislinctive Pronouns Hag'ge (19?4)

--__----l(C,11

n'

i.r\a'

irri.'

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTIITIIIIIII

?-- |,el rnarkedless shift

Marcus pat:ser / mo:krs/ n. A parser propos€d by Marcus (19{10)which purporls to pars€ English senlences using the then-currentversion of TG. the REST, as a basis. The Marcus parser hasarar'ac1ed a good deal of attention as the only funcrioning transformationall) based parser evcr onstrucred, bur i( has becn crilicized onthe ground that il do€s not really use the REST iramework tbrpalsing: instead. it panes input bv more convenrional merhods andthen constructs an REST-stlle surface struclure f(). rhe input.

narked form /mq:kt/,. 1 A form or consrrucrn)n diffenng frominother with which i r srands in a Daradigmatic relat iooshjp i rhcunlna*ed for|n) by the presence of additional morphological ll1rerial. For example. thc lcxical items host?ls ̂ nd inLonsisttnt arernarked with respect to rorr and cons/srcnr; plural .rlJ is mark€d!rith respect lc) singular.ar;and a passive consrruction IikeJan.r R?rrtrcyed b\' the potice is markcd with respecl to thc correspondingacri\e Thc policc aftentd lanet.2. A form o( .onstruction which is;egarded as less crnlral or less natural rhan a clrmpeting one on anj.of ranous grounds. such as lower frequ.nc). morc limited distri-tur ion. more o!err mo.phdogical marhng. g.carcr scmanti . speci-fidt\ or greater rariry in languages generall!. For exampt€. lhe noundrrk€ is markcd with rcspr'.r to i!s superordinatc d!.kt rhc uncom-mon adjcclivc nlSaro^.is mark€d with respect to its more frequ€nl;\nonyrn rro.rdlrhe plt\rzl brthren is marked with rcspect to itsmore wadel) applicable synon)n brctherc; the intransirive passiveconstruction illustrated in 1-lrd tr 8on€ is marke(l wrth respect ro theneariy synonymous p€rfe.r Lisa has gone, since rhe latt€r applies tofar morc lcrbs than the formeri and crgarive morphology andsrntax are markcd with respect to ac.usative morphology and syn-Ia\. ihe former being far rarerin the languages of the wortd than thelaner. Thc precise characterizarion of markedness is a rnarrer ofsome conrrovers]: sec Eckman er a/. (1986) and TomiC (1S89) fo.Jiscussion. and see Anderson (1989) for a hisrory of the use of thcseierms. -Abrtl. r. nark€dness. Tile rems .marked, and,!.ma.te{]. wereapparc.ilv inrrdiuced ii) Nikolai Truberzkoy and RomanJ!kob$n_ thoush the'cea 8es well back into the ninereenrh century.

markedness shift / mo:krdnas Jdt/ n. The hi\toricat process bvtrhrch rhc morc mark€d of two compctrng f , , r f ls Secomes tesmarked. and vice versa, as when a passive construction becomesmore osual than the active, as seems to hale haDDencd in somePolvne!ian languagcs.

main clause /mcrn/ r. A clausc \\hich is not embedded unCer an,rothcr claulc. E\ ery sel l formed senlcncc conldrn! ai least one mainclautc Indced. in curent thinking. c!cr) Ncl l_lbrmed senience 6 amain claust Tradit ional grammarians utur l ly took the view ihai alubordin lc clause cmbedded undcr a mrin clause sas noi i tscl fo!r t of ihat main clause. but most hnguisls loda! *ould adopt the

main vcrb n. A tradi i ional label for a non_lu\ i l iar\ verb. part icu-hr l ! n)r onc which occurs in a tcnlcnce t() lether sj ih onc or n]orerul i l i r r ics. For €\amPle. in I N Nl l ht $ r i totg ktel ! . I ' rntrg is the

major lerical category / merdir/ n. ln Jome anal)\es- an! onc olrhr four le\ i .al calegories \oun. \ 'crb. , \djcdi \e Preposit ion'. \hieh rrc somel imes seen as ha\ in! grammatical propenies whichJr\rr f iguish lhem irom thc orh€r (minor) lc\rcal calcgories ln par-

t ieulrr , i t is ol ten suggesled lhal onl ! major calegones Projcclphr \al crtcgories qithin lhc X'b.rr s\slcnr. Sec also minor lexicAl

mapping / mtFlr l / n. In the mrthcDtl t ics of fornal systems. rn)

expiicir pn'ccauLe b) $hich cach obj(c! in onc set is srstemaricallynssociarcd $r lh sone objed or obiccls in anorher lc l (possibl ! thc

\rnle set) . In GB. for e\anple. onc na! 'peak of rhe mappjng of

D structurcs onlo S-strucrures. lqalhemal ic ians di5! ingui:h bel!reenr mapping onto and a mapping into: in rhe formcr. e\er) object in

Lhr sccond lct is aslocialed wilh an objccl in lh,j firsl sei: tn rne

Ir t tcr. this is not the case.

Marantz's Generalization /ma rtlnls/ r' The obsenalion that. 'n

a coflstruclron in which an underlying indircct or oblique object has

bccn promoted to direct obiect. thc undcrlying direcl object fails to

exhihii the typical properiies of a dircct object for examPle' n

c.tnnol lrigger direct object agrcemcnl in lhe verb. nor can (

undcrgo passivizal ion.

!etete

tc

cI

cc,c

€

GG€

€

5

flr

€

i66csccc

marked P€riphery 168 :

5:g5:

:

.ia

33

2a

eea3?aa?2,

r69 n.c{xDtnrtrd

maximd /'meksrnq/ adr'. Denoting any objecl $/hich fu in somesense the Iargest member of its class, The term is mo3t oftcn met inthe phrase maximal proJection, but it is also us€d iD other walr: fore\ample. one may speek of the maximal VP in a panicular tree.meaning the largest (highest) VP node among seve!-d nested 1?s.

maxiealirJ.* /meksr'mahti/ n. The requircment, adopted in someversions ofthe X-bar system, that every non-head dauShter in a rulemust be a maximal projectioo. Maximality is wid€ly, thouSh Dotuniversally, espoused by X-bar theorists; in principlc, it i! a vcryattraclive constraint on possible rules, but, as pointed out by Komaiand Pullum (1990), the literatur€ istull ofanalyses which hold to thelctter. but not the spirit, of the requirem€nt by positing gbo6tlynodes with no indep€ndent justification. Some aralFts penritsp€cified grammalical formatives to consrilute the sole cla!6 ofexceptions to Maximality, a position dubbed'Weak MeriEelity'byKornai and Pullum (1990). Komai and Pullum (1e90), bur thc idc! g06back ar leasr roJactendofl (1977).

maximal projectiotr n. In the X-bsr syslem, lhe largest iytrtacticcategory which is formally related to some lexical category by tierelalion of projcction, reprcsented by the largest available valuc forthe feature bar. and identifi€d with the traditional (tulD plrsdcrtegory associated with that lexical category. Assuming that themaximal bar-value is two. the mfu\imal projection of the lexicalcategory Noun, for example. is Noun-double-bar, represenred as N,N" or Nr; this category is identified wirh the category Noun Phrase-Othcr maximal projcctions are V" (- \?), A" (: AP) and P" (:PP), and possibly others. Maximal projections as a class have cer-tain identifiable propertiesr for example. only maximal proiectionscan be preposed. and on\ maximal proiecrions can \en( as cornp-l€ments. See also utriformity.

m-corunsnd /em/ n. (also MAK-commrDd) On€ of the comrundrebtions. lt states 'A node A m-commands another node B iffthe lowest maiimal projection which properly dominates A alsoprop€rly dominates B'. The noiion p4fiBi defired by Aoun and Sponiche(1982), who qued ir 'c,codmand . intendir8 tha( rhis .elation should supptmilhe onginal definirion of c{mm!d: th€ nanc m{ommand was propGedby Chonstr {1986) and is now u$al. though one also encoutrreB rhc name'c-6mnand in tbe s.se of Aour and Sponiche .

marked periphery /pe'rrf3n/ n. In GB. that pa( of:he Srammarof a particular language which lies outside the cbre gmmmsr andwhich.is viewed as consisting of miscellaneous language-specificphenomena which cannot b€ slraightforwarcly accommodatedwithin the principles of universal grammar. An English example isthc exc€ptionrl crse mEking found in the accusative-and_infinitiveconsiruction. \rhich cannot be haodled by the ordinary Principles ofCase Theory. See the discussion uoder cor€ grs.drr|ar'

masculine /'meskjulrn/ adt. A cooventional label in c€nain gedderlanguages for a gender category which shows some degree of seman-tic correlation with male sex. See the remarks under Sender.

mass noun lmesl n. A noun \ hose meaning is perc€ived to beanything other than a distinct countable entity, such as a substance()rir€), a state of affairs (happiness), an activity (rky-divrtS) or aq$lity (intelli|ence\. Mass nouns in English and other languagescannot usually tte counied or pluralized in their Pridary s€nses,though many can be pluralized in sPecial sens€s, such as'variety','mearurc' or 'individual embodiment . Frcach v'ines ('varieties of*ine'), tt o colfees ('measures', of a t)?€ determined by the con_text), an alieh intelliSence ('€mbodirnent') Cf coura nouD

mate relation /melt/ n- A relation which holds teiween two nodesin a tree each of *hich bears a certain comEr|rd r€btion to theother. The mosl familiar mat€ reladon is the chusdn te relatio!,which holds b€tween two nodes each of which S-commands theother. but other comma.d relations yield other mate telations: fot

examDle. t\vo nodes which m-command (max-conmand) each othea

arc m;-mates. a notion involved in some definitions of gov€rom€dt

in GB. Barter and Pull$ (1990)

matheEstical linguistics /,mse0.'matlkl/ n. A bradch of linSuis-tics which studies the matiematical ProPerties of language. The

tern was formerly undelstood as r€ferring chiefly to statisticallybased approaches such as information theory; no*adays it normallyrefers to the study of formal grammars. See Cbornsky Hicrrrchy'and see Petrault (f9&) for a brief summary of some imporlaresults.

matrix clause /'mertrlks/ ',. (also matrir sentence) A clause which

conlains another clause €mb€dded wilhin it.

MAx-comm.nd /maks/ See m{omlnsnd.i-t

L- : -

rpediaf verb - ,rO l

'rt

medial verb / mi:diry ,. (also dependent rerb) One of rhe sr,Uorai- t 1 ation about sets of local subtrees. pa(icularty an ifter-sent€ncenate vorb forms occurring in languages in which clsuse chsining is a 1: rclation, such as the activ€/passive or cxtraposed/non-extraposedprominent.

_ : /. relation- The following example relates invert€d and non-inverted

mediopassive /medieu pesrv/ a. or ad7. (alsu mid, e) o *"rr*.- I .

struclures:

rion in which an intriniically rransitire verD rs consrmed rnrransi- - .- vP - w> S[+INV] - ]v. NPtively with apaticnl assubjecr and receives a plrsiu. int.rpt.trr'on t :: This says rhar, for every rule in lhs grammar that expands 1reThis fablic walhes easily, llli new book b.selln8 h.j/. In En€trsh, t :: cat€gory VF as u .r.,ng W, rhere is

-a corr€spondrng rute thatthis conslruction is confined lo a nrinorily of lerhr. and shotld ; ..: erpands the caregory S ai the same string W prus an Np, where theperhaps be regarded as a purely lexical Phenomenon. ratler rtran as

q -- rciture 1+tNv1 a-ppeaa on the S. (orher'statements rn lhe gnmmara syntactif onei in som€ alher languages. bowever. such as Basque, ( 'i witt iak; care ot tie linear ordering und.o"r.e ttrat rhe inverted

:::"r:jT""::::tr.|] l'_"*::'l: j,'_:: 1.:i:1ll: '.,9

:,1 T r. e ;; verbisanniteauxiriary.lu.tu,uresi.eusJryconstrarnedtoappryconstrued. See also tabile rerb. Ninereenrh ..e65); midd,c.iscqua,\ fr"',.., n",,,*".,*."lil,,Ji;Ill,li,"'JJli e I ,. :ilJil;,':ff.1ff,.:llT:;:ff:#,"1,'*.".J1T"1.?,;X'J;Xf;rheseosesofrhar rerm. r tso.pu$nar. is*cet r8e2). .a. , , ,*p"*". rr" .p." . . 6 i ; : anjpurely texicarsratem*"

"r " , iJ," ]^t i "" .l u6 l . l l l V r r . pa lcn , . \Jh ic . " .on : r tuc t on Oan Oo.k ,n te -? , _ - | . -

nerging /,m3:d3rr/ ,. A synonym ror unincation. e,.r".*d ^ : ! r: i:f#:,"1*-l;fl::';':l,iY,l;.t ll#,ii?T.f,T:thH.;LFC.s | ' ,^ and dora arrow ernployed in functionsl schcmata to rei,reseni

metagrsmmaf /merrg*mr/, tn cenain ,*..* "

rrr.,n", ! i t]

metagrafimsr /mere,grarma/ r. In cenain ,h..r,", of S*.nl"r. : | .: f struclures $hich are ihemsehes treated rs variables.

that pan of a complete grammatical descriprion *h'ch con.rsts of C |

'- m€tric /'metrrk/ n. Any of various criteria *hich may be app€aledstatemenls thal do not directl) license subtrees but inste,d erpress Q !

'.? to in decidinghow successfutly some proposed gramhar me€ts somegen€ralizations abour the rules of th€ gramnrar wnich ,1o trccnsa . | ,r. proposcd l€vel of adequacy.subrrecs. the obj€(t gramroar. The drvision of d qrammar rnro t t

''

an obrecr s ramma, "na u ' . , "g ,u . ; l i ; " ; , f , * ; ; ; ; ; ; ; c : 11 i99 ] :11 ,9 ,1" .o r 'd l : r tncena 'n ransuases .norabr lAnc ,en ,

wiingaardcnl r tqhqr *ort in com"purar,on. lh( f i rsr rheoD .r i | : r rreer( dno 5an\rrr1 a d'sr inct i !c tcrh fnrm. conlrasr ing ui th t 'oth

grammar to adopr ir was 6psc. : I : actrve and_passive. which sen'€s to express rhat rh€ subject is acrinS

nretarsnguas€ /,meta rarsw,d3/ ,, A ransuase which is used . I i :; ;li-l$li',T:'fil";':ill"? :; ,'JJ, ffilfjlTil ll;T:'*:lalk aboul another language, the object language. A mcralanguage t |

'- ot'viously appropriate for the consrruction illustrated by suchmay be either a natural languagc or a formal language. the sarne is $ i ,i. English examptes as John is shaei g and Lisa un.)rcssed, bnt it istrue of an object language. [. is very common rn llngr;ti...t" ut a g ! .i rarely so used. 2. By extension, in some analyses. denoting a clsus€natur',rl languagc. such as English. as a mcralanguage ro tatk about - | ^ containing only one argument NP, which isan actort John is wait,rhe same naturallanguage as the object language;*hen rhis isdone, t l'J

i:,C: The sun ts-shining, Hr: popularity dectine.l, Behove founeryfil is esljenliat to distinguish the two clearlv ro a!ojd confusion This C : .e Hallidav ( 1e76). 3. Denoting a transitive v erb rvhose subject is not anis conlertionally done by typographical means. <uch as by citing ,. I -' agent, especially a r€lationsl verb (have, desefle), but somerimesobject languagc forms in italics or in invefled commas compare I I

''- also a v€rb ofperception, cognition or ernotion (see. knot+,love).4.Menarc beasts,xith'Men L\ nn itegular plunl. -4dl. merslinguink C : a< See m€diopsssh€./ meltll!'qwlslrk/

c ! .'- mildly contexl-seDsitive /'martdti/ a.4. Denoliog any of variousmetaruk: /'metarur/ n. In GPSG. a staremenr uhich senes to C I -- classes of formalSrammars which deline languages that are proper

express rl Seneralization about the mles ofrhe gramrnar A merarule ̂ L superseb of lhe context-free languages and proper subsets of itre

does not its€lflicense localsublrees;instead it c\presses a gencraliz- !' -

- - conterls€nsitive lengusgos. specificaUy rhose Srammars which csLn

e,. ?cfz-

ntuimot tT2 ;2 3 1'13 modtfiert ^

haodle cro€s-serisl d€perdefties limited lo affecting ttr,o points. a.-l ': missitrg Strtecedeoa /'mrsr0/ n. The phenomenoo in which a

which have rhe co$lffl-gtowrh proPcrry and which allow paEing in 2-a i' pronoun has no oven anlecedent in its sentence. even though one

Flynomid time. Sine rhere is considerable evidence that. ai leasl t l- a.7 app€ars lo be required. An example is / y€ neypr met a millionabe,in lerms of werk g€oerative capacit). no nalural language r€qurres -1 ,. Dut L6a ros, an.lshesayshe l.'os a oeep. in \rlhich lhe aotec€denlofmore than slight additions to lhe power of context-free gramman, lZ' I

': ,? is missing. Grind€r asd Postat (1971).

$iliJ: fiil1|i:15"'*ffij"",;'J'LT,ilt*l'HJ"ffi.

"i

: missins obiec. construction n. rhe constmction nustrated bym'r6and-trce-adioininge..--'.".^.r,,oi',, ?i': ::"3ifi.*'il*fllffii.lj.,#:.:';TJ?;l;f-l**flf,H:

minimal /,mrnml/ adj. Denoting an obiect which rs in some sens€ :- | -. the s€emingly related construction of the lorfr To look ot Lisa bthe smallest of its class; in particular, often denoting a category ill 9- |

't lovery has a quite different sense. sch.chter (1981).

a tree which is rhe 'smallest' - *-"" :l ;,:,,:ru:;: ff ll:

g - i : modat /,ma..dl/ .1. ddn penainins ro mood conrrasts. 2. n. (also'minidal'\? (the lowest VP in a set (.minima| maimar projectio' (rhe r."*i'.i**'"r'".*ai"a ! i .: *f""'H#l"i]"J#i,53;.Tlli]jiillX$i"*""'llilllil

maximal Projections) G- | It oi mooa Engtish has a'"".'t"i 5i "'*rt

."arrs, inctuding marr,mhimality /mrnr,mahti/ rt. ln CB. the requirement tbat. of e t

': canhould. willlwould, shattJshould. ,ruylmi|ht and ou8ftr. See thes€veral poletrtial gov€rrors for a 8olemed calegory. only lhe low- C -i '3 remarks under autili&-y (sense l)est' or 'clos€st'

Potential govemor should actually govem thal C | ,i mldality /m.u'dalrti/ r. 1. A synonym for mood, oflen preferred

category' - | ^_ for the expression of mood distinctions by lexical means or as amiDor lexical {rtegory /,marne/ a. In some aflalyses. any lexical : | :

superordinate term when'mood' is restricted to the expression of

".i"no* ott", rtr"irtri so-catled major texi<rl craeeories of Noutr. C I l' ttus q|leSory by verbai inffection. 2. A specifc range of mood

i.ii, ,iaj."i*.--o ireposirion. Tie minor caregories are often G I l! distincrions concemed with the speaker's estimate of lhe relatioo-assrmed nor ro project ptrasat caregories. rhough this as"umPiioo , | = :l1p,,Tl:":.,h. actor aod the accomplishmen! of sorDe eveDt.hasbeen chalJenged in some recentwork, such asin Po[ock (1989)

: f: Mooaxry In thrs s€nse rs lhe calegoryinvolved h distinguishing, for

minor rure n. A senerarizarion *hich appries oory ro a (tvpicairv I i :_ il:Hff::liffi'"T:i1l';tr$XTlg.',iJ:j:;;:ff';sEAll) subs€l of items io a languagel an examPle is tbe iniec:troo"l )

l: ty, marugc,lail ^Dd succeed. and by aspectual veIbs like sralr, srrppaflem shoqn by cenain Eogiish verbs. sucb as $nglsdn8l-st/,t8 6 ; a and ronniu€ wheo thes€ s€rve lo exlrress lhe speaker's view. s.B 2:tuinkldronudrunk, inglranghunE, stinust44kls'tt'1/t' amorg otners

€ -

: - Jakobson (r91).

minor s€ntencc type /tarp/ n. A narne somerimes civen to any-of 5 : - rtrodd prcterite n. A past-rens€ form us€d to express unrcal or

various rypes o[ conventional utterances which d9 l.j Mt.- i: i | .r. counlerfactual mood. ralher rhan past time: h's tin? you wenr bstructurei of well-formed sentences, most usuaily lackiog a liDtte f |

'- bedi If I spoke better Frcnch, I coid work i4 pa'i.t.

verb. Some typical examples are AII oboad!. No snokittS' ?"! g a ?tire the King!,Yes,ouch!, Gootl mominS' Tati!' Thb My Pkase: .--! a

mode /meud/ s€e rtrood (espe'ially sense 2)

The more ie menier and IPo sPdd€s Bloodtfield {I933li J'sp€rs.[ had I |

- modification /mDdrfr'kerj0/ rr. The relation whicb a modi0€r

pr€viously called th€m inartrdlate sent€ncls (1961. vII: lZ) t I t bears to its head.

mirror-irnage laDgurge /mrrar'rmrd3/ n A formai laDg agr.in e- i a Dod6er /modrfarr/ r. Any category which serves ro sdd s€d.ntic-*hiJ

.u.rf*;ng-h"r ihe form wwr, where tbe srring w-r_is_th€ f*r 3 info,rmatioo ro,r'", p..Jd.o lv"iit'. i*i ot rhe c{re8ory withjtrexact revers€oflhe stringW. Mirtor'image languages can De tener- 4*l 4 which it isconlained, such asar adjeclive ora relative clsuse withinatrd by conrexr-free gatr|mars. Cf. coPvirg latrgurgc.

ij a an NP or an adverbial wirhin a VP. ModificF may bc rt &Ldre or

HA

modular 114

e"e'a?eeLe

115 morpheme

non-rcstrictive, In some versions of the X-bar system, a modifier isformally defined as a category which is a daughter of a on€-barproiection and a sister of another. A modifier within an NP is oftencalled an stEibut€. Cf. sp€ciffer, complement.

modular /'modjula/ adt. Denoting a tleory of grammar in whicheach permitted grammar consists of a set of modules,

module / mDdju:y r . In crnain theories of grammar. an' one of rheseveral more-or-less autonomous components of a grammar. ln amodular theory ofgrammar, each module of the grammarmakes itsown independent requjrements as to well-fomedness, and a well-formed structure is one which is licensed by every one of themodules independently. In some modular theories, such asAutolexical Syntax, thq modules are 'informatiorally encapsulated'in the sense of Fodor (1983), meaning that rc module has access rothe repres€ntations prcvided by other modules; in other modulartheodes, such as GB. each module has acc€ss to infomation from

monad /'monad/ n. A formal object with no intemal structure, suchas the category NP in early generative grammar. ,adt. nooadic/mD'nedrU Cf. codplex Bymbol.

monostratal /mDner'strertl/ adj. l. Denoting a manner of repre,sentirg the syntactic structues of sentences in which a sentence isrepresented by a singe formal object, typically an annotated treectructure, \d no more abstract level of representation is rccog-nized. 2. D\oting a tieory of gammar in which sucb rcpresen-tations are exilusively employed, such as GPSG. Cf. deriyadout(sense 2). Perlnutter (upubush€d worQ; Perlnutter (1984).

Montague Grammar /'mDntegju!/ |t. A system of formal seman-tici accompanied by a s€t of syntactic rules related to the semandcrules by the rulc-to'rule hypothesis. This approach has been enor-mously influential in semantics; ir spite of its name, it is essentia yatheory of semantics, although ihe rule{o-rule aspect has been incor-pomted into at least one theory ofgrarnmar, GPSG. See Halvorsenand I-adusaw (1979) or Cooper (1980) fo. an introduction. ,4d].MortsgoviaD /moDto'geuvisn/. Monrague (1970).

mood /mu:d/ n. (also modalify) 1. A grammatical category whichexpresses the degree or kind of reality of a proposition . as perceivedby the speaker. Mood distinctions appear to b€ universally presentin languagesi they arc variously expressed, often by inflection of the

3 rerb or bv the use of specialized Iexicat ilcms called modats. In- nran) languages. the expression of mood is intimatel), bound up

I +rrh rhc c\pre\\ ion or tens€ and/or a.pect: in orher\ . huqc!er. ' r \- ! \ n r e s . i o n i ' s h a r p l ! d N r i n c l O t a l l r h ( { i d e l v a t r e s r c ( t g r d m n r d r i c a l

3 caregories, mood is perhaps the mosr elusivel mood distincrionsa tend to shade off almost imperccpribly into expressions ot the- . p . r l , r , J r r i r u J c a n J i n r o c l e a ' l \ f r a g m a r ' c , a . r o r \ . . u c h r . r h e3 .p.. ,1, ' ' pc' . ."eJ relal 'on.hrt ru olher pe^nl, \e!ef lhel( \ , rhe

3 .r i . t .nc.. , ' r {r i ,mma c-alr , ,ed muorl conrra,rr i . be}ond Jr.pure

- \ i I |uu\ c la\ \rh.rrron\ ol monddi. t incr io sha!, heen profo,ed, thet most frcquenl bcing that between epistemic and deonttu modaliti€s.- Fole) and Van Valin (i984) propose a three-tray conrrasl bctween- i l lorur ionrrt forc€. s latus dnd modal i tv { ,en,c 2): see rhc,( ( f l r r ie.

t t , , r ,vJ ' lanarr^n.. Er idenrial anJ eratuathe Ll i . l incrron, are aIo] sometirnes regardcd as mood distinctions. ror: some analtsts preier ro- r . rF . r rhF k r m, ' . , J ro d i .hnron ' r \p rc . . .o b n f l c . r ,Jn , , t rh . \ . rb . an I

^ ^ L . noda l r r \ d \ d .u |c rord i rd r r ld l . l io r rhp g ,d rnnr r .d . . rcd , r ! . , . "!t whole :. Anr onc of the panicular distinctions of mood ocsurring in

- n particular lang age. Among thc more widely alresrcd mooda categories are decla.stive, interrogatiye. impe.ative. jussivc. sub-' junctilc, conditional. hortativ€. deqiderarilc. dubiortive and? ne{essitative. though many oihers occufuo onc ranauaqe or anorner.

- morph /mr.t n. A piece of morphological marerial. consisting of a- <(q ence ol / ' r i r or more phr 'n€me\. . , rn\ iJ(red f , ' , . . s rrhr.ur dn\- r" lerence ro rr- mo'phological . ralu\ . \ m.rrpn ma\ renrc\(nr a? srngle morpheme. a s€quence of rwo or more morphcmes. a part of-_ " m,, .ph(me or no mnrphcme ar att . Fur exampte. rhc Ba,quc noun- ry/aJr nounrain lorm\ J locdri !e f , tu al npnaptd,t in th, .mouna l a ' n \ : q ( c a n , p e d k o f r h ( m o r p h . 1 / , r o r , u r r i n g i n r h r , $ , , r , l- s r r h o u r c o n r m i l l i n g o u ^ e l \ c r r o a n ) p r r r i ' r u l a r

" n " l ) , i , c f , r . l t - u ,- rn anaty\N ol tht \ torm. \(e under emptl morph )rt- morpneme "mJ:h:m/, (al .o formst ive) th( minrmJr errnrmn,iLr lrt uniti thc smallcst unir which pla)s an)'. part in morphoiogy and? which cannor be funher decomposed except in phonological or- i scmanrrc rerm\ A m. 'pheme i . an abnrJLr unit qhi ih ma\ or mi)t nur hc-rcJl i /ed bI J tdir t l conrr(rr . rrerch ot nhunotoCicdJ m;a l e r o r l o r e \ J m p l r . d n o u n p l u r J t r n I n g t i . h u . u a 1 L o n \ i \ r \ o t r q o, r m o r p h e m c \ . r n o u n . r ( m a n d ' h < m o r p h e n r e t p l u r r t l : h a $ e \ e r . r h .

oi thrs scquenee \ar ' ( , in $dI, ,vh\ - . r . r .^rh reputal, a n a r r e p u t d r . i . i u r r a r e d b ! . u , , r t t u r a t . i . j . . , . . , . l ^ \ . . .-l

a

cl

e1t -_ 3

rl

a|l3aaa

ra

?

morpholexical rule 176

sheep, n'en. wonen, children. feet. mice, rudii.lomulae, criteria,inllices, cises, chelubim andpasserr-b). It is a widely used conven,tion to enclose morphemes within braces; thus /ecl might be rep-resented as {/oor} plus {Plural}. Morphcmes are variously classifiedas fre€ or bound. or as lexicrl or gra|nmatical. Adi. morphemic/mi:'fi:mlk/. Cf. morph, allomorph. The tem sas [email protected] bvBaudoir de Counenay ( 1895): after@nsiderable \sriation in usgc. the modemsense was csrablished by Bl@mfield (1933).

morpholexical rule /mcrfe'leksrkl/ n. A lexical rul€ which, fotsome morphcme, specifies all the allomoryhs which that mo4rhemecan assumc in various grammatical environments. Lieber ( 1980. 1982)-

morphologicrl /mr:fe'lDd3rk!/ adr. l Pertaining to morpholoof.2. An occasional synonym for synth€tic. One may speak, forexample, of a morphological causative' (one express€d by inflec-tion of the verb) as opposed to an analytic or periph rastic causative.

morphology /mr:'fDledji/ n. Thc branch of grammar dealing withthe analysis of word structure. conventionally divided into deriva-tional morpholog/ (the study of word formation) and intrecti{rnslmorpholog/ (the study of the variation in form of single lexicalitems for grammatical purposes). See Matthews (19?4) or Spencer(1991) for a comprehensive introduction. ,41j. morphological.

morphosyntactic category /m.rfosrn'taktrk-/ n. Any morpho-logically distinguished class of forms which plays a part in syntar,such as the dative case, the teminine gender or th€ past tense.

morphosyntlctic *ord n. A nord form conceived as a realizaticnof whatever grammatical distinctions are significant in th€ languagein question. ln Spanish, for example, finite verbs agree in personand number with their subjects: cdnro 'I sing', carrar 'you sinS',cazta'helshe sings'and so on. But in the imperfecl, the fifst andthird pcrson singufar forms are idenrical: cantaba 'l was singing' ,canarbdr 'you were singing', crnldra 'he/she was singing'; the 6rst-and third-pe^on lol:'lts runtaba are different norph6ynlacti!words, even though they might b€ regarded as identical\rord forms.

morphosyntax /mr:fau'srntaks/ n. The area of interface betwe€nmorphology and synta.(. Morphosynlax attracts attenlion chiefly incases of morphosyntactic mismatch, in which the conslituent struc_turc required by the syntax is inconsistent with the word structtlrercquned by the morphology, a\ occrrs rn the larious lypes ofbrada&8 p.ndoxes (sense | ). Adr. morphosyntlctk.

11'7 multishaa.l

mother /'m^da/n. A relation which may hold between two nodes ina tree. If a node A immediately dominates anoth€r node B, thcn Ais the mother of B . Cf. daughtcr, ancestror.

Mov€-alph8 /,mu:v 'Elfa/ See Alpha Movement.

movement chain /'mu:vmont tJern/ r. In CB, the combination ofa moved constituent with its coindexed traccs,

movemena rule r. In a derivational th€ory of grammar, any rulethat relales two s€quential levels of represefltation in such a waythat a constituent present in one place at one level is present in adifferent place at the other level. Movement rules were introducedinto syntax by Chomsky (1957); the Standard Theory of TG recog-nized a v€ry large number ofmovement rules, often quite elaborateand construction-sp€cific. In cB only a single very simple andgeneral movemenl rule is posited, the rule of Alphs Mov€m€nt.Virtually all other theories of grammar reject rhe use of movemenrrules, and there have sometimesbeen suggestions that they could bedispensed with in GB as well.

multistratal /m,. tr'strcrtl/ adl. Denoting a manner of representingthe syntactic strucaures of sentences, or a theory of grammaremployingsuch repr€sentations, in which rhe structure of a sentenceconsists of two or more formal objects, particularly formal objectswhich are described in the same vocabulary. In practice, this term isusually a synonym for derivational (sense 2). TG, cB and RG areexamples of multistratal frameworks. See strrt[m, lev€l.

';1

iiiiii:ii!;r;r;ra:IEirri- rr'.-lldr

N See noun.

n$rat ive / 'naratr t n. or adj . A disr incr i \e t()m. usualt \ n \erbf o r m . [ ^ u n d i n . c r r , , i i r t . n g u , { . ! r - o l , - , \ B , J l l L r d n s r J r ( \ , s i l c a . .c o n n n e o l o L \ e l n n r d l , r i \ t r c ( t i r . n t \ o t r J \ l ( \ , n , , . r . t , , r ( , , , , r l l* h i c h A o f r e n r h c , , n h f o r m s h ^ n . J l l , . . . u r h , r (

lratuml class / nalJerl kto:!/ n. l. Fornal'),. rllr class which canbe characle. ized us ing te js in fornrat ion ih3n is rcqui red k) chrrac,t€nze anJ- pan d i l . Thus. fbr r \an1pte. \ r i th in rhc X ba. \ \srcm_ thrna!r ' ra l c lass of mr\ iJnal pro je. r tuns can be idenr i f ied b\ rhc s jnglcfearDrc \n€cihcht 'on IBAR : l $h i t " an\ .u \ ( , :N, o{ nJ\ rm:,1 Droj :cr i , , n , . d , r , , ' r h b c n r c \ e d . , u r h \ . , o d , n ! , L r r h ( r f e r r u r ( r t e c r ncatronr I In format l ! . anv ctass of t insuisr ic objccts *h ich p i r ternSranmlt icat i ! in the same q! \ rn i t qhich therefore nccd ro bere icrrcd to- in the grammar as 3 i i g tc uni t i | r c tass. For crample.tbe c lass o i verbs in Engt ish js a oarura l c tasr . as is thc c lass oft ransr t i !e lerbs and as is ihe c i r \ \ o f d i fanr i r i re !erhs. Onc of rhem u r ( r n ' m e d i d l e ! , , d 1 , . r d n \ t h L . , r \ , t r . : , T r , " r L r o f , . { i d r lrormJlr m rhrr . r rL( ,a . , . i r , . . t r ( \ ( t rnL cr lJrJI . td . .e\ .n thc , (conLlscnse a! natural cl:!s\cs in the iixl sensc: failurc 1(r do rhir usualti.l ( a d \ i , n l r r o l h ( ( n , l l , \ , l n b c t t r n f , , l l h i ' l p . " . t , . I o r r c , i \ t r . , r r n r u L ht r a d ' r r , r n . t S r d m n r d r ^ r t J ( , c n n r r , . n * i d c t \ r ( r d f d ( d a \ n n ( o r i t \

natural language n. 1 An) llnguage *hich ir or once s.as. themolher bngue o i 1 group of human bcings. : . Bv exrcnsion. anl ,c o n c , r \ d b l c I . n r . U , r ! ( $ h h h , \ c , r r \ i \ l e n l * i r \ r h r r e q u t r r m e n r , . rthe the() r o l sr rmrrr r and \ \ h ich hrnce mighr in pnncipt . , bc such amo!her i ( )nsue.

natural-language processing / pr.osesrD/ n (NLp) The use ofcomputcrs for hrnciling vario \ rf.pes of rrsks Inrolrin{ narurallanguaSes. bul nx)sl paniculad\ Ior accepiing narural tanguageinput from hunan users and gi\ing appropriate and usefut reiponlt \ i te cenri l r isk or Nt.p is rhe consrrucr ion of ef t ic ieDr

t79 negative concord

N-bar /en bo:/n IntheX-barsysrem. rhc one bar projecr ion of lhele\jcal calegon Noun- rcprcsented as N. N' or Nt. and identifiedqilh the catcgory which €ombines with a dcterminer to make up anoun phrasc. The category is necessary ro provide coherent analysesior \Ps containing modifiers. such as man).rr.dents of lingubtics,analvsed as I\plr).,ndnlj l\ l\r.I]d€nrsl Ippol/ins!'sd.rJ]1. There isno traditional name lbr this catcgory. though various labels such as'nominal group occasionally tum up in rbe lirerature.

necessitalive /na sesrtetrv/ adl. The mood category which.\presses nccessity or obligalion, either deontic (as in I have to go)or episternic (:rs in That n6t be Lisal. An exampte is the Turkishverb form Srrr.,/iid

'I have ro go', an inflected form of gitmek,go,.

negation /nr'gcrjn/ r. Thc presence of a negstiv€ (sense I or 2) in asentence or consrituenr. or the addirion of such an elemenr, or theetiect of that elemenr when presenr. See Horn (1989); payne( 1985a).

negative /'negatrr/ n. l A grammatical elemenr which, whenaddcd ro a senrence exprcssing a proposition, reverses the trurh! alue of thar proposirion. The usual English negative is nor or ,n'r,as illustrated by the pair / can speak l'rcnch and I can't speokFrencr- A ncgative element is an op€rator which takes some pan ofrr\ senrence as irs scope: thar scope may be the entire prorxrsition, as!n the last example. or only some pan of it, as in the example,4tdar as

" rite r bf Verdi, not h\ Puccini . The expr€ssion of negation

!,rrics widcly among languages; Spanish uses a simple invariable,o. while in Lugbara oegative senrences exhibit a substantiallydifferent grammatical srructure from their affirmative counterpans.l. A lexical item or orher elcment which can be analysed semanti,calli as consisling of a negarive in sense 1 ptus another €lementsen jng as thc scape of the negative. For example, English norrrrgcnn be anahsed as no. plus something, antl nevet can be analvsed asr . { p l u \ / ! / ' : I d r i n a o l / e n o t $ a n r ' c a n b e a n a l y s e d d . r d r . n o r ' p t L r j!.//L wan! 3. Denoling a sentence or constiruent containing aneean\e elcnrenr in cirhcr of the preceding senses.

negat ive concord7l. Ihe phenomenon b,! which rhc presence of an,^ err ncgat i !e (sense I ) rcquircs orher clemenrs in rhe senrence tohc nra.k.(l ls ncgarirc Sprnish erhibits cxlcnsive negative concord:\ ' . ) , . f iJr , / ,dda I didn t see anyrhinS. t i terat ly , l d idn' t see

negative polarity item 180c?

nothrng r.rh^e rorm *No he vlsto aleo. \\ithout negalive concord, i\:'L'.|rrned. 5ce the discussion under double negative.

n€ative polarity item ''_ Any of various irems which can onlvoccur wirhin the scope of a negerire (sen\e I or 2t and possibly alitn cenain other sp€cified grammatical circumsrances. notably Inquestions. English examples include an), €ye. and at at!: I,Ve ion,thove

-an, wine; Do we have any i)ine?;bul rwe have an, wine. Cf.positiv€ polrrity it€n. Ktima (1964).

tregative raising |l. The phenomenon by which a negalive etementappearsrn a posrlron in which it appea^ ro have ereater scop€ thanrs conststent wrlh lhe interpretation of the s€nrence. An exa$ple is /n?v.r

.''a to see you agajr. which appears ro mean .lt is never lhecaselhat I want ro see you again.(and can acrua y mean rhjs). bulwhrch rscommonly us€d to express ihe meaning. l want never to seeyou again , wirh re4rr outside lhe scope of th€ negarive.

neologism /ni'olodjrzrp/ ,l. A newty coined word or phrase.Among the neologisms recorded in rhe 1989 edirion ;f TreLonSnan_Register of New Wordt arc glasnost, arannabee, toyboy,lronaSe Irais, innfada, wrinkty (no$n), nuheg (verb, soccer rerrn),bonk, yuppify znd geopathic. Adj. rc.rtogtstic /niDta,d3rstrk/.

ne$ted dependency l'nesnd/ n. A deFndemy which i3 enriretycontained within rhe two ends of another dependency, so that aseries of n€sted dependencies looks like this:

C-CC(

(

atz,r.

L

181 NL vastne$s aheorem

n€stitrg /'nestr0/ 't. An instance of embedding in which a categoryis embedded under, and interrupts, another instance of the samecategory,

network grammar I'nerw3tkl n. A graphical representation ofpossible sentences (as srrings) consisting of a set of points ('states')connected by arcs ('paths'); each arc is typically labelled with a wordor formative which is added to the current strine wheo that arc is

neuter /'nju:tal adr. A mnventional label in c€rtain gendB lan-guages for a gender category showing no particular semantic corre-lation with animacy or s€x or, in some languages, for the singlegeoder category showing no particular semantic corelation at all,repres€nting the'.esidue category in such lanSuages.

neutralization I,nfufielat'zetl4/ a. A synonym for smcretism,borowed ftom phonology. y. ncutralize /'nju:tralaE/.

nexus /'neksas/ (pl. nerui or nexus€s, but aor *nexi) n. A superordi-nate t€rm for lhe various ways of combining clauses into qmtacticstructures, such as coordinrtion, subordiDation (emb€dding) andcGubordination. Foley ed Var vali! ( 1984).

NICE prop€rties /'nars ,pmpati:/ r. pt A mn€monic lab€l forthe four princiFal prop€nies distinguishing English auxiliaries Aomordinary verbs: Negation (Lira doesn't smoke\,Inversion (DoerLi:a snoke?\, Code (Lira doesn't smoke, but tana does) andEmphasis (Janer &*s smokel. Huddle$otr (196), dedvin8 fton rhcdalysis in Palmer (19&. bur onSinatly 1974).

NL See rst||rd l.s|rgurg€.

NLP See natural language processiog.

f{L vrstn€ss th€orem /en el 'vorstnes/ n. (also vsstnes theor€D)fhe comlusion rhat the number of s€ n tences in a natural language istransfinite, that is, geater than counrably in6nite. This conclusiotr

C 1 t A 2B 1

(-

,iit!l:i;I:r. l-r;I:r:!:r:I:t^l..-fc-lI,c-I{rI

8 2 C 2 . . .

A familiar example of a nested dependency is centrc.cmbcddlog.Unlimited nesled dependencies cannot be weakly generared by ar€gular g.ammar, but rhey can casily be handled by a cotrtert-ft.egrammar. Cf. cro6s-seri.l dependenct_

No-Crossing Condition

follows from the proposition that individual sentences can bc rans-finitely long, and may preclude the possibilily of construclive gram-d|ers for nalural languages. Lansendoen and losral(1984).

Nocrossing Condit ion,/nau'kmsr0/Condtion.

See Non-tangling

Dode /neud/ r,. A labelled poinl in a tree which represents a con-stituent of the sentence representcd by lhe lrcc. The lattcl on thenode identifies the syntactic catcgorv to which the constituent b€longs, and the intemal slructrre of that cooslituent is sho$n bythe subtree dominated by that node. Nodes may be classified intolon-terminal nodcs, pret€rminal nodes and terminal nodcs. In thetree below. rhe lexical items are terminal nodcs: the lcxical cat-egories Det. N and V are preterminal nodcs: all the other nodesar€ non lernlnats:

nominal sentetrce

a .onlext !enrlr\e grammar: thc conteJ{l scnsirive grammar giv€nbclow doe! not geoerate dre trce shown ifits rules are interprcted astcs rite rui:s. bul it does if rhey rrc inle.prctcd as node admissibility

182

1-t' lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTIIITIII

-l.t

?-

LetttttecetegcccceeeeeCs€

esCCcceee

A + B C

) D /

C _ L i

D

node admissibility condition /edmrsr brleti/ n. A way of inler-preting aphrase structure rule orirnmediale dominancc nrle. A ruleinterpreted as a node admissibility condilion ir considered to be, notan instruction for expanding (rerriting) a calcgorv, but rather astatement which lic€nses a local subtree. Such a view disp€ns€s withderivations and permits trces to be regarded as primitive objects: avalid tree is merely one all of whose local subtrees are licensed byrules. The generative capacity ofa contexl-frec grammar is unaffec_ted by such a reinterpretation ofits rules. but the sane is not true ol

\l!(.r$l.t ll9til): Nl.(la$le\ c.cdil\ Richard Sranley with the idea.

nr,nlinal / oDmrnl/ L ad./. Pcrtaining to nouns or to projections oIn.'ros 2. ddi. In rhose versions of the X-brr sylrem in which lexical.ategories ar. decomposed into the pr imir i !e clenents {Nlard [q,denot ing an! catcgod which is l+Nl. in othcr wo.ds, nouns and. jectiles. 3 ,,. Src nominalizotion.

nominalization /,nDnrnahr'zerJn/ r- l In rnorphology, a nounJcrived from a rember ot anothcr lexical category. especially from,, \crb. such as dflrlr/ fronr arie. respoLre frcm rcspond and1xr,,,tig fftrn iF,,r (as in 1-,.'d r rrmnnB has jmprcvet). 2.In\rntax- a noun phrrse derivcd from anorher category which is not atrojection of thc Iexical category Noun. parricularly from a verbthrasc or a sentence. Examples include ltird r going toplessl upsethr fathq. iTo qun vw jobl vould be a ml'take ^nd lTha! sheertok?sl sutpises ne. \!,.: ir EnSlisb md in sone orher loSurges, rteLltrriicrion berwe.n morphological ard sy.racric noo'naliarioG is nor atF€ysimmcdratcl! clcar ln panicular. tbc Englishsufix jn8 can b€ involved ir cirhe.t\l,c: in Thi.\ astu4l smokinr ol mtijuM hat to stop, rdotia8 ir cledly amorphologicir n.nri'raltatio., as sho*n by thc adnominal elerncnis; ioRcsutat\" smokntB t4e4l| cigatlt s a da, wiu tuh !ou. health, snoNng js

cl.arlv rhe head or ! stnracii. nominaliztion of a \|P, 6 shoM by rh. objecti\P aod rhe adverbials: but in Stuki^s E baA lot tou, snd*irS €n bc inrer-prered eithe! way. See Codie dd ThonpsoD (1985).

Dominal sentence n. A labcl sometimes apptied ro a scntence,ionraining no !crb. particularly to a copular senrence in a language

s

,,',,\

V N P

| ,.,' \

lT')tl

bought a skin

NP

N

Lisa

nominotive 184 3t3!a!'J

22??

3a-

???aa?aa

9tl-t,: l

lr;l'1

;!Ll

!reIctCI

:r: l:r:r;r;t:r:t:l:!:r:II:-rIT,--irFi!.c-Jr

185 non.local conditions on trees

The existence o[such non'configurational structures. which are alsocalled flat structures'. was first proposcd by Hale (1981). Since thaltime the issue of non-configurationalily has attract€d enormousatlentioo in the literature; at present. there is something of aconsensus that such structures must be recognized for at least someconstru€tions in at least some langu:ges, 5ut ihere is much lessagreement as to which const.uctions ano which languages, or as towhal critcria should be invoked lbr recognizing such structures.

non-confrgurational language n. (also w-star lenguege) A lan-guage in which non-configurational strxctures are prominent orpredominanl. The first such language to be identified was theAustralian language Warlpiri (Hale l98l), but many others havesince been proposed. Manyofthese proposals are controversial, buta particularly convincing case is that of the Australian languageNunggubuyu (Heath 1986).

non-d€terministic /nDndrt3:mr'nrslrk/ ad]. Denoting an automa-ton or transirion network in which, at some points, the choice ofpath is not completely determined by the curent state and the nextinput characler. and hence any implem€ntation of which mustsuccessively try out all the available paths - effectively, an im-plem€ntalion must'guess'one path at a lime and then see ifit leadsro a \ucce\\ful conclusion. Cf. delerministi(.

non-discrete grammar /nDndr'skri:t/ Se€ fuzzy grammar.

non-finite /nDn'farnatl adj. Denoting any form of a verb whichcannot scrve as the onlyverb in a simple seotenc€. Non-finite forrBrypically include participl€s. inffnitiv€s and verb.l nouns; thesetypically differ from finite forms in lacking the ability to be markedfor tense or agreement. Cf. finite.

non-focsl conditions on tre€s /nDo,laukl ken'drlr/l n. pl.Any of various grammatical statements about well,formed lr€estructures whose domain is larger than a locd subtl€e. A simpleexample is the r€quir€ment that a reflexive in Etglish musr havea c-commanding aoiecedent: Jdner emnined hercelf bttr * Herselletumined Janet. Other examples include filler-gap dcFndcncies,such as those iovolved in WH-fronting. Theories of grammardiffer mark€dly in th€ir treatment of non-local conditions; in

lacking an overt copula in somc or all circumstances. An example isT|rkish Hasa\ btiyiik'Hasan is big', lirerally'Hasan big.. Theiermhas no theoretical signincancc.

nomiBative /'nDmrnatrll n. or adj. l. In a morplrologically accusa-tive language, the case form used for both subjecrs of inrransitiveverbs aod subjects oftransitive verbs. An example is English 1, as inI'm leavins and I ve washe.l the car.2. In GB, the abstract Caseassigned to a subject NP which is governed by the category INFL.

nomhative-qccusative language See accusative tatrgusge.trotr.argumetrt binding See A-bar binding.

troo{aronical complement /,nDnka,nonrkl/ n. In cB. a cat_e8ory which is interpreted as a complemenr of a lexical head eventhough it is not a sister ofrhat head. The most familiar examDles areWH-irems tike ero in such construfiion: as Who drd you see? andThe h'oman who pu satr is our MP, in which lrro functions as anon-canonical complement of the verb ree in each case.

noD-c$onical subject n. In cB, a category which is inremreted asthe subject of some predicare even though ii is not a sister of tharF redicate. Exampfes inclnde Who !1o you think did it? , iD vrhich whotunctions as the subjeci oI did, and She see mr to be ctev er. il wttlcAsr. functions as the subjecr of be clever.

nonce folm /'nons fJrm/ r. A word created accidenlatlv o. delib€r-alely by an indrvrdual on a particular occasion. such as la.lxle,heard as the opposite of incllde.

non-configuratiotral /,nDnkrnfrgju'rerJenl/ adj. Denoring a sln-lactic structure in which there is lirrle or no downward branching ofconstituents, most categories instead simply being sisters. Someanalysts hale suggested. for example, that Basque sentences t'?i-cally have non configurational structures. If so. a Basque senten(alike Polrik Aturi dbua dakatkio Patxi-Erg Ana,Dat money-the-Abs he-is-bringing-it-to-her 'Patxi is bringing Ana the money'would have the followins structur€:

II

dakarkio.

s

_--7\--__NPNPNP

Patxit

187186

]

c:

accL

Ce

notational variantnon-m()dal auxiliarY

GPSG. for examplc. u1l nonlocal conditions arc iDterPreled asconneclcd scries of slricth k)cal dePendencies (psths. or chaits)rCB lreat! t i l ler gap dcPendencies in rhe samc $a]- bul permltsothcr non k)cal conditbns (y'be stated direclh in thc eramrnar.

non-modal auxiliary /non'miodl/ r. An auriliar] $hich caln€s noe\pression of mood. such rs Fnglish Porfect ,/r. or lrogrcssi\e brin examples Iike Lisa ho\ quit sntoking and Lisa i\ trorkorg on her| a J , i t L t t 1 1 . m o d a l , ' ( r h r - '

non-recurtent alternation /,nonri k\r.nt/ ,. \n inslante olal lomorph) \hich i i conhn{d l l r a sin{r le morphcnre. \uch as the,r .rnr, . , r i l tcrnat ion in Ingl i ih.

non-restrictive /oDnflslnklrv/ ddr. Denoting ! modifier. suchas an adjeciive or a rcldli!c clause. *hosc Prcsence is nolrcquircd for identilicarion of the ref€rent of lhe roun fh.ase con-raining j l . bu( shich sencs mercl ! to add e1tf t inf( tmation lnEnSl ish. non-resrr i . l i !c adjcclnes of.en hale rcduced strei l : Tr.wlk^t 'hodt Qni. irro !tcr' (the hearer alread\ kno\5 *hal boalis m{,rnr). and non-re\tr ic l ive rclal i !e clautcs rcgular lv havcconlnra intonat ion: rhe io"]u, . rho *as j" t i l t ts rd/ dos, ( Ihehearcr l r l rcady kno$s \ 'h ich $oman is mcanl) . Cf. the sxanplcsundcr rrsrrictive. In sonrc languages. the distinction between re_\!ricrrvc aDd non-restriclivc modificrs ts more olcrth narked lnstnnrsh. for e\anplc. rcnr ict i \e adject i les usualh lbl lo$ ther(Jun. \\hile non rc(tncn!. adjecliles usualh pttccde: tu neStar i lk! lhc black si lhoue(te ( i .e. . the onl! s i lhouctte under dis_cussion. !hich happens to bc black). bur /d tiluaa neqla 1nebl ck silhouctte (as opposed lo other silhouetles of ditlcrent

Non-tangl ing Condit ion /nont lcr lgl l0/ , l (atso No-C.ossingCondition) The requiremcnt thal rhe lines in a irce which connectmothcrs to Caughle^ should not cross. Thts requiremert was

reiccrcd in the rmp|ci l rcpresentat ions adopted b) 'Amencanstrucluralists in the l9.l{)s and 1950s. but it has been almost univer-sally rccepted wrthin gencrati!e grammar since the work of NoamChomsky in the 1951)s. Occasionally. however. someone prop'osesrhrt rhc rcquirenrcnl should be rejccted. particularl) to allow thc

rnalysis of discontinuou! conslruclions l_or exampie. James

Mccawlcy. rhc foremost conrernporar!. opp.,ncnr of rhe Non_tanSl'ng Condition. advGates the use of rrces such rs the one belowr \ t ! a d $ l ( \ { . 1 , ) 8 2 r : l h r \ p ! ' \ u l : r r ( { d m n t ( d t . , , \ i . r t . r t ( \ r h u S i n g l c\ lorhcr Condrrrun. rhough nor J , , i I t . r ; r tey . , . . . : rmptc. Jo so1:

,4'-.-.. ' ' . . .1--

Coni s

i

ce5

ccccceee

IIIIIIIII

-t-l

non-terminal node /,non,r3:rnrnl/ ,,. Anv node rn ! tree whichdomrnatcs ai teast one orhcr node. Frequenrty a node which is atexrcar cr legor) and $hich dominates only a lexical i rem is cal ted aprelerminel node. rather than :r non tenninat. Cf. tcrminat node.

notational con!ention /n.u,telJrn1 k.n ventJn/ n. Any noaa_oonal dcvice which. in some \r.srcm. as understood as ha.,i;g somenr4iculdr int .rprer: I ion. I ,or ( \ample. the phrase \rrucrure rute S- \r t r r \ c ' ,nrenrrona ! unJ(r.rooJ d. meaning. in S node In al ' .ce..n ' : \ hr 'e rhe ru. ' ddughr(rs NP anJ vp In rhdr order. .

)Tl : l1r: . !h: no:dr ion x,r , ( , ,n-!( .nUona y undi,sr, |od as meanins

J rnear s(nnr ol Jny number , , t , \ Lurr(nce, of a . rgtc carepory..

notational variant /'veerian, ,. 1. Any notational conventioDsnrch N Inr.rprered a\ ha!rn8 cxacrtr lhe \ame m(!ninF as some:r: : , r

nnrdi i ndl .con!enrron. F.,r c\dmple. thr norarrons N p. N^ dnd\ dre a unde^rood as mcJnrng . the mayimal proje.t iun of rhel<xrcal cdtcgor\ \uun. and :rrc hence notatronat ral ianrs of oneanother. 2. By extension. the relation which holds between any |wofolm:ll v,tcms qhich have (racrly the same gen€rrrive c{pscityi-or e\amplc. rhc mosr famitrar ctr\\ ot c€legoriat grsmmsrs has rbe

notional definition 188

same gcnerative capacily as the class of mntext-fr€e grammars. andthe two formalisms are hence notational variants.

notioFal definition /,nrujrnl defr'nrjq/ n. Any definition of alinguistic category or elcmenr which appeals cruciallv to its mean-ing. An exampl€ is the tradirional definition of a noun ar 'the nameof a person, place or lhinS'. Widely used in traditional grammar.notional definirions are rejected by all current theories of grammaras unworkable. (For example, the adjective.e.l is sur€ly the name ofa colour, while it is difficult to see that the noun ,..irdl is the nameof an'.thing if the verb a/ive is not.)

nonn /noun/ n. (N) One of the principal lexicrl catcgori€s. Thiscategory appears to be unjversally present in languagcs; whileprctott?ical nouns have meanings denoting individual physical enti-tieslike dogand tlee, words lhat behave grammatica yasrounscanin fact exhibit a very widc range of meaningi, such as edge, colour,beauty, afival, ancestty or abren.e. Among lhe most t,?ical proper-ties of nouns in languag€s generally are infl€ction for number.classification for gender and, atrove all, the ability to occur withdeterminers inside noun phrases. Nol!: traditional grunar often in'cllded adjeciives in the caregory Noun. distineuishins 'nouE sub6hnrive'(rount fiom nours adjectivc (adjecriles). This e is obsolete. .41r.

noun class /klors/ r. In a language exhibiting gender. any one of thegender classes into which nouns are divided.

noun classification /klss'fr k€rjt/ 'l. The phenomenon, occurnodin certain languages, by which nouns are divided into a number ofsemanticall) bascd classes by the occurrence ot clsssifiers in cenrintypes of noun phrascs, each noun typically requiring one of the s€tof classifiers. Dixon (1985) identifies lhree respects in which oouoclassification systems lypically differ from systems of ooun classes(gender classes)i (l) lhe number of noun classes is usually smali,often only two or thre€ and rar€ly more than eight ot ten, while thenumber of classifiers is typically much larger. often many doz€ns;(2) classifien are always free forms. while gender is n€ver markedby free fotms, either being marked on nouns only by bound formsor not being marked on nouns al all; (3) gender systens al*aysrequire agreement on some element\ other than the nouns them'selves, while classifiers never require agreement. To thes€ a fouttbdifferenc€ may be added: nouns in gender systems are always

€xhaustively classified for gender, *hile in a classifier tanguagesom€ nouns may take no classifier at all.

noul-complement chus€ |'. A clause which s€rves as a comp,lement to a head noun within a noun phrase, as in rhe example ri€rumour [that the Maftians have invadedl.

Iroun phraee r,- (NP) One of th€ principal syntactic catcgori€s, andone wnich appears to trc perhaps universally present in languaS€s.Funcrionally, a noun phrase may be defined as any category *hi"hcan bear some graDmeaical rehtion within a sentence. such assubjecr. direcl objecr. indirecr objecr or oblique objecL. 5rructura ).a noun phrase is regarded in most versions of lhe X bar system asrhe maximal projection of the lexical caregory Noun, N,', with anoun as its lexical head. This view, which works well in mostcircumstanc€s, runs into difficulties with Nps containing pronouns,such as tre. thb, something and litte otd."; u" a

"o^eou"n"e.man) anal ' t ts. beginning wrrh Hud\on ( I984). hare .uggesrid rharNPs should rather b€ regarded as rhe maximal projecrions of thecategory Determiner (wirh pronouns then b€ing assigned to thiscategory) and hence renamed Determiner phrases. This r€visedvrew ls not currently standard. Noun ph.&s were mi rdsliad byraditio.al gtuoa.; rhe 6sr explicir u* of the rem @ored in Harn (t951),rhough eme edti.! Amcrica! srructuralisrs apparenity had some kind ofimplicit Srap of rh€ norio!.

NP /en 'pi:/ n. 1 See noun phrsse. 2. (itaticized) In comptexitytheory, the class of problems soluble in polynomial time on i nonldeteministic Tu.ing rnachioe. Such problems can only be solved bymaking guesses and testing each guess to see ifit is a solution; on anordinary computer. this requires Gxponentiat time. Th€ class ofproblems in lvP is believed to be a proper superser of rhe class ofproblems 'n P (sens€ 4). rhough rhis is yer ro b; provfd see Ba onct dl (1o87) for discuss'on.

NP Accessibility Ilierarchy /ak,ses.'brt!ti/ a. A hierarchy ofSrammaricd r€lations propos€d by Keenan and Comrie (1977), asfollows:

Subject < DO < IO < Obtique objecl < cenitive < Obiect of

Ttiis hierarchy has proved to be of imponance jn rhe grammars of alarge number of languages; such proc€sses as passivization, relative

a-e-c 189 NP Accessibility Hierarchy{-(-

C.(_

(-

L(

tct(

tceceeCCeGrccGG(c

(e.(a-

IIIIIIIIIII,lIIIIrltl

----t

NP-complete 190

?1z-l

"' l a_./-:

191 null production

rr :ur.c lurm"r ion !nJ c. ,u\r t i \ ( 'orndl,on mr;c ' ruc al rele '{nce ro t I

, ' . l he r , lcnrrnci l i "F.n thr. hrer. ' r rhr ereal l t . l rmulJled rccopnir ion ? 1, r r \ ( r r D o n a n . ( i n ' ! n t n r o l c r r m n r d l i . r l ' . l a t i , , n ' u h r ' h h " d a :t rc\ ioLr. l ! he(n $i , l r l ) ncf lc. t(J. dnd 'pun(,1 rhr J( 'c lopmenl of - !i t ' " . , , . . - r nrnlnrn,, ,n $hr(h pr l7lmdticJl relr | l 'n. Flar a cenrr ' l

" 1

r u l ( r n , l " d r n g R ( ; I I U J n d t h c t a r i o u t f ' , m r $ , ' r l . I n o s n a . t iIunc( ional grammars r .{ ' r . ( 2r. RU incorPo'-re' J m, 'J i l icd !er\ ion - I, f rh{ Keendn (.mrie hicr:r .hr unJ.r lh( n3m. Relat ional =

IHierarchy. C

;

NP-complete /en pi: klm pli:l/ d.t Denonng an) Problem *hictr is tr t

.vP-hard and Jlso rn.\P ' .en.e - \ . \P cornl l (rc p' , 'h lcm\ d'( I a

;jill.t;;::;:;.:,:::1":,1j,:i::ji:';:ll,lill"- ""''** : iVP-hard /en tr: hurl . /4 l \not,ne anr fn\hlen qhich r. a. Z Id r l h l r l r r o * l i easan r r r " l ' [m InAP ' e \ ' ] r : I

NP'Molement t r In L iH lnc nJme qr \ (n I ! lh" 'e In ' lJnc€' t : I\ tphs \ lo t€menr .n uhrh l nour thra.c N nr ' \ rd l rom one : I, ' ! , m c n r p . i r ' o n r . ' J n o r h c r \ P \ t o \ e m c n t s I n t o l e d i n c o n C -\ t r u . r i o n . , n ! o l ! i n { p a . { r ! ( ' . r J F r r q ! e t f ' d n J u n r c ( u \ d l i t e \ e I b \ .

e :In a l t or qh,ch rhe \P ' \ rLPlrns a \ur fac( .dbj ( \ l postrun s

- Ir n r l l s ( J r ' u n d e r l \ r n e l ) , \ c u p ) i n r d d i l l e r e n r l o j r r n r r ' l h u \ J d n P ' s

Iwd' t t , " ' tc . ] c F J. r l \cL j r rom dn Jnder l \ tne r \ t \ , rnc,Pn Janct . e

'

t i \ " \ \ ' a \ | t o h p l t d p t \ f t o n ' u n d e 4 ) t n s ( , , ' n t ' l ^ o h ' h ' h a p p t t - a: r n r l / / r , r ' q . r ' ' l , l ' , ' m u n d e r l \ i r p e ' r , r r , ' t r / r r , r \ P '

I 1 , , \ ( r n ( n r , , l o r L ( d r n . , l l t r e . e i n . r a n i e . h \ r h ' r r q u i r e m e n r ' . i C i, .N( thc 'n dnJ Ihcr . r Th(nn \ ' r 'Burr io \ ( ; rnera l i /a i ion lnd . ' I

L \ \ l l . luorrmeot. I f

\ P - t r a c e , I n U t i . r h ( c , r r n ' l { \ . J e m P r ) . x l ( t r ! L I I b e h r n d h ! , " : !) l ' shich hd. becn m^' d h\ \P-\ to{em.nt. l - , ' er,mPlc lhe r

I

:l ljl :','#:: ;'Jfr:,J J;: l1 ;i:::i;;i;i:),i:';'.'li1','".,::l:i: : !b ( h i n L l h ) r h e m . ' e m e n r o r l r \ J $ r t h s h r . h r r i ' , r n r l r r < ' l - a

n-tuple en rJU:pl / a. ral 'n lupler In rhe 'hrr ' ,ct(rr l r t ion . f |o lT' l ; !\ ! n . m \ . n \ c r o l a d ^ l i n ( l l o r m d l , , b j e c h u r { m . ' r c u . u u l l \ ) s p e c ' n e o - lr i ' *c. of rormar , 'h jccr. l l ra. ̂ o lren rh. { i r . r ' Ihe, 'hjects drc }

I'lt:: Jt, i,ii;i:l, ll*, il.i:l:,li:" :'l:'lL,i.liil ;,,i: : iq , r t , r h , e ( m r r n h ( , . , \ . , r r i r l e $ r t h l . r . f . r . t u J i ' u - l ' . . , r J . o o n

i I

nucleus , njurklies/ (pl. nuct€i / njurktia/) n. 1. That parr of acons(rluent consisting of irs head and lhose elements for \rhich thehead luixarcgorizes. bur exctuding anr adjuncls. Cf. p€nph€ry(sensc i) . 2. The €enrral elemenr in a claus€, a vefb or oredjcate.considercd in isolation. .Nucleus in this sense is o e of the termsinvolled in analysing a clause in te.ms of tayering. Cf. ore, p€ri-phery (sense 2). 3. In LFG, any pan of an f-sftcrur€ consistinr,J J P'cdr idte and lrc \ukateg,!r ized argumenrs. 4dl . ouch;; nju:kl i . / .

null element / D^l ,eiamont/ r. (also trro) An clemenr which. insome partrcular descriprion, is posited aj exjsting at a @nain pointIn a slru(rure elen rbough rhcre rs no olen Dboneric maier i" lprc*nr tu rcpresenr i r . For example. many l inSursrs would argu:rhat the plural fo.m r,te?p .:onsisrs of rwo &orphem.s. rhe nounstcm .r/repp and a null plural suffix 0. Most approachcs to gram-maticai description recogrize the existerce of at least som; I)ucl.mcn!5. and rhe problem of how b limit their use in a princiDled$at hd, lone h(cn a bone ofconr(nu^n. borh vf i r . ruralrsi lsrnie 21dnd gcncr at i !e dpprodches ha!e some mes indulged in thc prol i fer-aron ot zeros. eren to thc exrent of positing zeros r?hich contrast*irh orhrr zeros: see. for exampte. Chomsky and Iisnjk il97?). Asan e\anplc ol the possible utility of null elements, consider theeenrences (a) She said thar she woutd come and (b) Shc said shew.,tll/.om.. rhe second ofwhich lacks an ove( complem€ntizer. AtIeasr rhr( e dnaly\es of the (bj \(nlence are pos.ibie. all of BhichlrdLe hL(n aJ!o€3red on ocrasron. ( l ) The (bisenlence contains Dor ' . r ,n nod<, Ths analysis avoids rhc useofnul l f tem€nrs, ar rhepnce oi postulating an additional synractic saruciure. (2) Thc (b)scnlence cunlains a Comp nodc. which is €rnptv. Tlis analysisrequrres onl) ooe structure. but posirs a synaacdc null element. ancmptt node. (3) The (b) s€nreocc conrains a Comp node which islilledbv a complcmentizer rhat happens ro have thephonetic shape0. This analysis pushes the nu elemcnt our ofthe syntax altogetherand into ihc phonology The extensive us€ of null eleme;6 ispanicula.ly characteristic of GB; see empty cltegory. The Indjangrammanan Pa.ini *6 tbe fnt lo ue ndt elelnedts, but thcir rDodem wdenves pnmarilv f.om Blmdlfetd (1931).

null production /pr!,d^kJD/ r. A phrase stnrctur€ nrle whicb re_writes a category as a oull el€ment, such as the rule Np J e. NuProduchons wcre exprcssly rejecred io Chomskv.s (1957) definitionoi phrase structure rules. but nr)st contempora,v vlc$\ of phrare

e!

lul.subject bnSusge 192

structure admi! the existenc€ of such rules in conterl-free gra,n_mars. Tbe ttmc d.tiv.s iod oath€matic.l linguistics' io wbich Produaion' is

thc uhrd t€m for 'rcMitc iul.

tru|l-8ubF lsDgurgc 't (si$ pradroP lrDsurge) A lanslage inwbich prodrcp dccuB

Nu[-sl!|c.f PrnDe&r sce PI}Iho0 P.nmc&r'

numb€r /'n^trbt n. Th€ grammatical category' most often associ-atcd wit! Douos aid Pronouns, whos€ Primary correlation is withthc nudbat ofdbtinguishable entities English has a simple two-waynumbar cootralt bctw€cn itrgut r aid Pfurd (doSldogs; c'tidlchi!&m; radtslrod0,b'tt some other languagcs exlibit morc elab_orate numbcr s'$crns involving dutt, tdrl and Poocsl forms as wellas singular eDd plural. Except Perhaps in pronoun systeds numberis noi univenally preecnl io ltnguagesi Chinese aDd JaPanese aretwo examples of laogusges in which numb€r contrasts are Senerally

ohiect /obd3r l t / , r (O) L A gcncic rcrm for any nDun phrrsrr r . lup l r f lg an r rgunrent posi t ion o ihcr than subjecr Ooje. ts l rc.dn\ l ]nr io a l l ! d i \ id€d inro d i rs l objNts, ind i rect objecrs dnJoblique objrris. : In G8. ihe uslrl rcrm for direct object. ,r,t.

obj€ct granrmar ,r ln r rheory oi grrnmar recognizins the crisrcnc. oi a mrlllgramm.tr rhar p3n of the grammar consisting of theru les whjch d i rcct ly l lcens. i r . fs . In such an approach. ot whichajPSCi is the nn)\r prolllinen{ ,-\amplc. allgcneraiizatjons about rerulcr of thc objL(l grrmmlr are e\rracled and srated separul.rt., InthL ' . r . ta , r ramnr. r r

o l r ject - in i t ia l language / nbdr lkr r nr f l / n A language in $hi .h.rn the mo\r usLia l order o i e lenrnrs in x sentence. the obj r 'c t \piore\ l i r \L f rectd inr borh rhe suhj .cr . rnd rhc verb Objecr- in i r id ll !n{urgc. $crc l , r ! rhouqht 10 be non-er incnt and pcrhaps c\enimpolr ib lc . bur I aumber of rhcm l r . n() \ knoqn. a l t o f rhcrrs l rokeo in rhc , \nrr ron basin. Th. l i rs t such l r t rguage ro bc iJonl -i f icd wr\ rh( ( r r ib language Hixkrryror . s tudied bt Derbv\h i rc(1!51. l9- ,9) l l i \ | r i ! i lna. l ike nran\ orhL ' r Anrazoni n larguagc\ .has C)\Jr ' . r \cr l ) \ub ject ord. f . but y , lnc , \nraro i r i rn lar )guages.l ! \c \p . l |11r . . \ l r ih i t Ob, jec. Suhi .Lr \erb, , r ( ter S.c Der l r \sh i r t' , r . P r r l u , n ' | . ' l l J . h ' . l J P ' 1 . , , " , . r n l : " " ' t

, ,b ject i re , rh d.ck!1 i , !1r . D.nor i f r ! . , r r \ r lornr \h ich icnc! ing.nrra i to . r r l n( , r i lLrb jecr \P\ o i \ , r r ,u \ rvpcs. such as d i r .d, rbJc.rs . inc l r r . . t ( ) i , i . r ts und obj .crs o l pr ! t (J{ tk)ns Ar e\arnplc rs

f i ] " " , ," . ,1! . r(nnr oi Engt ish pcrson.rt I , r , | l , ,L lr . r ike n.. r / | | l r d

obje{t i }e geni l i } r . r { . , , istJucir)n in\otLrnf a |onr irat izat i r)n ola l ran\r l r \c !rrb r ' . . ( , r i rpanred b\ I to\ \ . \ \ \ . NI, or I pp si th r) /$hich i \ iDrert ,r . rcd r \ the objer l (r rh. i r !crh. ns;. t t t t f iDn"r, l . , i , r \ ! \ ! r11r,rrnD r, t rhp J. : t ,uth,1., , r / r . .L ar. subje. l i \e

;

a.a'..

IIItTTItIItII!IIIItIIIIITITITTIIIt

L.-L-l_

i_

Il

i,l_

L?cegg

cccCeeeeeC5a5CssCcccc-

obiri language 191

e1c. 1: l

!

r!|

rll

a,4,

.l

a

-

-

-

-

aa

!,

)l

2

objec{ l8$guage ,?. A lanBuage \,!hicb is under discussion. AnoLjirl language may b€ a formal languaSe. a\ in ihe mathcmarics offotud systems, but in Iinguistics it is m,)rc usuaily a narural langlage. The poinr of the term is lhat !c otlen disclss a naturalhaSuagc in another natural language. or cvcn in rhe same naruall&gusge; for example. wc ofien discLjs! thc grammar of English jnodinary English, and it is essential ro distinguish the English whichtu ulder discussion (the objcct language) from the English which tr€ar€ using 10 discuss ir (rhe meralanguage). Failure ro make rhisdistisc-tion leads to hopelcss confusion: see lhe discussion underrn lrlmgurge.

obJect ol comparison ,. The grammatical relation borne bv an Npwhich is the stsndard in a (ompardri \e (nnsrructro' l . .uch a\ Lnd intalle. ,Iun Li-ta.

obllqoe /o'bli:k/ dd_/. 1. Dcnoting an argumen! NP which is neith3r asubj€.t nor a direct object (nor. in some anllvses. an indireci object;this poinl is controversial and possrbly Ianguage specific). ObliqueNPs in EnSlish are realized as objects of preposirions; in some otherlanguaScs, they may b€ objects of postposirions or case-markedNPs. This use is currently standard. 2. ln the traditional gramrnati-cal descriptions of Latin ard Gr€ek. denoling any cas€ form of anoun other than the nomil:ati!e or vocative. This us€ is nol cuirentin grammatical theorv-

oblhEe clause See adv€rbial clause.

oblique obJect n. (OO) A noun phrase which is oblique in sense l.

obccrvati,onsl rdequacy /nbse'verJanl/ See under adequacy.

obyirtive /'obvi.trv/ n. ot udi. One of a ser of rhird-person pro-nominal forms occurring in certain languages and us€d exclusivelyfor the second or later third-persofl entily to be mentiooed in adiscours€, the 6rs! such entity to be mentioned being referred to byo'te of a conlrasting set of proximat€ forms. Obviative forms areofleD misleadingly called 'founh-penon forms. The proximate-obviative dislinction is partlcularly common in Nonh AmericanIanguages.

o/-lnscrdon r. In certain derivalional analys€s, the putative processwltich is responsible for the presence of a/ in nominatizations like

195 ow(grncndor

Lba's rcfi$al of the ofrer, when this is regarded a.s bciag dcrivodftom an unde fnS sentencE like Lisa rcluecd the ofeL

OO /t{, 'aJ/ See ob{que obj€ct.

oFn ds /'a!prn klo:s/ n. A l€xicd catcgory whGc d€mbctlhipis typicaly large and which can easily accept new mcrnbcrs. InEDglish, for example, the categories Noun, Verb aDd Adiectivc areall open clas.ses. Cf. clo6€d cbss.

oFn frDction n. In lJG, a complement or an adiutrd dtainiEgan empty algumen! position which must be contioDcd by |r NPfocated outside it- Examples: lHaeing afived esb,l Ue M btoke a stoll; Stu tried Ito f.x the cafiurexor].Trrc notrtidr XCOMPand XADJUNCT are us€d to represent such Arnctirar8 i! LFG. Cf.chc.d toDctiotr.

operalor /'Dpererte/ n. Any grammarical elemcnt titl bcJr rscoF relatioo to some part of its sentence. Examplcs irdDdc dctcFminers ard quantifiers, negation, tense, aspect and rnood.

optstive /'optetN/ adi. 1. The mood category exprcssitrg rcrt rbl€u/ishes or hopes, as cxemplified by lhe mther fomat Etrtlid lra,h'e su.ceeil. $fiela guages exhibi! a distioct grammatical forE,orthis purf,ose. 2. The conventional name for a morphologi€lly dia-tinct s€t qf verb forms in Ancient creek and Sanskrit scrvirt rvariety of purpos€s, includjng the optative in s€ns€ 1.

optlonrlity /DpJan'alrti/ n. In th€ X-bar sjrtem, rhe requirem.nlthai ell ald only the non,head daughters of a category must beoptional -that is, thar no category may have an obligatory daugbterother than its bead. Of all the suggested constraitrts upon X-barstructures, this is perhaps rhe one n/hich is most dimcuh to maiotainand the one which is most frequenrly violated in practice. Komai rtrdPdt D (19{), but rb. lotio! is huch otde..

OSV lsrguage /cu es 'vi:/ n. A language wholc basic word ord€r isObiect-Subject-V€rb, such as the Amazonial| language Apurine.See objett-httiel l.lgurgc.

ov€rgcocrtkrD /,1rv.d3en.'retJ/ r. The pbcnoDcno|r by whiclsome @BpoDent of a granrnrar which btilds structurc pcnDits, inilol,ttion. lhr existence of a numbcr of ill-formed stroctutca. Tbca€unwautcd structures must b€ prcvcnt€d ftos occuniry (,fltcrcdout') by the requiremetrts of otlrcr cohponcnis ol the graDmar. y.overten€rate /awe, d3enerert/,

I

tLa

qecc

irli:tiiij

H

overiapprng exponence . ! b

(

c

LI

I

ee(

e.

cc

c

c(

5€

6cccccc-

overtapping expoDence leuve'laplnr n. lne reaiizatron in a

,,-,ii.ular case by a single morph of two or more morPh€nes whichare usually realized separately in a language ln SParush, for

example, finite velb fcrms usually conlain separate morphs tor

expressing tens€i/mood and for expressing the p€tsoty'nlmber of the

subject, but the first person singular Present indicative forms like

com, 'I eat' show a single morPh -o realizing both these categones-

Cf. cumulative €4onence ManttePs (1974)-

OVS language /au vi: es/ n. A language whose basic word order is

Object-Verb-Subject, such as the Carib language Hixkaryana See

object-initbl language.

P i. See pfeposition, postFxition. 2. Th€ conventional abbreviarion1!rr phras€ in such symbols as NP (= noun phrase), Vp (= verbphras€). etc. 3. An abbreviarion ibr patient in the SAp anatysis ofciarsc:tructure. 4. (italicized) In complexity thecry, denotinq the. ' . . o : p ' . b l e m . 5 0 l r h l e i n p o i ) n o m r a t r i m c o n a d e r e r m i n r s r ilJnng maclrin€. Membcrship in p is widely taken as a haiina.k of.f:rcient computabiliiv: if a problern is not in p, jt cannot tej.n.ic11l!,computcd. Ttis is so because all problems not in p have{r. far as w€ kno!\') o'iy exponenrial rime algorithms. anrl can o:llyLre sofred by enumeraring all possible sotutions and restins themonrrr fne. Cl. ̂ ? (sense 2).

P,{ S:e pGhdown autoiraton.

paradigm / peradam/ /1. The ful set of inflected forms exhibitedby some class of lexical items, such as th€ declensjonal forms of acl3-rs of nouns t). the conjrgated fom1s of a class of verbs, oir.n asf.trci!nted by rhe forms o{a single typical item. Adl. pr.adigm,fic.

garadigmatic relation /,parrdrg metrk/ z. Any relation be_:!:e.n lqo of more tinguistic eiemerrs whi.h afe in some sensecomDeliig possitriliries, in rhar execrly one of them may be selectedto occupr some parricular posilion in a stmcture. For examDle. the\d-.u. dcrerm,neF whr.h mighr oc(ur within a panicular Np srandin , parddigmrr '" relarron: the \ar iour verb rorms from \rhich Lhe';erb form in a parricular senrenc€ is chosen do the same i tbe various.ise forms of NPs in case,marking languages do likewise; and theaiiive and passive constructions forrransitive rerbs may also be saidro sland in a raradigmatic r€lation. Cf. syntagmatic ret tioD. rhe

'cn .f3 paradiSmaric retadon eas inr.du@d by rhe Swis tinsuist Ferdioan{ld. Slus!.e in rhe frsr decade oi rrre t*,entierh @.tu4j ii rep.esenis, gererat,i2itio. of the t.adirionalnorjon ofa p&adig!.

paralanguage /'pare,lrelgwrd3/ r,. The use of non_verbal ele_nenr, in ,Deech. such as inronat ion. r \pres\ ions dnd ge\ lures. in.rr(h d uat as to af l tcr lhe merninp of an u erance ,4d1. pare-lirsuistic /parelrt gwrsak/.

parallel con5lruction 198 T q 9

L.acsa_: parsa

parallef construclion /pxtatett n. A construction. parricutarl) ncoo.dinarc consrrrct ion. : ] l l of whose pan\ sland in rhe samc synrac_rc relalion lo rhe rest of thc senrcnce. fhc c\^mptc I tikc b rca.llantas\ trcre!! ot rtu bathtth dad to c.rp(int t;n the klr.hrn t\rs_trates a parallcl consrrucrion: rh. possibly iil fo'r.ned t*I titu o rcdttjuntasr novels in th( bathtub ant c.rpetodentt g in th( kitth," lus-lrates a non parallel on€. A6s./. ,r. paralelism.

parallelism / perclehzm/,. L Thc usc of rhe sam€ conrr,ucrion inconsecurrve sentenccs ior rhetorical effect_ as in I cume; I saw; Iconque rcd. 2 . Sec paralJ€l construction.

parameter /p. ri9mria/ n. In GB. an) one of rarious putaiircunrvcrsal stalcnrcnls permiftinq a spccified degrec of !ariarionwithin languagcs. The idea rs rhat an! one languagc sclecls jusr oncofthe smal l nLr inber ofchoices permit ted b] rho theory ofgrammar.Framplcs include thc H€ad Parameter. (he AdjacencJ param€te.and rhc Pro-Drop Parameter ,.14. paramerric h:crc'mclrrk/.

paraphras€ / pf,rcfrerz/ a. Flither of r$o senrenccs $hich rrc struc,turally or lexically ditferent but which are retatcd in lhat rhcy haleapproximately the samc mcaninS. p:rraphrases arc paniculart],rnvoked as a wa] of idcntifing tanicuta. readings of ambiguorlsstrings. For e\amplc. the lwo readings ot the :rmb;guous 5lring lrstarget |'us nat hit h\. tntn| d.rd4.r could be singlcd our b). thcparaphrases l-he tury(! was tnissel b\. nan), utors and t-fu ta.gelws hit hr fer artu\s. ,,1d, pa.aphrsslic /parr frasrrti/.

parasitic gap /para srtrk/ n. A gap whosc rntcccdenr is idcnrical k)that of a second gap occurring in rhc same .,enten.e, and l.hichcoLrld nol occur in rhe abscnce of rha! \ccond sap. In rhe followingcxamplcs. the parasiric grp is dcnored b) the slmbot eri tt'rataltictes did John lil. c without rcading et, ?t Thh kit\t of lood ,yuhare to rcok t befor. \o Which bo| did Maryrs tclkinito ee borhe, e Dlost? nr. ph.honenon *as ri^r p<,inred our br Ross (1967):Perlmun.r reportedly suggested rhe nahc \vnrtliheric deterion.. bur rhe rerm'parasiric

8ap-. lpparcntl' coincd irdcl)t.,t.nrt! b\ TaralJstn (l9ri0) andEnsdahl (1981), i ' no* srandard.

parasynthesis /pera'srn0asts/ n. A tvpe of word iormation inwhich a phrase is combined wiih an aftix. as it retl.haned. Adj.prmsynthetic /paresrn'oetrk/.

paratsxis /psro'taksls/ n. l Tradirionally. lhe coordination ofclauses (and. rarel]. of phrases) wirhour lhe use of overr conjunc-

!nn\: a5tnC€ron. $ n t nddr: l.,r'J go. L Occasi.j:raly. th€.,ror l l inar ion ol r i , .uscJ. * i t i or wi lhout rhe use of overt conjunc,Ildfr (li. hyptu\is. .1/t. parars(ric /p€r.,rektk/.

p rerrtheses rf. r(ner\ijli n. pl (.rtso .ound brsckets) 1. An!bbreriator) convenlion in which iwo rules which diifer oo''rn :hi l r onc (r f ihrm conrains an exira term abs€nr from the other.fe lollapicd i,..n) ,, ,iingl( .ute sch€m! For rxamptc, rhe two rulesi P - \ ' \ P : r n d \ | - . \ ' \ p p p c o u l d t e c o a p l e d i n r o r h e s . h e m a' 'P _ \ 'NP (PPj. t . . \ s imita, notar ionaj con\entron us€d forr. mo"Irig c:atnplc of

"hich differs from lhe ortl€f,' ) i r ! rn th€ | f .>en.c oi rn . tddjr ional c les]cnt. as i l tustrar.d by the

:\arltpl. Stu hll?d (u?) t r sr^. pa.cnthescscan bc combined wjrh. in,rster isk i r t r l l r ravs: rhe r .prescnlat iDn . \ t Aa did tousq {. th4t)?/r(i lrr.rirdicates lhar rhe !.quence is j lbrm€d onty tt il,ar i"ir.renr. whrlJ Tlk titrn! .t!hua iMefts6 ms rJ /6 indicar€s thar the\eqL.nce rs ' l r -rormrd oot i i i : i rdr is absent. Cf. brac€s.

prrenthetical 'peri'r 3er,kl/ a A $o.d. phrrsc or sentenc€ wbichinr:r fupts a \cntcrcc and $hjch bears no s\ ntaci ic rctat ion to that\ :nrencc ar rhc pornr of inrc.ruprion In rhe f t ) l lowinq eiamples, OleDarenlheir.als are variolllt ict off hv commas, parentheses or! l^ i rc, : 1-,rd naj. ia t \ .o\ i l ion ol eren onc aJ w, the.nosl. . i , t . . , , \ , , tdt-r t f . : . : . , , t . t t t t , pe4.,monte rrc h,. i4e.r le btu,rr)' ; ' . t t \ a \ t , o r , . f . . J r . , a " t t r . h c a " . J J , , . r r ^ r . w o r k n g i n t klta n,orct.tk &!end., .trc, ,- on .rarwr!.r (The lasr e;amDle!ust.ate! ' I pa' .nrhericat * i thin a pare..rhet i ral . ) parenthet icds

rreserr iornirdr i \ ie di$.utr i . ! o i 'anatysisj sec Espinal (1911) for a. ,.nmrn ot rnal.,rrcal D.olosats. Thc r.rnr ,parcnthesis. is rrsdn,ort, i{ri i : r n : 1 . . r L r , t i \ n . , r ! \ ! i , i r I uJ r i . ueg .

ps s-rllabic ,pe.r\r t&brt/ Jdr. In aD inflerlcd language, denotingr noun or rerb aitor mosr,)fwhose irflecred foFns.,rr,tain tl,u

"n ninumber of s\llabte\. such as L.rtin yA .force. accusatrve v/,a, erc.! f. iDparistltabic.

pi t . . , t . l , / i . , a* i !n " 8r"mmlr ic i t nrucru!€ ro (d sninS ofr ' r r \ r . Par\ ' . r ! n,J! b( I c la\ , ,o. ,m e\ernse. b.rr no*aCeys i i isjrore usuali! .arri.d out b! computer programs c? ed Fr! rr. 2. ei.

. ' - . . l i l

" : , , I crJmnd.rr t sr,rr(ru.c. especial ty \uc.6sfuuy b,I . r l ron ' l J pir , (-r . . , , fhc grdrnmarical \ t rucrure assrgned-to arnn! i r r s, t rd\ b\ rhe r .r i rn of a pdr\<r

ta,

D-

t_I,l_

a_tt

ccclclciri

:l:i

200

r!'

lr

aaaa

a'ac'g\

is.a\eir'\o

J

201 passiveparser

parser / polze/ rl. A computational device. most usually a comPuter

Drosrdm. thar i . capable ol Icadrng a ' l r I rQ of s^rds repre\enl ing aucl l lonneJ senlenie and ot a. !qnrng a 'uirhhlL grammatical \ l ruc

rure lo r l . u\ual ly as an Interm(dr"re st( f rrr a 's icning a meaning lothe string. The construction ofefiicient parsers is a central activity in

naturallanguage Processing

parse trc€ n. A tre€ (sense l). particularly one which is assigned to

an jnput string by the action of a pars€r'

partially productive lps|lelil adj Derotlng a grammatrcal pro--

ccss, particulariy a proc€ss involved ir *ord formation, which can

some;imcs be extended to ne\vjnstances' but \rhich cannor be freely

aDplicd in all jnstaoces witbout producing questionable orunaccept_

aLie results. An erample is the process bv whicb the suffix -l"rr

dcrives adjectives from nouns: .ielerr, btaless. shoele\s' friendle$.homeless. windowtess. trceless and.a ess sound {amiliar enough'

but ft.n6e/esr, wsttess. Penless. forklesr and ctaaltrtclejj all sound

rather strange. and br?dkfastless. unde )earless' paintless. bushless

and rmell-lers all border on the impossible

participant role /po:'tlslpant/ n- A semantic role which rep_-.."enti un cntity which participates more or less dircctly in the

situation sxpressecl in the clause, esPcciallv an Agent- Pati€nt'

Recipient or ExP€nencer.

part ic ipial relal ive clause /porr, srpir l / "

A con\ lrucr ion cor l

tainin; a participle which tunctions likc a relative clause but whjih

taclts iottr a relitive pronoun and a finile !erb' as illustrated bv 7te

woman Vealins he white niniskir4 k lohn's "ife

and The rese'

tables IsaLd hereldrc not vel.t /r€sr. A participial relatiYc is one tvpe

of rcduced rclative clauic

participle / po:tlsrpl/ r1. Any of various non-finite verb forms"

xhich can ait as thc treads of lerb phrases funcrioring as adjectival

or adverbial modifi€rs English exhibits an imperfective participle

(or 'present participle') in -i48 and a passire pafticiple (or 'past

ia.ri"lpt.') oiuu.iuU" tormation, as illuslrated in rbe examples Il''

,o^oi tigl"ing a ciSarete is I'ita Ariring at to'k, I found .dmessuge waitin| far me;Ihe chilrl rcscued lrom the ||e i5 nov'.

hospiiL Exha;kd by hk efforts he tumhtP't into 'cd The label'paiticiple'is atso usually extended to non-6nite formswhich do not

f;nctio; in this way bu1 which sene to combine with auxilianes It

the formatior of p;riphrastic verb forms: an example is the E glish

perf€ct padciple, such as t'l,.rr€d in Lisa has fnished her tlans,1ali.rr. (The perfect participle and th€ passive participl€ are usuallyidenrical in form in English, but it is convenient to distinquish themsvntacticalll,.),4dt. panicipial.

particle /po:xkl/ r. (Prt) 1. Traditionalll,, ar:1, lexical irem whichexhibils no inflectional momhiiiogy ar.l icnc€ is invariable in form;the term is only used in lonnect,rd with languages inwhich the openilrss.s Noun. Verb and Adjectire do inflect. 2. In the grammar ofEnglish, one of the preposition like irems which occur in phrasalverbs, such as the second irem in each ot nake up, put dorrn. takeoff,look at and, run down (: depteciote).3. Al^beltypica yapptiedto some more-or-less welldefined class of uninflected words in thegrammar ot some particular language when no more obvious label

particle movement r. A name, derived from classical TG usaee.for rhe purat i le proces\ wfuch felates strucrures in whrch phraialrerbs are continuous to those in which rhey are disconrinuous,illustrated by Sie rurr"d on the light ̂ nd She tumed the li4ht on.

paititive /'portrtrv/ n. or ddj. l. A case form occur.ing in somelanguages which typically expresses a part of a whole, and oftenrelated notions, such as an €ntity only partty aff€cted by an action.such as Finnish mrnoa '(some) milk' (nat ,mitk,) in titra maitoa,alrtre of milk', ^nd ktrjoja'(!o'],e) b@ks' in H6n pani kitjoja pot..1allp 'He put some books on rhe tabte'; cf. tldn p ani kirjat pdydtjtle'He put ihe books on the rable', where ki4:dt.(the) books'is in theaccusative. 2. Any form or construction serving a similar pu.pose,such as French du yin 'Gorll.e) wine' in J ai acheti dr yin ,I've bousht

part of sp€ech /po:r av 'spirtl r,- The traditional name for a lexicalcategory.

passive / pesrv/ n. or adl. 1. A construction in which ao inrrinsicallytransitive verb is construed in such a way that its underlying objectapp€ars as its surface subject, its underlying subject being €ith€rabsent (a'short passive') or expressed as an obtique l\-p (a .longpassive', or 'passive with-agent'), the coosrruction usually beingovenly marked in some way to show its passive character. T},?icalEnglish exampl€s include Esttrcr has heen promoted and The GpSGflatnework was developed by Geratd GaTdar.'firc passive is a voicecategory. 2. A verb form used in such a construction. See

passive ParticiPle 202

d-C.'a.-c-c,c,e?,cc-ec91cicicicicl

il

203 per cent sign

rcpaircd the rcof ^nd The rcof colapsed. Paiient is one of the deepcascs recognized in Case Grammar, and one of the thcta roles

'recognized in GB; it is often conflated with Theme.

patienl-subject construction See m€diopa{sire.

PATR /pat:/ n. A formal lang.rige to. expressing grammars incomputational terms, coosisting 01 a context-free rule formalismsupplemenred with a powerful {eature system. PATR is notdesigned to make restrictive claims about possible grammars; in-stead, it is so constructed as to allow awide variety of formalisms robe expressed in a uniform manner. PATR was first proposed byRosenschein and Shieber (1982): its modifi€d version PATR-II waspresented by Shieber sr al. (1983). A convenienr brief introductionis given in Shieber (1986).

paucal /'prrkl/ n. or adi. In some larguages, a distinct numb€r formfor nouns, expressing th€ idea of 'a few of'and contrasting withboth singular and plural forms, and sometimes with other forms.For example, the Semitic language Tigre distinguishes singular/aiar'hollr€', paucal ?ij[ras 'a fe\\' horses' and plural ziifresam 'horses'.

The paucal is sometimes called the 'little plural'-

pda /pi: di: 'er/ See pushdown aulomatoD.

Penthouse hinciple /'pent,hous/ ',. The putative principle thatno syntactic process may apply solely in subordinate clauses. Ro$(1973b).

per cent sign /pa's€nt, sarn/ r. A conventional symbol indicatingthat the grammatical status ofwhat follows varies depending on thespeaker making thejudgement. Sometimes the variable judgementsare predictable in terms of the speaker's social or geographicalbackground; at other times individual judgements vary in a seem-ingly arbitrary manner. Ex mples Ne o/oyou need your hair cuuing;o/"The beer here is lousy any moret yol ain't seen him; ard y"I rani\to Janet v,hile enjoyinq hercelf at the d.isco. The first of these isconsistently adjudged well-formed by speakers from certain areas ofEngland, but not by other speake$; the second is well-formed onlyfor speakers from certain parts of the no(heastern Uniteid Slates;the third i6 well-formed only for speake$ of certain non-standarddialects; the fourth is variously adjudged well-formed or itl-formedby speakers in a seemingly unpredictable manner. Cf. qu€stionma*.

Siewierska (1984) or Kecnan (1985a) for discussion- and see alsoimp€rlonal palsir e and mediopassile

passive participle r. Thal non-finitc form of a \crb which serves asthe head ofa passive \aP, such as ddrrilcd and /ot in LLsa is admnedby everybctdy and The expedition qct lost in k mountti6 lnEnglish, the passive participle is almost always jdentical in form tothe p€rfect pafiiciple, botb lraditionally being called the Past parti'

ciple', but some speakcrs distinguish the t*o for a te* verbs: ./haven't prcved it\s. It hasn't been pro'en; Lisa ltas tlever showed ntaste for rcd wine vs- This rcsult has nerct L'een silo\r1

past /porst/ n. or ad]. 'fhe t€nse categor'! correl3ting primaril! withpast time. As is .isual $ith g.ammatical latcgories, dre cortelation is

typical rather than ericeplionless. as illusrraled by sucb English

examplcs as 1// Vot. beuer French, I .ould Kt a b.tter iob and lt stime you went to bed. in which Past-tense fc'rms reltr to non Pasltime. English has only a single past tens€. but some oth€r languageshave more elaborate systems; see under ten'se-

past anterior /en'tlaria/ n A lense form cxpressjng a time *hich ispast with respect to another past rime English has no spedtic form

ior this, usually employing onlv a siftple past e\ in I Jinkled the

book before Li arived, though rtre pluperfe.t is tomelilnes used

lnstead: I had fnished Ae book beJble LLsa uttlved

past participle ,1. A traditional label for what is nore accuralelycalled the p€rfect participle or passive parliciple

past perfect See plup€rfect-

path /pore/ r,. 1. The semantic role bome br an NP wlrich expresses

the stretch of territory through which conc.ete or abstract motton

occurs, such as the bridge in we c/ossed Lhe bndse to the far s ie

and Bangkok in We few to Srdney ria Bangkok. Palh is one of the

al€€p cases recognized in Case Gralf.nrat. 2 (also chain) In ccrtatn

ttleories of grammar, a sequenct of nodes in a lree which are

regarded as linked in some way, the t'ri o cnd points of the sequence

ofien constitutirg the two ends of a dcpeDdeocy, particularly an

unbound€d dependency. See Mccloskey (1988) for some discussron

of paths in recent work 3. In graph theory, anJ continuous route

through a graph rn $hich nu node occur ' rs iLe

patient /'peljtt/ n. The s€inartic role borne bv an NP vlich- expresses the entity undergoing an action, s}ch as the roof itt I've

\.

il

p€rcolation 204

percolation /,p3lk.'lelJr./ n. (also trickling) l. The Process bvwhich a svntactic feature plesent on a node in a tree is notionally

Dassed eitler uDward or d;wnward in accordance with som€ PrinciDle of feature instantiatiotr, so that it also appears on other nodes

where its presenc€ is rcquired 2 A similar notional Process some-

times postulated as occurring within words as Part of word

formation.

Derfecl /p3:trk, n. or adt l A dislrnctile asPccl mo\t llpically- exoressing a state resulling from an earlier evenr. a'in Lisa hus qon?

oui r1. . . . , t t . i t nor here now) ln Lngl ish and othcr languagec. the

same form is used also to express other relaied but dftinct asp€ctual

notions. such as the e{eri€ntial (e g.. Li.sa hos worked in Pariq'

Dresent relevance o[ a recent (ient. the hot ness p€rfecl (f g . J'h?'Pletidcn! has been rhot) and tbe perfect of pe^;srenr situation'

(e.g., Lisa has been vlotking for an how) Da (1985) nakes a

distinction between 'Perfect' and rcsullativ€ aspects: see tl'c

remarks under the latter term. The Perfect is somewbat anomalous

anonq aspeclual forms. and its Precise characterilalion is a matter

ot sorne iontrouersv; see Comrie (1970) for one view and Dahl

(1985) for another. The p€rfect asPect can be combined with any

tense; the examples above all illustrate the prcsent perfect. but the

past perfect (ptuperfect) anat futur€ perf€ct also exist Note that tbe

unmodified aerm 'perfect' is often loosely aPplied to the pres€nt

perfect. NoEr ii is imPonani not to onf6e the Perfect'spect wir\ the

perfectirc dpect: they are enftely disrinct. 'D sPne dr tbe lofonunate similditv

ir then names, vhich .esrlts fron rhe a@ident lhal lzth happered to G the

$ne form in both tulc{ions 2 ln certain EumPean languages' such as

French anal German. a conventional tabel for a verb form which is

constructed in the same way as the English Perfect' and wirich

historically may have had the same function' but which now iunc-

tions chielly as a Past tense.

perfect infinitive n. An inffnitite form marked for perfect aspec('

such as Latin amavare'to have loved or i1s English translation'

perfective /pa'fektlv/ n. or ddi. A superordinate asp€ctual category

involvint a lack of cxplicit reference to the intemal temporal con-

sistencl r ia siruat ion. and mnl lan,ng pr inciPal ly with lhe imperf€c-

l i re. In I nglNh. pcdect i \e aspecl is chief ly erpressed b) lhe srmp|e

past-tens'i form, as in L e hantter climbed up behind the bookcase

;nd Lisa leaned Frcnch in Cren. See Comrie (1976) for discus{on'

L,L,,c,e,L,f -

+"Ic€-tciciG-ic.iei

:j:icl2j:_l;-l!iiqe

3

a ,

perlative

NoE: b€ €reful nor ro confe p€decrive' aspecr wirh Frfet aspect; thcy are

p€rfect participle ,i. The English participle which combines wirhthe aLrxiliary i4ve to form the perf€ct, such as rfnished. in Lba hasfinithed her mastet's, or a similar form in another language. InEnglish, the perfect participle is aknost always identical ro thepsssive participle.

perfect progressive passive n. A verb form simultaneouslymark€d for pedect and progressive aspects and passive voice: M),house has been being painted for t*o weeks now. Somc English'peale^ find the<e iI-fo|med.

performance /pa'f.mens/ n. The actual linguistic behaviour ofparticular individuals on particular occasions. Performance con,lrasts chiefly with comFtenc€; such phenomena as slips of the' npue. memor) lapses. in lef fupr ions and procesing di f f icutr ie.

arising ftom length or complexity are sp€cificatty assigred to thedomain of p€rformance phenomena, whjch are usualty seen as lyingoutside the scope of the competence theories of gen€ralive grammar. Chomstv (1965).

periphery /p3'rrferi/ n. l. That part of a constituent consisting onlyofadjuncts, excluding the head and the elements for which rhe headsubcategorizes. Cf- nucleus. 2. In an analysis of clause srruchrre interms of layerirg, the least centml elements in a clause, typicallyeverything other than the verb and its arguments. 3. See markedFriphery.,4dt. p€ripherat /pe'rrferel/.

periphrasis /pa'rrfrasrs/ r. l The use of periphastic forms. 2_Saying something in a roundabout wav, as in rhe lse of neptivegrowth situation tor'rccession', or of rle dnrtrer to your queston isn rhe afrma vp tot )er'. 4dt. periphrf,stic.

periphrastic /pe 'frastrk/ adJ. Denoting a construction, especia yone invoiving a verb, in which ore or more auxiliary words are usedto exprcss grammatical distinctions, as opposed to the direct inflec,tion of the lexical item involved- An example is the English verbtolin |'i be eaten; .omp^re its Latir equivalent edetw, whjchinvolves no periphrasis-

perlatire /'p3:iatrv/ n. or adl. A cas€ form typicatlv €xpressiog the''arh over whicir iomc mo\ement takes olac..

il

person 2(frperson / p3rsn/ n. A d€ictic grammatical category which primarily

distinguishes among €ntities in terms of thei role. if any, in aconversational exchange. Tte three-way distincrion among ffrstperson (the speaker). s€cond persor (the addressee) and thirdperson (everyone and €verfthing else) appears to be universallyexpressed in languages. The expression of person is often intersected by thc expression of other grammatical caregorjes. such asnumber, sex and gender, but no clear example is kdown of alanguage which exhibits more than this three,way person conrrast.The proximate/obviative contrast found in some languages hassometimes been described as representing a contrast between rhirdperson and 'fourth person . but this is misleading.

personal pronoun /'p3:s.nl/ r. One of a typically small and closedset of lexical items $iih the principal funcrion of disringuishingamong individuals in terms of the deictic category of persoo butoften also expressing ceriain additional distinctions of number,animacy, sex, gender or other categories. Th€ English personalpronouns are /, we, fou, he, she, it and th€). Most other languageshav€ comparable seis of personal pronouns, though the paniculardistinctions expressed vary significantly ftom one language toanother, and some languages have only first- and second-penonpersonal p.onouns, using demoostratives or other deictic items forthird-penon reference. Some languages, however, particulady insoutheast Asia, make little or no use of personal pronouns; thefunction of personal pronouns in these languages is chiefly per-fomed by lexical nouns or floun phrases. For example, in Malayproper names and such nouns as tlrau 'sir', guru 'reacher' , tuieang'craftsrr,an', amah'nurse and mrt 'grandmotber' are used mo.efrequently than personal pronouns.

persp€ctive /pa spektrv/ r. The category invok€d to account fortbc contrasl between grammaaically distinct sentenc€s wbich de-scribe the same state of affain. Examples include such pairs as ,t ebanged the hammet against the r','a aad She banged the wa with thehammert Janet met Elroy at the pub and Elrcy metJanet at the pub;Lisa \?nt La y a l"!m and Laft, got a lp ?r lrom LtJai Th? res'il

sutprised me and I war; surprised at the result.'fhe notion of PersPec-tive is important in most functional gmmmars (sense 2) , particularlyFunctional Crammar (sense 3). rhc rcrm denles from the PrasueScho.l s use of tun.iionalsenrence penpective i the shoflened fom wd nto-

du..d bv Cba.lcs Fillmore {1977).

phrasal genitite

PeterFRitchie .esults l.ti:liz rr|ji nz^ks/ '1. p/. A series of.roofs. b' thc mathematical lingujsts Sranlel' P€ters and RobcrtRirchie. dcnronnratine irsi that iransformarional grammars ot rhetipe propos.d in lhe Siandard Th€ory of TransformationalGrammar are rcakl! equivalent ro the unrestrirted grammars (jnorhe. rvord!. thev can weakly gcnerate anv languagcs which can bogeneralcd at xll). and second rtlrt ihi5 res..rlt conrinucs to hold ei,cnif tb€ most s€lefe restrictions are piaced upon rhe base rules. ThePeiers Ritchic results confirn thc cnormous power of transform-rtions as thc\'*crc conceived in thc 1960s rnd. even rhough they

"ppl! onl,'', to \cak -rene.ative capa.ily. they are widely credited$ith proliding much of the notivalion bchind the auernpts atrcstricting thc power oi transfo.natiooal kamcworks which havc.haracierized thc \york of Chomskv and his associates since rheearly 1970s. Perers:rnd Rirchie prescnrcd their results in peters andRirchie ( i971. 1973). An o!11ice of their firsr proofis gilcn in parleed a!. ( 199{}). rnd also in Bach \ 1974)r a simpler \ ersion ol (h€ nrorc.ompler re.on.l prooi is provided in Bach and Marsh (1987).

phantom category ltentefnl n. A svnractic category which ispostulated as existing in the grammar of a languase and whichsenes as the basis of certain generalizations, bur which never3ppears in a trcc structure represcntjng a senrence of rhc language.For example. \\'eisb ha! VSO vord order. afid a category Vp doesot appear:1\ n continuous sequerce ;n welsh sentences; some

t'nallses. howeler. posrulate thc cxistence of a categorl Vp in\l'clsh. in te.ms of lvhich such requiremcnts as subcategorizationmay be stated. cvcn though no VP node ever appears in a rree. Thcnotion is ptlrticularl! associared \r'irh cPsaj. in which rhe Vp mles\ene as inpur to the melarulc! shich serve in turn to produce theni les which acrual j \ ' l icense local subtrees. cazd.r and Sag (1981)

phrasal category /'frevl.l n. L Any syntacric category lvhich is aone bar or greater proj€ction of a lexical calegory. phrasal caiegories are usualll divided into maiimd Fojections (or fult phrr,salcategories) such as Noun Phrase (r.\ double bar). PrepositionalPhrase (P-double bar) and so on, and intermediate phrasat caregori€s, such as N-bar. P bar and so on. 2. Someiimes morc spccifi-cally a synonyn for maxinal projection (full phrasal category)-

phrasal genitive ,1. 'fhe English possessive consrruclion involvingthe srmultaneous !\e of the preposirion o.fand the oossesrive , r. as

-

(

t-

t_I,

Laal.i!tqlc;lr: l: l:l;lir;r;r:ii!:t:r:r-._l:t--lc*l3-l

:07

phrasal verb 2@

in the ex:ample a tienl o/ Lriat. JesFe' (1961. vlr:3(n)i the re.6'preposnional genitive sf,d posr genitive havc de becn Nd.

phrasal verb n. A Iexical verb, particularty in English, which con-sists of a simple verb combined with one or more panicks, th€meaning of the whole being tpically unpredictable ftom the mean-ings of its constituent elements_ Examples include make p, takeoIf, turn on, put doutn, vtalk out. take in, give up, ing up, put upwith and do away with. Phrasal rerbs presenl nororious difficultiesof analysis, not least because nany (not all) of rhem p€rmit theparticfe to be optionally'separated from the simple verb: She tookoff het &ess ot She took het d.ess off. Qt nk et aL (19?2) disringuishphrasal verbs from pr€pGitional verb6; see the remarks under tharentD. A@rdin8 ro Fowlert l06\.4\1,. rhc name wsr@inedbyrbe te( '@gra.pher HenryBradley.

phrase frcrl r. 1. A synonym for constiiuent. In this sense, anyconstituent, even a clause, may be regarded as a ptrase. 2. Asynonym for mrlitrtel proj€ction, panicularly in such careBorylabels as Noun Phrase, Verb Phrase, Preposilional Phras€, etc. Inthis sense the lerm 'phrase' contrasts with cbuse. 3. Traditionally,and very loos€ly, a label applied to any slrinS of words whichsomeone wants to consider, regardl€ss of its syntacric status. In thissense, 'phrase' may be regard€d as the syntacric equival€nt of themorphological term morph; the altemative term .sequence' seemspreferable.

phrase marker /'motk3/ See arc;.

pbras€ structufe n. (PS) S€e caDstituent srructurc.

phrase structure grarmar r. A formal grammar conisting en-lirely of phr.s€ srructure rul€s- Such a grammar may be either aconaer.t-fr€e grammsr or a cont€xt-s€nsitiv€ grlmmar; see these lasttwo entdes for discussion. See Manaster,Rarner and Kac (lgq)) fora survey of the use of this term.

phrase structure rule n. (Ps-rule) A r€writ€ rule which rew.itescxactly one category as a string of zero or mor€ categories (or, insome conceptions, as a string of one or more categories). If noenvironment is specified for the applicarion of tbe rule, it is acantext-fre€ rrde; if an envirotrment is specified, it is a cfi&n-sensitivc rnle. See these last two entries for discussion.rnd

209 pleotrastic

picture noutr /'prktF/ r. One of a small group of English nounswhich have the unusual prope.ty of p€rmiiting reflexive pronouns tooccur ioside prepositional phrases ofwhich they are the heads, as inLisa sent me this picture of hetself. Cf . * Lisa smiled at the man beidehe^er. Other picljJre nouns include story, photograph, song andpoen. Picture-noun reflexives pose difficulties formany accounts ofrefl exivizalion. Cruber (1%7).

pied-piping /pard'papr0/ rt. The phenomenon ifl which a prep-osilion whose objecr is a WH irem appears in a *ooreO poiitionimmediately prec€ding iE object From where does thk come?: Thewornan to whom you were speakin| b my sister.In many languagespied-piping is obligatory, but in English ir is optional and largetyconfin€d to formal styles, the colloquial language preferring non-pied-piped forms fike Wfierc does this come ftom? ar.d me vromanyou were speaking to is my sister. y. picd-pipe /pard,pae/. Rossit967t.

piyot /'pwat/ r. 1. ln a comparative construction, the gEmmaticalfomative which serv€s to r€late the comparative form to the stan-dard, such as English dra, in examples like raler than Lisa. 2.ln asyntactic structure, the NP which is grammatically most central,typically exhibiting such properties as the ability to coordinate, tocontrol anaphora or deletion and to be realized as a null €lement incontrol structures. In the majoriry of languages, th€ pivot is simplythe grammatical subject, but in some languages, particularly thoseexhibiting syntactic ergativity, the pivot is rypically the patient Npina transitive clause (see, for example. Dixon 1972 on Dyirbal), andsome analysrs prefer th€ non-€ommittal descriptive t€rm ,pivot' toavoid controversy about the proper us€ ofthe telm ,subject'in such,anguages. He.rh {lql5).

place /plers/ See locltion.

Platonistic features /plerta'nrstrk/ n. The {eatures [JN],[rV],us€d in some versions of th€ X-bar system for decomposing themajor lexical categories, most often as follows: [+N, V] = Noun,[+N, +v] = Adj, I-N, +vl = vetb, [-N. -\,] : preposition.Chonskv (unplblished wo.k. 1974).

pl€oDastic /plite'n€srrk/ adj. Involving the use of words or mor-phemes which are rcdundanr, in thal th€y merety repeat infor-matioo already express€d elsewhere. Consider, for example, theBasque verb form dirq.e'they have them', as compared with dll .he

r-ar_aLaLacag3

(

i l

a:+:€ . ,

c-i

il3

3

3

G

J

a?ta

?a-l,a

pluperfect 210 211 posiaiYe polrrity itrDhas it': here re marks the plulaliryofthe subjecl, while both -ir- and.i- mark th€ pluraliry of the object, which is lherefore €xDress€dpleonastically. Ab$r. n. pleotrasm/'plitrnazm/.

plupbrfect /plu:'prfrkt/ n. or adJ. (also past p€rfeca) A traditionallabel for a verb form expressing past tense and perfect aspect: airdhad fnished the translation by ten o'ctock .

plural /'pluoreu |,. or ad./-. In a language wirh grammatical distinc-tions of number, thar numbgr car€gory typically used to refer to thelarSest possible number of entities. In English and mosr othe.European languages, th€ plural contrasts only with the siDgular, andh€nce usually carries the m€aning,two or mor€';in Ianguages with asingular and a dusl, the plural express€s.three or more'; in thosewith singular, dual and trial, the plural expresses .fout or more'; inthose with a paucsl, th€ plural expresses .more than a few'.

plurale tantum /ploe,ro:ler ,ranlem/ (pl. pturstia tanhtE/plue'ro:lie/) n. A noun which is invariably plural in form butsingufar in sense: rcirsors, tongs, plie6, ponn, jeotLt, culottes, spec-tacles , binocuht . Most of those occurring in Englisb fall into thre€w€l{efined semantic group6, ex€mplified by scr$ors, panrr andrpeclac&r. In English, such nouns are couoted wirh the aid of theword pah a pair Af scissors, tuo pain of jeans. NoE: the siosdatpl$dc t lhB h Erely ed, rhe phral rod of rhe r.nn beiry fd obmoner.

plu.6 sign /'pl^s sarn/ r. In rhe notation A*, a notational conventionindicating a string of one or morc occurrences of the category A.Cf. xleen€ star, and rcfer to th€ r€marks lhcrc.

FO /pi: 'eul See priDary objecr.

potarity iiem /pao'lErrti ,arq/ r. Any irem *hich is either apcitive polrlity item or a Rgatirc polarity irGD.

polarity reyerser / 'v3lse/ n- Any element which, whetr added toa cont€xt requiring a positive pol,rdty itcD, converts it to otr€requiring a negatlve polErit! itc,m not, hatuly.

Polar question /'peuls/ r. A question which expects one of twopossible responses, especialy a ' es-no queslion liie An you rcady?

polrDomid aime /pDlr,neumiel ,tah/ 'l. Th€ properry of ansBoritt|tr which always delivers a result withio a trumber of steF,and hence (in computational rerms) a time, which is proportio@l tosome posilive power of the lengrh of the input stdng. For exsmplc,

rhc. E3rley rlgoritbm for contexr-tree grammars ajwars succeedswithin rime Kn . where K is a constant and n is the lengab of lbeilring. Dclenninisric polynomial time is an arrractire chaiaderisricin an algorithm, since ir generally means that results for inDub ofreasonable lengths can be obrained In a convenienrly shor( iime. Cf.€xpon€trtial ti|n€. and s€e Barton er al. (1987).

polysyndeto[ /pDlr,slndrrn/ r. A clordinate ,trociuE involvins a\erje\ ol overt conjunctioE: Lba ahd Jo and siobhan and siri.

pofyslTthetic /pDlsrn'0eirk/ adj. A labet somerimes applied tow-ord forms, or lo languages employing such word forms, dnsistiagof an unusually large number of bound morphemes, some of the;with meanings or functioos that would b€ expressed by s€parate\rords in mosr orher languages. In a polysynrheric languagc. veryonen a comptete sentence seem5 to consist of a single such word.Polysynthetic languages are particularly frcquent in l.ionh America;the koquoian languages are welt-known examples. Muler (1880)iedlier linguisrs had u$d rhe tem iNipoetbg, but rbb tart tern is 6vuually given a no.e sp€cific neaning.

pollsystemism /pDlt'sr\l)mlzr.D_/ r. An approach ro grammaticajcharacten/,alion which vie\rs the structure of a language. not as a\ingle inlegrared sysrem tas in most approaches). bui as-a collectiono, Incrependent bur overlapping syslems. The rerm is particuladyapplied to the work of the British linguist J. R. Firth.-Adl. !oti-synemic /polrsrs r i :mrk/.

portmanteau morph /pr:r'mFnrr{r/||. A single morph which repre\€nrs rwo or more morphemes. AD example is the morph _o in ther"atm verb form ano,I love' here arr- is the velb rcot, atd _osrmultan€ously express€s the cat€gories 6ni p€Non, siDgular, preS_enl aclive.indicarive. all of which are in genelal overtly marted otrLar 'n verb lorms. H6te l t947l

Poramanleau word See btend.

positire /'pDzitrv/ rdl. Denodng rhe simptesr form of an adjectiveor adrerb. conrrasting with such other forms a5 the comprrative andthe superl|tive.

positive polarily item r. Anv le)dcat or grammaticat ireE whicb iscofrnned to occurring in Doo_negative contexts, such a! unstress€dsone: We have some wine, b]ut +lte don\ have sone vliw- Cf.regatiye potrrity item.

poss€ssiotr

lization. The term seems to be without tbeoretical sigdfcancc and is

rreil. See also sbsolut€ poss.ssire. t, I .^'

POSS.izg rpos'rq/ n. A construction Involling a geruDd $ho3€ C ; a^'.ubject is a possessi\e NP: Lisas 8oi48 topless upset hzr larhert , | ',

I don t likc John s dnving. ^fhere is a Potential coolrasl t'elween !

| _

such Dalrs as / do, r lil? John's divinS on the moromav and t do l I i'like John drivin| on lhe nororway, b,ur spealren of Engl-ish diir€r ir

e l i.

out by Gr€enberg (1963). though they also occur elsewhere. The

term adposiaion is used as a cover term for both prepositions and

ootent ial /pr tenr l l , ddi . The mood calegory e\ples\ ing abi l i t ) or

no*ibi l r ry. An e\"mple is Txtki :h vapabi l i in l crn do i t . dn

inflected form of yapmdf'do . JesPe6en (1924)

power /'poue/ See generativ€ capacity

PP See pr€pocitional pbras€

preced€-and-conrdand condition /prr,sird and ka mo:nd/ rr

A constraint on backward pronominalization, which statcs that apronoun rnay not both precede and S-command its antecedentHe|r"e Alter shei cane in, Janeti sat do\|n is well formed' since rftedoes not S-command "/dn et, b]'Jt * She, tat down alier Janzticame in ts

ill fomed. since rre both Precedes and S commands Jan?l In GB.this constraint is subsumed under binding theorv Lansackcr (1e69)

precedence / presldans/ See linear pr€cedence

predicate /'predrket/ n. 1. That constituent of a sentence, mosttypically a verb phrase. lhich combincs with the subject NP to

makc up the complete seflt€nce. Examples: Lrd Lenjored he rtlnllYour photog phs [are tead)']; I Ihave abeadt rtaijhed marking )ioulessaxl- In some languages, certain tj?es of sentences can havepredicates which, superficially at least, are of categories other thanVP, as ifl the Turkish example Hasan btiyiik'Hasan is big', in whichthe predicale has the sudace form of an adjective Phrase Aristode2. A verb, or a complex structure consisting of a verb or auxiliarvplus a closely bound meaningful clement, when this is considered asa linguistic unit which €aD ormust combine with sPcc;fied argumentsor parti€ipant roles to make up a claus€. Examples of predicates inrhis sense are dle. &ill, melt, be happy and tum red. Prcdicatesin thislcnse can be classified in various useful ways. Grammatically, theyrnay b€ classifi€d in terms of their val€ncy. the number and types ofarguments which they require- There ar€ also grammatically rele'vant semantic classifications. thc bes.known of which is rhat ofVendler (1967). 3. In formal logic, an element which mrst combincwith a specified number of arguments to make up a well formedexpression; the linguistic use of 'predicate' in sense 2 is direcrlyderived from this logical usage

predicate complement See complem€nt (sense 2)

t z v

€ - €212r?

c:t,

pr€dicate complement

possession /pr'/ejn/ n. A general "rrrr. ", "n,

."*." t ),

r-u noun phra.es by which lbe s€cond iD some sense 'belongr to the r '_

firlt. Possession is expressed in two maiD ways: (1) by a possessive 6 4'construclion, in $hich bolb NPs invohed lyPicaly form a single ,-larger NP. a: in lhe Englisb'titai ?vPr or lbe French /es vtx t

d'ihace (2) by a $edication oI possession, as in the English lita L <:has a cat. A typology of possessive consttuctions is given in Croft

L .3.(19e0).

possessive /pe'zesN/ See genitive l :

posiessive pronoun ,. {also pN€sslve edFctive) A determi*r ! :, hich tunciions as lhe possessile Iorm of a Pronouo: ny. you. I

iheir \iewr of these construdions. Some perceive a difference.f : | ;-meaning lroughty. manner of driving vs 'tacl of driving') others C a

''

regara ine nrst as a mere formal variant of lhe secocd. stil olhers t : 1'frnd onty Lhe firsl well-formed and yet others liDd otly tte s€con-o - | ,.well-formed. Cf acc',rg, and s€e lhe remar\s ufldel gerud \

| _

Ro:enbaum (loo7) e i -;!1postcedenl /prust'si:drnt/ ,. A label occasiona y aPplied lo- ao e :

'-

anlecedent ;hich follows its anaPbor. as In bsdward- pro[omint- e !

'-

rarely used. -_I :

postmodifier /pe,st'mDdtfa,)/ n. Any modifer which foflows its b I :'

head, such as ri a alir iskin in a g in a ninb,ti" The lerm isnot C-r a'usually con\idered to bave any lheorelical significance

G-: a.postposition /p:Ustp: zrJnl n. (P) A lexjcal item which is identical F- ! -,"ro u'p..poStiJo in i"".yresPect excePl lhal it foltows ils object NP L

I1Posrposirions are rare in Europ€an languages (thougt Ingxsnnd4 b

I a

leasi one. a6o. a" in fve )?du d8o). but tbey occur lo tbe exclrxion C- r -.

of prepolirions in a numb€r of o(ber languages. such T j"p,"n"l e- | -und B".qu.. A Japanese example: Crichi wa boku ni bkei o kurea - l1father Topic me to warcb DO gave 'My farber gave me a erdlcn.' e-: 3whe,e .a. ni and o are aI postposirions. Pojtryil"ll

"Ii Sljll e-l --entty prefened lo prePoiition\'in SOv lrtrgusges as first pc;nled s-E '- c+ --

predicrte trominal

qIt lcl

i!:r:r:r: l: l: l:,r:t:r:r:f,:r:r

Fi

!!

aa

€

€

€

a33o3a€

??a

:2

214 215 prescdptivism

uabre a ^nd in front of the post ofrce. Prcpositions usually consti-rute a closed lexical category. Both etymologically and in practice,the term 'preposition is restricted to a Iexical item which precedesits object NP. the term postposition being used for a comparableirem which follows its object NPs, and adposition being used as asuperordinate label. Adt. prepo6itioml.

prepcsitional phrase /,prepe'zrJenl/ n. (PP) A phrase consistingof a preposition and a noun phrase serving as its object; !r /reEa en, wi& Lisa. in ftont of the post oflce.I^ most versions of theX-barsystem, the category PP is regarded asthe maximal projectionof rhe lexical category Preposition, F. Prepositional phrases cancootain specifiers i ./u-ir behind the house aftd way ovet the limit.

prcpositional specifier n. A lexical it€m which modifies a preposi-tional phrase and is. in some analyses, regarded as the specifier ofthe category PP: [struishtl into the hole, [way] ovet the linit, Uusibehind the hou:e.lmiles) up the river.

prepositional v€rb n. A complex verb resembling a phrassl verb,but distinguished, according to Quirk e/ dL (1972:815), by thefollowing criteria (here ull on is a prepositional yerb, ca up aphrasal verb): (1) unstressed particle (Thet ca on the m(o\ Theycau'up the man); (2) absencc of particle shift (aThey cat the nanon: Thev ca the man

"p; (3) separability (?rer caq early on the

man. *rhq/ cau enty up the nan); (\ pied pipnlg Uhe man onw|rcm they caUed;*the man up vrhom they calk .

preposition stranding n. The construction in which a prepositionappears with no oven object NP, that NP b€ing realized elsewhercin thc sentence, usually by Wll-Movem€nt. An example is Wro||erc \rou talking to7 See also pied-piping.

prescriptiyism /p skrrptNrzrF/ n. An approach to grammaticalcharacterization one ofwhose primary objects is the identificatioD offorms and usageswhich are considered by the analyst to be'correct'and the proscribing of forms and usages felt to be 'incorrect'. Thecriteria invoked in such an approach are necessarily those selectedb, the analyst and arc hence essentially subjectiv€; they typicaltyinclude app€als to 'logic', to aesthetic factols, to traditioo and/or toliterary usage; not infiequently, they also includ€ appeals to thegrammatical facts of other langlages which are regarded as havinggreater prestige. Prescriptivism was strongly chamcteristic ofa gooddealof the work published on the grammar of Engljsh and ofother

predicat€ nominal |t. A rmditionat name for a noun phrase inpredicare posrt ion. paarcutartv in "

."p"tr, *"""*. lr . i * ,rtanstaror tn LBa at a trun\la rr

eTedf, crtio.n lheory /pred|ke'Jn/ r'. The arca ot s\ntar whichoeats \rrth (be por\ible struc|ures or funcrions of pftdicares(sense 2).

predicaaive /prr 'd jkrrr \ / a/ i . Denoring an etemenr which occu^rnsloe a- predierle (sense t). such a\ the adjeclve phrase roo rrg In

predictive /pr,drktrv/ adl. A tabet occasiona y applied ro a futuretense form which can only be used to make prediirions and whichcarnol be used to expres. in lentron\. Ver! fe$ Ianguage. are knownro Dave sucn a sFf lal ized form. Dahtt ta8.r .

prefix./'pri:nks/ r An affix $h,ch precedes the roor. \rem or baseIo wbrch rt rs bound. sLrch as rhe Lnglish denr alionil affires .e. and&n--. rne- Japanese honori f ic o or an) ot rhe large sel of inf fect iondtamres round rn Swahil (for dn example. see under agglutinatior).I ne prevatence ot prefues o\er euftue( is strongl) characreristic ofVSO langu.g€s and, to a lesser extent, of SVO ianguag€s, as firstpoint€d out by creenberg (1963).

prefx prop€rtJ /,prDpati/ n. The propeny of a sentence. regardedas a strirg, which has no initiat proper subst.ins which is;tso asenfence. A garden-psrh seorence tite Thp dnp; hunicd throuehther meal.rte annoyed lack\ rhe pre6\ prop(fly. since rhe inirialproper sub.rring the diners hunicd thriuph then n€ai is atso a

p.emodifier /,pri:'mDdrfab/ n. An ad hoc tabet for anv modifierwhich precede( irs head. The rerm is usudl, con:rdered io have notheoretical signi6cance.

prcPosing /prir'pauzr4/ r. (also fronting) Any of va.ious constructions in -which a constituent is ptace.=d at fie beginning of asentence or clause, as in WH-Movem€nt or adverb preposi4.

preposition t,.Iepe alnl n. rpl A lextcal caregory. or a m€mt€ror thrc calegor! . $hich rypical l ' combines wirh a noun phrase tomake a larger consrjtuent, a Fepositional phrase, which in tum caatypically occur inside a verb phrase or inside arl N-bar. EDglishexampfes include 10. fon. with. of. undet and rn f,ont of- a, it toLisa, Irotn Patu, with Breat enthusiasm, of the'game,-under an

European languages during thc eighteenth, ninereenrh and earlvr*enric lh centur ies. panicularh ot lhe rcxlbook\ prepareJ for u\ ;in, .huol. . Among rhc he,t-knoqn prc\(r ipl i \Nr.rar imenrr : ,bourEnglish are Ihe insisrence on /.r .1 and rhe rejecrion of /rt me- rhecord€mnation of sentenc€-final preposirjons and ihe condemnationof the so called split infinitiv€_ Mosr modern linquists would Drob_abl) ac((pl thal 'ome degree ot prescr ipr iv ism ^ ***rr j r*educational purposes, but all wolld vigorously re.iect presdiptirismas a basis for grammarical characterizalion. ///. prescripaivist/p sknptrvrst/. Cf. descriptivism.

pfesrnt / prer)nr/ r. orudl. Ihe len]'e calegory occumng in \omclanguagcs which is mosl regularty used ro refer to adions orslares inprogress at tne moment of speaking. or whjch ar ieast includes thisfunction as one of its major uses. The term rs somenmes used rolabel a tense form ofratherwider appUcabitiiy rhan rhis: jn English,for example, thc name presenr'is regularly used for the tense ;hichwould more explicitly be calted lhe .non-past.. as ir contrasts ontywrtn a past tense.

prcsentative /pfl'zenlatrv/ ddj. Any of lanous conslnrchonswhich serve to introduce a ncw element into a discourse. such as theAnerican English patrern illusrrated by There eos this bAt coming

pres€nt participle n. In English and some orher laneuaees. thelrad' tronal namc tor qhar rs morc propert) cd ed rhe i ;p€rfe{dveparticiple. such as wrni, g 1n Lba is/was teriing teuen.

present perfect n. A vcrb form simultaneously marked for presenrfen(e and Derfecr a,pecr. \uch a, that n I hav(.aten dinnir . Thepresent perfcct is sometjmes loosety called rhc .perfecf.

presunptive /prr'z^mprrv/ n. or adj. -t:ne mood cateqory associ,

ared $irh a \uppo. irr .n. a. In rh( exdmple H? i \ probuhtv tnh.yer lfew languages appear to have a distiocrive forrn for erDressins thismood e\pl 'c, t l ) See Palm(r ( tu8o) tor dNcussion

present 216

preterite /'pretarft/ n. or adj. A past tensc verb forrn whichunmarked for aspcct: raw, /oyed.

preterminal node /pri:'i3:mrnl/ ,- A node in a tre€ qhichdominates nothing bur a lcxical ilcm. Cf. non-terminat node.

preverb /prirB:b/ ll. Any of various particlelike morphem€soccurring in a number of languages which most tt?ically occurimmediately before a v€rb. Examples are Hungarian ki .out' (rn"&r''8o', ,tmegf 'go out') and be 'in' (j6n,comd. bei(t/, .come in') andCerman ril.l 'our'

G?hen 'Eo. aLtg"hen .go our') and zu \o.

(kommen 'come'. zukommen 'apqaa.h'). 9cmc prevertr in somelanguages can in ce(ain circ'.:mstan€s be separated from an associ_ated ve.b; this is true of both Hungarian and German, as illustratedby cerman E. kan auf den Auto zu ,He approached the car'.Preverbs in some languages serve to express obliqu€ relationships inlieu of case marking, as in Winneba9o Kook ra ho-nonchin-je-inanbox-Def in-stand,Aux-Declaraiive ,It is standing in the box', inwhich the preverb lio- expresses the locative rei atiotr of kookru,the

primary object /'prarneri/ ,i. (pO) The union of direct obie.ts insimple transitive clauses with indirect objects in ditransitive clauses,when this grouping functions as a grammatical natural class, co!-trasting with direct objecrs in ditransitive clauses (s.condiryobjccIs). The PO/SO contrasr is widespread in rhe targuages of rhe$orld, occuniog. for exampte. in Swahi[. Huichot. Ojibwa,Palauan and (arguably) English. trnguages exhibiting this pattertrar€ labeled d€chticactiotive by Blansitt (1984); in such languages,POs typically control such processes as verb ageemeot and pa6siv-ization. Dry€r (1986); veiou orher r€ms de foutrd in the tiEraruc in asimila wns, includiog 'p.ilcipal obje.i ed prioe objecr'.

primitiye /'p mlttv/ 'l. In a fo.mal system, any one of the minimal€lements in terms of which the system is constructed, and whichcannot b€ defined in terms of any other elements in the s'stem. Allother elements us€d in th€ s,st€m must be defned in terms of theprimitives.

pri-ocip€f parts / pt|nsrpl 'po:rs/ n. pt. tn the gtatrlmar of atrInfledrng tanguage. a convenrionai list olcenain:fledrd formsofalexical item, especially a ve$, from which all the remaining forBs'ran genemlly be corstructed by rule. The principal pans of anEnglish,!trb are conventionatly the infnitive, the past tense end theperfecr participle ( past panic:ple li eat. ate. ?ann: go, went, goneidnve. drove- dny?n. Thos€ of a Ilrin verb are the filst Drrsonsingular present indicative acrive. ibe infinirjv,r, rh€ 6rsr Der6otrsinguiar perfect indicadve acrive and $e suFine: amo, aiure

r:t

{a

ir

21.7 principal partea:

i-te.c-.ae-e-ecQ

C.

c

ii.-l

iiiiilirii.J

€- -:

L- !'

218 L a, 219principle

amavi, amanun'love' ; ago, agerc. e8;, acn m'di\e t ferc. fene, tuli.

principle /'pnnsryV ,r. Any statem€nt in a theory of grammarwhich is coDceived as h6ling uoiversal validity, subject at most tominor adjustmetrts for the grammars of particular languages. Somecxamples are the Th€rt Criterion add the Projection Piitrciple ofGB and the Cotrtrol Agleement kincipl€ and the Hesd Fc-lturecoDvcDdo of GPSG. The identification of such universal Principlesis one of tbe chief motivaling forc€s of recenl work in syntar and isin particular the c€nrrai goal of CBi it is the most imponant resp€clin which r€c€nt *ork differs from earlier apProaches to grammaticalinvestigation, includinS €arlier gen€rative approaches.

principles-8nd-parameatrs adt. Denoting the approach to gram-matical characterization advocated in GB, in which tbe (core)gammar of a particular language is regaded as consisting of a set ofunivcrsal p.hcipls plus the language-specific settitgs for a smallrumbcr of FnDeiers.

Prtority-aGtbGhstsne Piinciple /pral,orati ta 6i: \nstttrtS€€ ProFr lndosion filldpl€.

prlvadve /'pnvetrv/ adr. Dcnoting an affir exptessing the notion'witioui', sucb as d'c /' ol amorul ot the: 'less of toPless.

PRO /pra/ n. (also big PRO) In GB, the empty csteSory Posited asexistinS iD the overtty vacant subject position of the infinitival VPcomplemetrts of corEol v€rb6, as ilustrated by Litd patb IPRO toham Dulchl ard Liso decided [YRO to stop smokinS]. with;l theBinding Theory of GB, PRO is anal)s€d as l+anaPhotic, +pro-nominall, and is henc€ subject to the conflicting requi.ements olPrinciples A and B, a conflict which can onl', be resolved if PRO isungoverned. 'nre modute of GB postutated lo deal wilh the vcryconsiderabl€ problem of finding a referent for PRO is caled CortrolTb.ort. Most ftameworks othet than GB dely the existenc€ of anyelcm€nt occupyir4 the position of PRO, preferring instead to tecog_aizc sirtple vP lEmplements withoul subiects.

pm /pF{r/ rr. (also litth pro) In GB, tbe €EptJ cr&8ory Posit€d asexilting in the overdy vacant subject position in certain languagesexhibiting the pb.enomenon of pradrop. For examPle. the s€nteoccyien?'He/She is. coming in the pro-drop laoS:ua8e Spanisb woulobe $alysed as lpro vianc]. Little pro is reSarded as atr ordinary

personal pronoun in most r€spects, apan from its lack of Dhonctic

proclitic /,preu,klrtru r. A ctid. which is phonologicaly bouud toa following host, such as French ./e .I' in Je ,at il,m ;oiDg,. Cf.

€nclidc

pm.corrstituenl /'preuken,stitJuant/ r. (Also prc.fol|n). Se€ rtra.phor (s€nse 1).

pro-drop /prrodmp/ n. The phenomenoD in vhich an argumeotnt],111 "1

, verb. panic.utarty subjecr posirion, can bc tcft-cnpry.rne pro-drop latrguage Spanish allows well_formcd sentcoccs iileur?n,e

, tieJ5trc ,s coxtng,. whereas non.pro_drop Frcnch atrd

Eng,lsn requrre oven subj€ct NPs: + ytl?rrl ./J corniS.pro-drop latrg[rge S€e ndt-6ubjcci tFn8,..ae.ProDrop P€rs.o€I€r n. (atso Nulsubj€ct psrsn€&.) In cB, theparameter by which the grammer of a language may permjt orprohibit pro-dmp.

prod_uctlo[ /prJd^fJr/ r. A 3ynodF for ]rrrlt rrh. pcfcrred itrmauematical.rnd compubtional linguistics.

productive /pr:rd^ktrv/ dd./. Denoring a EratrIfiarical panem, par_utularly-a moq)hological patrem, which csn b€ morc br |ess fteely1f!fl.o

t:. "ly

ilem m€ering its requireDeots, iDcluding eteE€trtrnewty added t.o the laoguage. For examplc, tbe foiratiou ofaDstrad nouns ltr FjDglisb wilh the suf6x _r!ss is prcducrive. asarmosl any adieitive can uaderyo it: happiruss, hopciessncss, crash-worthttEss. l\.enatn adje.tives with ktio and Gre€L suffires :rrcsystemaric excepdoDs to this process. sucb as variabk,,opira! a dlrpmrric, but this facl ,do€s not aker the essential productiveness ofj,p$-) Sirhilarlj/, lhe lrassive ci)nst&crion in Eogii6h is productiveror oanstlrve verbs: th,e appearanc€ oftb€ oew uansitive verb a.ca$mmediately pc rmirs a parsive. es n Th4t utili, can be accesscdJrom ttu natn tnenu. tcf. uDprodfftiv., Frttdly Drodndve.

pm-forE /'prrrfr:m/ (also pro"coodtuore See rtr.Dtoi (sao€€ f).pr08f6|tr. /tro'gre!.Nt n. ot adj. (atso .otrtlDroo!) TFc -Fctcategory which refer s sp€cificrlly lo an action or event r,hiih isln prcSrcss at thc rD oment ol time s€rving a0 the lefcrcncc poiitfo/ the orterance. E ngish expresses this regujarly by mceDs of iasor . . .rn8 consrruc rion. as in Lira irluraslwitt br. wnhg lcrkrr-

progr€ssiye

L.L,L.Lt--LL,e-eIeggce

I

progressrve passrve 220

Progressive aspect is a subdivision of imp€rfectiye aspect- Comrie(1976) distinguishes'progressive from'continuous . using'continu-ous' to mean 'non-habitual' and 'progressile as a subcategory of'conainuous , but this possibly useful dislinction is not widely made,the two terms b€iog gen€rally regarded as synonymous.

progressive passive r. A lerb form harked simultaneously forprogressive aspect and passivc voice: M! house i: being painted.This construction was regarded as ill-form€d in English until fairlyrecently. See also p€d€ct p.ogressive passive.

projection /pre djekJt/ ,1. 1. In the X bar s)stem. an) nonlcxicalsyntactic category which is regarded as syttematicall,! related 1() alexical category which regularly occurs as its lexical head. Forexample. the catcgories Noun Phrase (N'doubie-bar) and N bar areregarded as projections of the lexical category Noun, which usuallyoccurs as lhe lexical h€ad of both. Such a projeclion differs formallyfrom its related lexical category only in respect ofthe value assignedto the feature [BAR]. 2. The relation which holds belween the rulesofa grammar and the trees which are licensed by that grammar. Theset of well-form€d tre€s is said to be proj€cted from the rules of thegrammar. 3. In c€rtain theories of grammar, nolably GB, a formalrelation which holds between the lexical entri€s of iexical items andthe grammatical strucaures in which those lexic-al items appear, bywhicb c€rtain prcp€rties of the lexical eDtries, especially their sub_categoizatioD propenies, must be maintajned in the grarnmaticalstructures. One says that the syntactic representations are proFctedfrom the iexicon- 4. Loos€ly, any of various other relations whichmay exist between two obje'ls or s€ts of objects. For example, onemay speak of thc ?rojettion'of a languaSeJrom a particular corpusof data from ahat langlage. In this sense, 'projection' means rougbly'extrapolation'.

Projection Principlc r. one of the tundamental principles of GB.It states rhat repree€ntltions at each syntactic lev€l are projectedfrom the lericon, In $at lhe suDcalegoriTalion and theta-markingDroDenies of a iexical item must be maintained and satisfied at everyierel of representation. This principle has far-reacbing conse-quences; perhap" -ore than any other single factor it is responsiblefor the major differences between GB and the earlier ve.sions ol

TG. 11 greatly enhanc€s the role of the lexicon in syntax, srnce-rteffectivJly assens that some position in syntactjc sttucture will exrst

if, atrd otrly if, some lexical item requires it to exist (or 'licenses' it)'

22r pronoun

This principle also .ules out many of the particular analyses ad-vanced within the earlier framework, such as all thos€ involving themovement of subject NPs into non-subject NP positions which didnot exisl at earlier stages of the derivation. Indeed, the ProjectionPrincipie in isolation would rule out movement rules altogcther;thelimired range of movement operations still rccognized in GB ismade possible only by the pennitted existence of empay categories,whose occurrence is strictly regulated by the various other com-pon€ntsofthe framework, and by the special provision made for th€presence oI the non subcategorized subject position by theExtended Projection Principle.

prolative /'praulatrv/ ll. or l]dr. 1. See benefactive. 2- A traditionalterrn for an infinitival complement of a verb or auxiliary like wl.lr,

prolepsis /prau'lepsrs/ r. The use of a modifier which only becomesappropriate through the action of the verb, as in paint it Breen. Adj.proleptic /preu'leptrk/.

promotion /pr3u'mouj$/ n. In RG, any of various syntactic processesby which some NP is moved from a lower- to a higher rankingposition within the Relstionsl llie.6rchy, such as f.om direct objectto subject duriog passivization. The term is also used inforrnaly forlhe same purpose in frameworks in which such operations receiveno forrnal recognition. Cf. demotion.

pronominal /prau'nDmrnl/ 1. ddl. Pe(aining to pronouns.2. n. InGB. any of th€ vatous types of NP analysed jn that fmmework asposs€ssing the feature specification [+p] and hence as subject toPrinciple B of the Binding Theory, by which it must be free in itsgoverning category. The only overt NPs in this class are personalpronouns like yo! and /fte_v, but the two empty categories called proand PRO are also includ€d. 3. A synonym for p.onoun, especiallyir LFG.

proDoun /'preunoun/ n. The lexical category, or a member of thiscategory, whose memben typically function as noun phrases inisolation, not normally requiring or permitting the presence ofdeterminers or other adnominals, and whose members typicallyhave little or no intrinsic neaning or reference. Pronouns areconventionally divided into several distinct classes, includingp€rsonal pronouns (/, ,?€y), refl€xive pronouns (ftersell), demon"sfrative pronouis (iltr), indefinii€ pronouns (rdmelhing, drybody),

e-a

c,ctt€

fe

ll

ilii

l'

2239a

3II3rt

I

33a3a.

a?aa?aa?aa??aaaaaa

?1?1

lllrcI!relcl:t: l:r:r;r;r;t:i:_tr:f,:rrlr:]rI-rr,r-rnl

222Fopcr coNdtuerf pseudo-cleft s€nlence

proscription /prao'sknrpjn/ n. ln a prcscriptivist approach ro gram,mar, any statement which prohibits the use of some form or con-srruction, such as the prescriptivist 'rul€' forbidding rhe ending of asentenc€ with a preposition. y. prccribe /preu'skrarb/.

prcsentence /,preu'sentans/ n. A lexical item which typicalyfunctions in isolation as a complete utteranc€: yer. |'o.

proq)cctive /prau'spekrN/ n. or adj. At asp€cruat form whichtvpically expresses the dotion that some event is imminenr. such asEngbsh be going to ot be rbolr ro. The prospective forms the fulureanalogue ofth€ perfect; it differs from other aspects ofthe furure inthat it does not nec€ssarily express either a prediction or an inten-tion. A few languag€s have a productive inflected form for express-iDg just this meaning, such as Basque -(rzondn: hiltzoian ,on thepoint of death' (lrtl'die'). See Comrie (1976) for discussion.

protlsis /'prDtesrs/ n. (also ute.edent) ln a condition6l s€ntcnce.the clause whos€ truth value determines the truth value ofthc orherclaus€. In Eoglish, a protasis is inlroduced by r/. as in Il I see Lba,I' te hel Cf. a[,JdoF'b.

pro-verb /'prco,w!b/ r. An occasional synonvm for pro-Vp. Thisus€, which is not r€commended, is modelled on lhe imdiriooal form'prcnoun' for whar is actually a p.o-Np.

pro-\? /,prao vi: 'pi:/ n. A prc.form wbos€ antec€dent is a Vp.such as do ro or do ir in exampl€s like 1ar&el I i^ra b proofread thettpescipt, and she diA soaid it.

proximate /'pmkslmetl adi. L ln a deiodc system, the termexpressing the closest position to lhe reference point, no.mallv ihespeaker. such as Fnglish fier? or rh6, and conrrasrinq uirb dtsrriandpo\\ibly other lerms. 2. In cenain languages, a subdivision of rhethird person used for reference to the first third DeBon eniitvmen(ioDed in a panicular discours€. and coorrastirq wnh rhe obvie-tive. See the remarks undrr the laner enrry.

Prt S€e particl€.

IS (phrase structure) See coGtituetrt struc,tu!.

pseudo-cleft s€ntence /,sjurdauklefr/ n. (elso wEdeft) A markedconstruction in which the non-focused constituents arc extractedfrom their logical positions and preceded by a WH-irem, this se-quence b€ing connected by a copula to the rocus€d constitucnr,

ffi.rriardr. pronouns {pro, phrr in questions) and r€lative Dro-!@ (wrro. phic, in relative clauses). ,4d1.. pronooinal.

9roper C!trstrtuena /,prDp./ r. A constituent of a category which isnot idcnrical ro-thar caregory. Every car€gory is necessarily a con_$rnrent ol ttsett. bul tt is never a prop€r constituent.

proper dominence n. Tb€ relation which holds betw€en a node Aand a distind Dode B wbich A dominares. The term is necessarvbecaus€. by de6njtion. a node always dominales irset:, but it neve'rproperly dominates its€U.

pmFr goverDmcnt n. In.GB, an ihponant relarion wbich mayDold bctween two nodes in a tree. Thfre are two cases to beconsidered; r €cedent goy€rnmcnt and thets goverdmcDt. A nodeA aDtecedent-govems a Dode B iff A Boverns B and A is coindexedwi$ B. A trode A rheta-govems a node B iff A assigns a rheta roleto B. Thc notion of proper government is crucial in t-h" stat"-ent ofthe EDpaJr C.t€aort kifttplc. Observe that antecedent qovem-EcDl is e special cas€ of gov€mrFot. *hile rhera governminr is aquitc differcni relation-

hopcr Indusion hinctple /rn,klu:3D,i n. (also Ehewh€rrPriDdp|.,, kiorlty.to-th6.IDstrtrc? hinclple) The principle that, inany conflict between a more sp€cific aod a more general require_menr of the gmmmar, rhe more specific one atway; rakes prioriry.r nus, ror exampte. the statement that the English noun zrrn has lbeirre8ular plusl tn n takes precedence ovei the general rule forforming plurals in English. Sand€6 (19?4); rh. prirciple ir.€U ws .xpticitly.rprcs.d by rhe Indjan grtunDarian panini.

pnDIEr noun n. A noun whose only function is to refer to adcsignated entity, such as Lisa, paris, Neptuae or crea Scacchi- Cl.

pmpodtloD /prDpe'ajA,/ n. The s€mandc content of a statemetrt.By cxtension, a yes-no qlestion may b€ inte.pret€d as haviDg tlreform'b the proposition p true?', while a Wtt-cuesrion mai Ueinterprered as baviog rhe form .For whicb vajue ;f r b rhe iroPosition p true?'For €xample, the question Doer tisa,rnoke! maytra intcrpreted as 'Is the propositioo /-im $no&es tl:.!rj,I', while Wha!did Lba see? may be interprctcd as ,For which value of .l is thepropo6itior Zira raly r true?'

f

LLLLLT

ee

pseudo-intransitiae 224

which comes last. The unmarked sentence Joft, bought a caryestetddy has thc corresponding pseudo-cleft lyiar "Iohn bought yeste ay'ear ll cdl. Cf. cleft sentence and r€verse pseudo-cleft.

pseudo-intransitive /,sju:dourn'trensrirv/ rdj. Denoring anintransitjve construction involving a labile verb which appean to beintrinsically transirive. Lrons (l%8).

pseudo-passive /sju:deu'pes / 4. o( adj. l. A label sometimesapplied to a passi\e construct'on in which the verb ir intransitiveand the subject is underlyingly the objecr of a preposirion: Iftir bedwas slept in by Gcorge Washingtona M! begonias have been trampledon bj the children; The erudication of disease has been drcamt aboutfor centuries. The subset of intransirive verbs appearing in thiscons(ruction is approximat€hr the class known as unergatives. 2. Seeimp€rsonal passiv€.

Ps-rule See phrase structure rute.

psychological reality /sarko,lod3rkl ri'ehii/ n. The putativecharacteristic of a grammar, or of a part of a gramnar, which isconsistent with *hat is known about human mental processes. Thebesl'known work addressing this issue is HaUe er a/. (1978).

psych-verb /sark/ r,. A verb expressing a psychological state, par-ticularly onc which, in English, is typically construed in the passivewith a following preposjtion other thar bt: be surprited at, bedisguste.t h'ith, be extited abo- , be iitercsted in Postal (1e71).

punctual /'p,\tktJual/ .!- or adJ. The asp€ct category expressing anaction or state which is confined to a single instant of time, as in theexample Hiuatt rcached the summit of E e/ert. The punctual is asubdivision of the p€rf€ctiv€. See Comrie (1976) for discussion.

purpose clause /'p3:pes/ n. An adverbial clause which expressesthe purpose of an action, such as the bracketed sequences in thee\amples Lba is learning Spanish [to improve her job prospects] alrdLislJ bought a ||o processot [so that she could ilork norcefficientbl.

purposive /'p3:p"slv/ n. or adj. A. case form occurring in certainlanguages which primarily expresses the purpose of an action. Sucha cas€ form occufs most noticeably in certain Australian languages;an example is Yidiny 'gu, as in yingu waguuja galing minyaogu'T\ftman is going out for meat', .Nhere minyaagu'for meat' is a pur-posive. Dirof, (1980).

pushdowt automatoD /'puJdoun/ r. (pda) An enension of a tuite-st&te autortrrlon equipped with a pushdown stack that permits thesystem to rcmember where to resume after a named subn€twort hasbeen tmvefsed. The nond€terministic pushdo*n automata acceptexadly the class of cotrtexl-free latrgusges. while the dererminis;cpdas acc€pt only the deterministic cotrterl-frE langusge6.

pushdovn stack /stek/ n. A computational device consisting of alinear storage spac€ in which any number of items may be stored.An item plac€d in the stack is said to be ,pushed' and must go on topof any items already in the stack; only the topmost iteh may beremoved flom th€ stack ('popped'), and hence the stack op€rates onthe principle of lasr in fust out'. Such a stack provide6 a convenienlway of handling recursion in languages.

225 Pushdown strck

ii

La-(_

(_

(_

(-

(-

ta

ctctcetQ

eeecC6Gc

227 quotes

quant i f ier / tsDntrf i r : ! / r . A determiner \rhose nleaning e..Fres\! \some nolJon ot quannt!r Dl/rn\. tots tti. liE.. rdrrt,. ro SoDr.analvsts regard quanrificrs as forming a distinct.ateson iiom d.rcrmrners, but rhis dist incr ion is ( t i icul l tu jusr i f \ i | s lnladic r ! I rr \ .

quantifier floathrg / fl)i)rrjl/ ,. The ph(n()menl)n in whtch .1 -tul ,tifier occur! lep:rftrtcd from rhc fril ol rhc noun phrase oi r hicir I,scmantical ly a parl . An e\ mptc is t tu sntdcnts hare at iarn.! :lhrch the quant i f i . r r / / l rxs f lo .d orTtheNpd nrcs ( i t , ! t r \ .

quant i fer rais ing i I r ( ;8. l nroccs\ $hich ;r posi ted al j occurr inrb e ' q , c n S ^ r r u ( r u r e a n d L . , u , , t t o , n . h ! $ h . ( h q u r F r i h ( r . J r . .4ssumcu rr he m.red t , , rh( lc| |nro.r f , ,^ i l ion In i , ,enr, .n.( . $h(rLthe) can be inierprded ar binding lariahtes in rhc senrence in nru.hthe samc sa! as do quanl i t icrs in prrdicate cahulus. For e\ampt.the sentence Lia (hann\ .r./r'rrlli has tbe I ogictrl fo .-lhert-bot l \ , I isa.r .r / 'nr e, . ;n rhich rhc quaat; t icr ex.! .A, jJ, t , : , .

quasi-copula / l \ rers r ,kop]t , t ! / n. A lc\ ical rerb \rhich l j rk: : r .-subje.t NP nr I rrominl l or ld jcdi l l l l predicate l .ur which. unt i t : ( ,t rue copula (such as r .) hrs rc l semantic conienr. of tcn aspectualmodal or perceprual: Stk, rcnaupd heuhh\,. .\h. grc,r nrcng(t \h.stood firm. lt w!11 \n,tp .\hr s.t,f;ut haprr: !:prcre(torilutu: I!tastes Eood: lt |tnk! n \intrlr n\k.

queclarat ive /k$1t lrr : l r ! / , An urrerance qh'ch has lhc form,, fa quest ion hut rhe force of n \ tatcnrcnt. mosr oi ien an cmFhatic orsarcaslic siatcment E\anrple\ tlho sp.tk\ potish around heret{meani.g \obod\ spcl l \ Pot; \h aroLrrd here ) i ts she LI. t . t l{meaning She ! c lcv( ' r ) i .Lr i / ,n ni .c? {rar iousl ! rneaning .1his is!ery ni .e or " l his i \n t rrcc ar r l t l . sa,r f ,k ( t9-t l

qu€stion / kweslfen/ n. One of rhc tradirionat s€nt€ncc tyFs.co4p\F\ndr,e ro !n uf i ( r . .nc, sh ch. rn nr incipte ar tea\r . .equrre\ i

, : r , \ , . . r t : * . e r t h - m o \ r r a m i t i a r r r p . . , "' \Vlr . : , " . r : , . : t ' \ ) ) . . , , , rp \ou tnlknig ' r ' ^r . ,

!,€s--no qu€stions Iike Do _yo! rnokp2. but other ryDes ex;sr. such asI\ this a snark or a boojum?

question mark /mo:k/ r. A conventional symbol indicatirg that lheerammatrcal ctdru\ or d(Lcprabrhiy of what fol lows is uncin.r in. : .that speakers carnor dccide or disagree unpr€dictabtv in rtrcirludgements. An example is ?t so|9 Janet whife enjoyin? he^elf.conceming shich differenr English sp€ak€rs either are uncenain ordrife. in their judgemenrs in a way that s€ems to be entireiv unor.drctahle in rerm. ol rherr geographrcal or .u;at bact grouna. i ncombinations :)? and ?* afc somctimes used to denore increasin!degrees of doubtfulness. Cf. pcr cent sign. Early t96G; the firsr Dubiisbed use was apparenrly rhat by Ctciimar (1965).

quotative /'kwrorarrv/ n. or ddl. An explicitly rnarkcd form occur-nng rn some langu3ges which expresses the facr that the speaker ll3snor fersonallv wirnesscd whar she/hc is describing but is quoti8gwhar someone else has told her,ftim, and

"trich is obtieato,v rn ,hi.

I h, tormrl ( \prc\ \ron or rhrs caregory v; f les qr l i - : rHirikanana lari is a parricle iorminS parr of the verification srstenr(see eridential) of lhal laneuage: Japanese roo dd is a specializedf,r(drr"re rdl ins r hnr ' ( c lau\r . as ( , ,mptemenr, Tr:rki .h zis s r\r ' i . , lat f i \ In.umc ldnguric, . rhe fomatexpresl ion of rh<,rLro.dt i r{ r . idenrrcJl lo rhat ' , t thc infer€nris l ; rhr\ is Inrc cfTurLish. Surnot of Hirrkar_vana or Japanese. The rcm quorauve N r@mmendrd blDahl {i985) from among rhe various rems fou.d in the liierature.

quotes /k$auts/ See inrert€d commsj.

GGrC\e\e(e- |IFJ

IIIIIITIttITTITTItIII

4':z-l:_-- L-t :

r.iritrg /'rerzt0/ n. Any of tarious Phenomena in which sotrte e : ::

Iinguisttc element app€ars In a hiSher clauss than is semanticalv r I '',

appropnatc. S€€ examples under $bjecr r.isiDg and n€grdYc v I ^

;lbi c | ':

rsisiDS verb r. A lerical verb or pred icale *hich tyPicauy appeats i! g I

t

a synlactic structure io whict its \urface subject is logicany or e I vremanticaily rhe subjecl of ils comPlemenl claus€ A familiat a I ^

€xaldple is r?eu: in Lird sc?ttls to b? haPpy. rhe \P Lad is *manri' v I :

csXy ihe subiecl of b. hrpP) but gammalically the subje(t ot seea. g I

rt

Otber rai5inS verb and predicates in English include appcaf k"d C = iiand be l*.ry. S€.t also sobj€d rEiC.g

g ! ererdlng i'ri:drB/ r. Orc of lhe Possible inrerPrerations t

"n C : 3a.obisuou8 strins.

i ! ,:readjoshenl i rite'd3^stmrnt/ See ruEuclorlng - a q

r€8lb /n'elts/ ddi. A lab€l occasronall) emPloved ro r"*r "

*'u i I '.1form tlpicaily ,rsea to r"fe, to an event

". , tot. n"t".l"tO ""

! I i

aciually oc(urring or baving occurred. and conlraslrng $'rth lrre'|ls; rL I <

see tbe remarki under that entrY C : €

rcalbttc gnnmar /rro'lrstrk/|l Any atlempl ar gaoEatical C I ir

;1.-"*trJfl:1,'i:''l'i'iJ.liHf "jif;

;,'i'",if.1"?illlllil;,$ta?proc€sses. : f :

rcdlzadon /rlelal'zetl0/ n. Any surface form which is regarded - ! I Yrcprcsenting sode more abslract slruclure. Panicularly wheo $e E - \'surtace fori i! siSnificsntly differeDt from the proPosed abstracl C I 3strudure. For exemple. tbe surface form ltonl is somebmes taren --I --to be a realization of lhe underlyitg sequenc€ pill nol.

I f X

T*f f,'l;:,:r'"Y :;.;.T',""#ffi;"';$ *'lil$ ;- ! ;:fi:1 ilff1;T :,i'ff [;1,'l]::ii:"';T,::$.'h::'ll?"ff 3i 3

:lt229 recurslon

vitl be easf Vor us to do /rdtj, leading to the innovating structurcFot us to do ttat ||iU he eds!.

recipient /rr'srpiant/'r,. The Frticipant mle borne by an NP whiche\pre$e. the (u.13{l} animaLe)enri t ) $hicl , recei!essomeconcreteor abstract object. such as a,.ra in I gave Lisa the book and Lisarcceived a [etkr. Recipient is one of the de€p cas€s recognized inCas€ Grammar, though it is sometimes €onflated with Goal or \rithBeneficiarl. or with both.

reciprocal /rr srpr.kl/ n. An amphor (sense 1), or a constructioninvolving such an anaphor, expressing the action of two entities ooeach other, or of severai entities on one another. The most familiarEnglish reciprocal anaphor is each other.lanet and Elrcy are nolspeaking to each other.

recognition /rekeg nrJ+/ /,. The task faced by an automaton ind€ciding whether someparticular string does or does not form partof some particul{r languagc. R€cognition does not necessarily in-!ol\e the assignment of a correct structure, or €ven of any structwe,to the string, and hence the 'recognition problem', as it is called, ispurely a matter of weak generative capacity. Cf. gen€ratiotr, and s€e

recov€rability constraint /rrk^vare'brlrti/ n. In some deriva-lional theories ofgrammar. a proposed constraint by which no overtnaterjal may be deleted ftom a tree in the mulse of a derivationunless it is explicitly recoverable from the resulting sulface

recurrent alternation /rr'k^rant/ r. An iDstance of allomorphyFhich affects a numb€r ofmorphemes in the same way. An exampleis the e/a altemation in Turkish, which aff€cts a number of mor,phemes id€nticallyi p]|uftl -kn-hr, dative -€l-a, locari\e'del-da,ablative -den/-dan, habitual e/ arand so on. Matthe*s 11974).

r€tcursion /rr'k3r3n/ r. The phenomenon by which a constituent ofasenl€nce dominates another instance ofthe same syntactic category;equivalently, the phenomenon by which the rules of a formal glarn-mar permit a category to have another instance of th€ same categoryas a descendant. Some simple ex^mplesi Lisa said that she u,ouldco,ne (S embedded Ultder S); the stoty ol my lrfe (NP embeddedunder NP); undel .fre bouEhs of an ancknt cypl€ss (PP emb€ddedunder PP); r/drled to learn Dutch (\? embedded under VP).Recursion is pervasive in natuml languages, and, in geneml, thcrc is

a{a

recursiYe language 230

(.--

L-t-f,, ; --r l , rt - i5. lcI i,-;r i :rr !9:i::i:c i:: i:c llC - . 3:!::!:: !:: i::i:e;!;e: !:

!a;!.t;:i 3:I::I::I;:i:i3:I 3Cil;

no pnncipled limit to the number of instances of rccursion whichmay occur within a single category: Im .eading a book about thereasorc for the detelopment of compute\ v,i h rhe capacity fo. high-speed manipulation of vinnt objects undq the cannot of users iirhno prcrious etpefunce of. . . Recumion is the principal reason thatthe number ofsentences in a natural language is normally raken tobe infinite.,4di. recurriv€; y. recurse /n'k3:s/.

recursive language /rr,b:slv/ r_ A fcrmal language for which analgo thm exisrs that will always determine whether an arbitrarvstr ing is in rhe ldnguage or not wrthin a f in ire bur unboundednumber of steps. The recursive languagcs are a prop€r supeGet ofthe context-sensitive languages.

r€cursively enumerable language / ,k3:srvti r,nju:rnorabl/ r.(also r.e. lsnguage) A formal languag€ for which a pro€edure existsthat will always determine whether an arbitrary string is in thelanguage, if it is, wirhin a finite but unbounded number of steDs.Failure ro obtain a posirive resulr wirhin a given number of sripsmay mean either that not enougb sreps have yet been perfo.med todetermine that the string isin the language or thar the string is not inthe language, but there is noway of deciding which. Th€ mathemar-ical linguist Robert Wall once informally characrerized r_e. lan-guages by saying 'If it's lhere, we'll find it evenrua]|y, but ir mighrtake a while-'The r.e. languages are characterized by rhe class ofunr€stricted grsmmars and arc accepted by Turing machines.

recursive transition netvork n. (RTN) A traDsition tretro*consisting ofa number ofsubnetworks, each labelledwith the nameof a syntactic category, and equipped with a pushdown stack whichenables the system to jump to a specified subnetwo.k and ro re-member where to retum to after traversal of the subnetwork iscompleted. RTNS constiiute an extension of finite-state transitionnetworks (see finit€-stat€ automaaon). Cf. augment€d transitiornetwork,

reduced clause hr'djurst/ n. l A sequence q,ith the disrributionand meaning of an adverbial clause but lacking both a subjed Npand a finite verb; ir typically consists of a relative adverb ard apredicate expression. Examples [When in Rome,) do as the Ronunsdo; Pkase make corrections lwherc necessaryl; Edison dbcoveredthermionic emission lh,hik working on something ebel- 2. A mslclaus€, particularly in sense l. N(Ei ihere is ar Fe

,

aa

231 reduplication

wheth.r or how the rerms .edu@d clau*' and small clae sho'id t'e

.educed relative claus€ n. Any of various constituents whichtunction like relative clauses but which lack both a rclative Dronounafld a finire verb. Fxampfes: 7&e wonan lwearing the uhle nini-r,tlA b Ltrd (an adrerbiol relative claus€); Neptunium was the frclafifcial element [to be cteated]; The fooerints lin the snowl werc

redundancy /r!'d^ndensi/ n. The phenomenon by which the sameilformation is expressed more than once in a single sentence orutterance. For €xanple, in the sentence I sau) Lisa yesterdal,lhep3satense markirg on the verb redundantly rep€ats the indicationol past time carried by the adverb ,erreldal. Redundancy is pervas-xe in natural languages; infonnation th€orists have shown that itrlluailr increas€s the efficiency of communication by helping to.rnruie that a message may b€ correctly understood ev€n when partsof it are not successtuIy transmitted. .4dj. .€dutrdsdt / 'd^ndant/.

redundancy rule r. Any rule of grarnmar which, instead of buildingstructure, places constraints on the rarge of possible structur€swhich may b€ built by the structure-building rules. The term is mostoften used in morphology, wberc a stalement like 'No English wordmay begin with more than three consecutive consonants' is called a'lerical redundancy rule'.

reduplication /rr,dju:ph'kerjn/ r. The morphological phenom-enon in which some morphological material is repeated within asingle form for lexical o. grammatical purposes. Reduplication is acommon phenomenon in the languages of the world, taking atariety of forms and s€.ving a variety of purposes. Malay, forexample, uses rcduplication for several purposes: adverb forma-tion (6dt* good', baik-baik 'we]d'), indefitrite pluraliry (b,rrda'Ao\9Er', buaga'bunga 'flowers') and yord formation (nuta "eye',mata-mata or memata 'polic€man'). C€rtain Iltin verbs form theirpe.fect stems by reduplication: can- 'run', perfect stem clcul/-.Chukchi d€rives c€rtain absolutive cas€ forms by reduplicationl,r&r€- tundra' (stem), absolutive nu@nut. Tagalog us€s redupli-catioo as pan of its verbal inflection: sxldt'write', future rusz&r,Turkish uses it to express 'and so forth': Ali-Mali 'i.]; and 6eotnets'. Yiddish-influenced American English uses it to expressdtsmissal: Jagualschmagxarl Unlimited reduplication catrnot bc

;4

reduplicative compound 232

weakly characterized by context-f.ee gramman; see Pu um (f984a)for discussion. y. reduplicste /fl'dju:plrke'r; ddi. reduplicative.

reduplicative compound /rfdju:phkettv/ n. A compouDd whoseformation involves r€duplication: M^lay mata-matu'Wliceman'(nutta'eye ).

Reed-KellogS diagram /,ri:d'kelDg daragrutm/ n. A graphicaldevice for indicating c€rtain aspects of the syntactic stmcture of asenlence. The conslruction of Reed-Kellogg diagrams ('diagran-ming sentenc€s') was a regular feature of the teaching of Erglishgiammar in Am€rican schools until about 1960. Such diagramsincorporate a mixtur€ of information about constituent structure,dependency relations and grammatical relations. A typical exampleis shown below, representing the sentence The polirc tapped the

fri+htened bwglar just behind the house:

reflexive

r€fer€nce tracking l'rr3ktrtl n. Any grammatical mechanismwhich permits the hearer of an utterance to rclrieve flom the formof that utrerance information as !o which enrity is being referred toat €ach point in the discoure. Foley and Van Valin (1984) dis-tinguish four major types of refercnce-trackiog mcchanisms: pivot/voice systemsi switch-reference syslcrls; gcnd€r syslems; and theinference systems of Easl Ajian la goagcs. This last t)?e of systemis hardly granmatical in nature at all, being characrerized primarilyby the extensive use of null anaphora and by heavy appeal tos{xiolinguistic conventions such as the us€ of honorifc forms. Seealso Comrie ( 1989) for a brief surnrnary of some major reference,tracking d€vices.

referent /'refrent/ 'l. The entity in the real or conceptual lvorldwhich is associated with a noun phrase in a pa(icular senteqce orutterance. For example, the NP Abrcham a,r.ol, would in most _(not all) cont€xts be understood as picking our a particular tall,bearded man who was bom in Kentucky. who served as President ofthe USA during the American Civil War and who was assitssinatedin 1865: this individual is the referent of thal NP.

referential index /,refe'rentl/ ,. (also ind€x) A notationaldevice, conventionally a subscript, attached to a noun phras€ in arepres€ntation of a sentenc€ in such a way rhat any single subscript,in any number of occurre nces, indicates ihat allNPs bearing it are tobe understood as having the same neferent. In the example Atershei aftiwd, Lisai asked herj to Bive he\ an account of herselfi, tbeindicf,s indicare which NP\ are to be raken as t'orcferenrial; adiffercnt set of indices could be attached to the same strinp of wordsto give a different in(erpretarion. In \ome frameworhs. ieferenrialindices are regarded as pan of the syntaclic representarion of a

referring expression /rr,f3:.r! rk'sprej0/ n. A noun ph_ras€which is understood as having some idenrifiable entity as ils

refledve /fl'flekstv/ a/j. l. Denoting a construcrion in which twonoun phrases are understood as having thc same refercnt, such asLisa wa*ed herself carcNly or Lba ptefers to do her own decorut-ina. 2. Denoting any grammatical form which is typically used insuch constructions, such as a reffexive verb lbrm or a reffexivc

, -

L1L,iri, :- l

ri

iiiiiiiiii

€

,

9gq,9

t

'J

-

rt

ia

?aa't' )

c2?

233

Appdently introduced by Cldk (1863), but modified and popdarized by Reedand KelloSg ( 1877).

refere[ce /'refrens/ n. The phenomenon by which some nounphrase in a panicular utt€rance or seotence is assoclated with someentity in the real or conceptual world, ils refercnt. Refercnce rs asemantic phenomenon, but its expression is often Srammaticalizedin important ways; see under refGl€nc! lrucking

reference-dominsted language /'dDmlnerttd/ n. A language m

which discourse factors ar€ regularly syntacticized in clause-intemalgrammar. and which consequenllv slructures claus€s in tefins of apivo{ (sense 2), which is normally th€ grammalical subject. Enelishis a reasonable example oI such a language. Cf. mlFaominga.dlrtrgulge, and refer to the rcmarks there. c-t

234

3!t

t

{

33

z'3

3

a.

a.?

a.a

?

n5

c4e:c.c-t ;L-e-L,c-ce

regular grammarrefl exiYe ab6olute tra$itiv€

rcflexive absolute transitive adr' Denoting the constructron In

*iicfr u" intnsi"ufly transitive verb is constru€d intransitively with

a reflexive sense: 'Si; un dressed: She is washinq See labile rerb'

reflexile Dassive n A .onsrtucr'on $hi(h hd' tl'e "€mdnlic forc{ of

" o".riu., Uur which has the apparenL surface form of a t'dnsilive

aciive construction wlttr the underlyin8 direct object appearing as

tlie surfacc subject and the direct obrect Posirion occupied.by a

reflexive pronoun. An examPle from SPanish is SlrJ nov€lar se

iublicaroi en Madnd'Ilis novels were published in 'Vadrid" liter-'"ii"

fit **ra seem) 'His novels published rhcmrelres in Madrid'

tnlti tt'ut puan or""'publishcd' is third Person plural' rg'eing

iiirr ,* "i*r"O.

Reflexive passivcs in fact Present considerable

Jrfliculties ot anatysn: cons;Jcr thc iuflher SPanish ernmplc S€ ''5

Jc[J'11'"" were aaus"d . in which the pronouo 1es them' siands

ir tfr" oli.ir f"t ""a

$te verb is third singular' and thc structur' of

the sentence is far from clear.

reffexive-Datlenl-subiect conslruction t The consrructron In'"ir.i

" ,i"".it;* veri has a patient as its subject and a stressed

;;;;;; p.."""" as its objtt: This car ptuctict r dives itselt'

llroff(197?).

ref lexive gronoun r ' A pronuun shr 'h r"u:t norn'dlh tJkc ns r l r'

".i.*a.ii *olr'"' noun phra\€ in rhe samc *nrenoe most often

lin i"sli.l'f tt'. .usi.o Ni of its ctause ExamPler are hefiPf and

ourceties. asn Lisa tooked at h?^elI in tie mi'rol In musrorcum-

srances in English. the use of such a renex've is obligatory lo exPres\

-J.t""* irtfti" a clause: the e'{amPlc Lira looL?d at het in the

rirlor, wilh a non-reffe\i!e Pronoun does nol permil corelcrence

d"ri" .""tt*o-^ ,re exceplional however: lhe s€ntence L;rd

set the book down beside lrl can have the same interPretanon as"i,""*"i"ii io.i io*, ouia" he.sery' A reflexive most usuallv

Jcupi.s un argumenr poi,tion rn rhe sentence bul this is nol so In-

.J,J'"ii*"ri*."rr..l intenri\e reflexive' s*h as Lko he*etf

Iti'i'^ii ti" ata, n-"ett The informal Enslish of manv sPeakerspermits a seemingty anomalous use of reflexives wilhout ant€'

iedens, as in Thi poper was wftet bv L:Lsa and mvself"'here

-"L*i i" +""t.i.'*ould require h't Li'o and me' s\tch

occu[ences a.e probably best regaroeo as n; true reflexives at all'

but as mere emphatic forms of pe$onal pronouns

regular i 'reqiulr/ adi Deoonng a grammsncal form or consltucton

w_hictr is eniiretv typical of lhe mo<t usual panem exhibited in a

er lr1cici

li;j

language. The term is not confined to morphology, but it is mostoften used there: one sp€aks, for example, of the Erglish verb loy;as a regular verb', since its inflection follows exactlv the Dattemc\hibited b) mosl English rerbs. /bsrr. r. regularity iregju;tarrri/.Cf. irregular.

regular expr€slion /*'spreJD/ ir. An eypression, consisting of asequence of categoriesl constnlcled by the use of concatemtiotr(ab), of union (a+b) or of the Kleen€ star (CA*).

regular gammar n. Any formal grammar employing the r€writ€rule formalism in which every rule has one of the forms A + a B orA + a, where A and B represent non-terminal symbols and arepresents a reminal symbol. Such a grammar eff€ctively generatessentences one word at a time, assigning in the proc€ss an untenableconstitu€nt structure. Here is a fragment of a regular grammar:

old Bhappt B,run c

drcnk Dhir E

cofee Fquietly

I

23

5678

10I It 2

S -

B +B +c-D +D +E 'E J

F -

Thanfts to rhe presence o[ rhe recursion permirted b] rule 2. rhispanrcurar [agmenr actua]ly generares an infinire number ofstrings.though the variery is sever€ly limited. The class of regular grarnminrs exacdy equivalent to the class of ffnite-sllle cramlnrrs. whichconsriture merely a notational uarianr employilng rhe graphicaldevice of traffition networks in place of the rewrite formalism . The5€l oflanSuages weakly defined by rhe regular grammars is a propersuDs€r or tbe set ot contfxr-frt€ linguages. Only rarely have regulargrammars b€en s€riously propos€d as grammaas of natural lan_guaB€s (on€ cas€ tring R€ich (1969)); ihe proof sketched inChomsky (1957) that regular grammais cannol weakly Senerateunl imited centre-embeddrng has usualty (wirh some t idt ing up)tteen regarded as sufficient lo exclude rhem from considerarion.NoE: the denoidon and rhe exampte aciualty rcpresenr rhe clN of .righr-

H

regul&r lsnguage 236

li..ar gramman , in which stri.gs arc gcnclalcd lrom lcft to nght; if the nFtt'?c of mle is replaced by the lorm A - B d. lhc rcsult ir a'leftline.rgrammar'. which senerates srinSs from riSht lolctt. The i{o da$esarcwcaklyequivalenr. burthe tsor}?€sofrule must not hc con'bined ir asinglcgrammar.or $e re.uh is no longer a regular Brammar.

regular |tnguage r. A language defined b! a rcgular gramnar; affnlte-stir€ lsnguage.

r.e. lsnguage /o:'ri:/ See recursiv€lJ cnumerable languag€.

relation hr'lerjn/ n. 1. Formally, a two-place prcdicate (sense 3).Elements of English which may convenieotly bc interpreted asrelations include ir t /er than, loves, is the fatltet ol and has visited.2. More generauy, any iineuistically significant connection betweentwo objects or classes ofobjects. Relations in this general sense areconventionally divided into two classes. sJntrgmadc and paf8-digmatic. 3. See grammaticsl relation. ,1d1. rela.ional.

r€lational edjective h'le'Janl/ |t. An adjective deriled from anoun which ha-s no semantic conlcnl b€yond that present in thenoun and which s€rves only to provide a form ofthe noun which canact as a modifier: telephonrc f.lJm rclephone an'J Glas$egun lromGJdsSo)r. In English, relational adjecli\cs are feN and lillle used incomparisdn with the frequency of compounding: we prefer to sayGlasgotr telephone system, rathe{ than Claswegian telephonic sys-,€n. Languages in which compounding is poorly deleloped. such asthe Romance languages and the Slavonic languages, tlpically makeextensive use of relational adjeclives: Spanish. for example, hasalimentaci'n infantil (literall,v . 'infantilc food') tor baby food ^ndnovela policlaca (literally, 'policical novel ) for detectiee story.

Relational Grartrmar n. (RG) A theory of grammar developed byDavid Perlmutter and Paul Postal in the 197{h. RG diffcn from allother approaches in taking $ammsticst relarions like Subject.Direct Object and Indirect Object as its primitives and in assigningno particular importance to constitucnt structures of the familiarkiod. The three relationsjust enumerated are distinguished as r.rmsand are conventionally labelled as 1,2 and 3. respectively. lnaddition to the terms, cettain other relations are distinguished'including oblique objects and the hiShlY original concept of a chGmeur (see below). These relations arc crucially ordered in theR€lctionsl Hierarchy. and most syntaclic oPerations are interpretedas the promotion and demolion of NPs along this hierarchy; for

237 relation-changing rule

example, passive formation typically involves the 'advancemen!'

(promotion) of a 2lo a 1, with the consequent demotion of theoriginal I lo th€ distinctive non-term status of a'ch6meur', a labelapplied to an NP which has been ousted from term slatus in thecours€ of an operation- The framework is, therefore, obviouslyderivational in conc€ption, in that a senteoce is viewed as havingdiffer€nt slructures al different stages (or'strata'), bua. in contrastwith what happens in transformational theories, the syntacticstru€ture of a senlenc€ is represent€d by a single formal object$lled a 'stratal diagram', in which all strala are depicted simul,taneously. RG represents lhe first major attempt at incorporatinggrammatical relations into syntactic theory; its influence has beenwidely acknowledged, but the framework itsell has now beenlargely supersed€d by other approaches, such as LFG, which, whileaccepting the importance of grammatical relations, also insist uponthe necessity of conslituent structure representations. Much of theearly work in RG reftained for years unpublished, but most of it isrow collected in Perlmutter (1983b) and Perlmutter and Rosen(1984). S€e Perlmutter (1980) for a brief introduction, Blake (19m)for a more substantial one. Arc Prir Grammar represenrs a distinc-tive variant of RG.

Relatiotral Hierarchy r. ln RG, a hierarchy of the principalgrammatical relations recognized in that framework. usually givenas follows:

Subject> Direcl Object > Indirect Object > Oblique > ChomeurAlmost all syntactic operations in RG are interpretcd as (h€ move-ment of NPs up and down this hierarchy, and much of the content ofthe framework derives ftom resfiictions placed upon such move-ment. The Relational Hierarchy has much the same form as theindependently derived NP Acessibility Hierarchy. and incoryo.ates some of the same insights.

relational stntcture n. The structwe of a s€ntence or a clause fromthe point of view of the grrdmaticsl rel|tioDs bome by the variousNPs in i t .

relational verb n. A transitiv€ verb which expresses a stativerelatioot hAve, involve, need, deserve, depend on Quirk cr a!. (1972:%).

relatiotr-changing rule /rr'lerJn ,t.ferndsr!/ a. In RG, anyputative syntadic oper:tlion which changes the grammatical relation

(.)

e-..2 - ,

; l

!l

iietcce;!;!;!;!:,r;-!

:i

ITII

-

t33It3

J

aa-

,.

??

2aa

2

a-

?

2aDa

a

1t

-

238

ureladye adverb

c--t-aaLtt

:icill:l: l: l: l: l;r;r;!;r;t;r-f

:_rr:-rl l:,1l,llrI-ri:r

239 result

bome by r particular Np in a sentence, such as the op€rationderiving a passive structurc fiom an active one. On orcasion, theterm is also us€d informally in frameworks in which the concepihasno formal status.

ielative advetb /'relerfv/ n. An adverb which serves ro introduce arelative claus€, such as lrlere and when in the street wherc | live ̂ ndthe day vhen I ft st met pu.

relative clause rr. A typ€ of clause, most often a subordinate clause,c,hich serves to- modiry a noun phrase. In Engtish and many orheilanguages a relatjve clause is usually a constttuenl of lhe nounpb"rase s/hose bead it modifies. but some tanguages emplo) quiledifferent lormal expressioDs in which this is n;t ,f," *.". n"fjtl""claur€s.are conventionally divided rnto two tFes, differing in theirsemantics and sometimes also in their formai expression.

-The fint

O?e is the r€stn:ciiv€ relative clause, in which rhe clause is essentialfor identifcation of ttre referent of the Np; an examnle is arsd irapplying for rlw job ll told her abou4. in which Lhe ctause idenrificst}|e job fu question. The second rype is rhe tron-r€sarictive relariveclause. tn which the clause merely adds further informarion aboutthe NP, without being required for identifrcarion, as in Lisa, Vhospeaks excelkn Frcnch,l is appb'ing for a job in parrr. For somediscussiotr of the variety of relarive clause constructrons rn tbelanguages of the world, see Keenan (1985b); see atso adjoinedrelstivc dause, con€lative clause, strateg/,

relative pronoun n. A pronoun which sefles to tink a relativeclause to the noun phrase of which it forms a pan, such as lrhr;c, and,iore in the eramptes 7 his Ls hc book ahici t tao! t?Iinp vou abourand Ant s .dent whose th",Ls is late Ai be p"nati.ed. Opinion isdivided as to whether rhe item dat, $hich also performs ihe sametunction in cases like lftrr rr the book that Lira wanrr. is bestregarded as a relarile pronoun or as d complementiz€r, wirh rhesecond view pe*aps predominating. See also relative adv€rb.

relative aeDsre n. A tense form whose temporal point of r€ference isdetermined by its syntactic relarion to an;theriense form, such asthe Engfish gerund: in examptestike Beforc leaving, she ctucked thehouse and Before leaving, ),ou' have to see tie ,oss, the rimereference of leaying is determined by its rclarion to lhe time refer-ence of the main clause (past in one cas€, future in the other). Cfabsolutc tens€. absolute-r€tstiv€ ieffe. See Cornrie 09g5a) fordiscussion.

relatiye universal n. (also statistical universal) A universal state_ment.w}ich holds good for the great majority of languages bur notlorall. For example, rhe statemen r .subject precedes Objict in basrcword order' holds for all but a tiny minority of languages.

Relativized A-over-A Principle l'rctai.tyatzd/ n. A modifiedvcrs'on of the A-over-A Constraint with improved coverase.R! ' \ 1an ( ! _ r r )

remote structure /fl maut/ n. In derivarjonal theories of Ammmar.a repretentatron whrch i \ Iar removed trom .urtdce rrrucr ire, of iensimplt lhe de€p structure.

RXST /o:r ir es ti:/ Sec Rerised Extended Standdrd Theory.restricted distribution hr st ktrd/ n. The property exhibited by

an itern which does nor occur in the full range of environmentitypically exhibired by members ot its ctass. For exarnple, theEnglish noun fteddpd) is restricted to occurring as the obje;t of the.erb muke: We\e making headway, Some head$ay hus been made:hul.Vp ' t"al ,n.rc h.al \ |at : .Wc v. a. :hipve(t \onp hpadwd\.Tlough mo\t ddjecr ive\ in Fogl i .h occur in borh atrnhul jve a;dpredicative position, some are resrrjcted to aftriburive positionlnajo. ke)'. topmost, mdin, rre'e). white others arc restricted topredicadvc position (61eep. afrunt, etltd, wtt).

restrictive / 'strrkrt ddl. Denoting a modifier (such as an adjec-rr \e or a relaI | !e clau\e I or an apno, i t , ! ( $ ho,e pre.encc i . ( \<entratr^r rdentrt)rn8 rhe referenl ot rhe noun nhrase. In rhe e\ampte r i .rpant\h r?ntcmatr in.4zer.r . rhe adject i \e gaair tr i . r tsrr icr[<compare rhc non-restricrivc pool in ny poor morher. For furrharexamples, see under r€lsti,e claus€ and appos ive. Cf. non"

rcstructuiing /ri: str^ktj.rrd n. (also readjlstment. ftanatysis) Insomc derivationat theories of grammar, any of various Dutarivcp'oce\\es posited a. appt!rng ro change rhe .ynlacr ic rrrucrure of asenrence, often in a seerningly somewhat ad rr. way, for thespecitic purpose of accounting for some unexpecrecl data. fbrexJmplr. rhe a( r i \ e \cnlence C",r?p Wa\hinl lon I \ teu Iu lh\ bp,4lhas a seemingl) uneypecred {ps<udo-rpa*t, , tn" pi *o, , t"p, i ib\ Ceoryc Wd\hin|ron. leading someinaty,r , ro prupo\e rhJr rherctrr( s lru(fulc (an Lrndergo rrsrructur ing rn Gcorye Uhhjt t | tonl l ' tcp! tnl lh i t bedl l . pcrm,l ing p.rs! !rzdr;n ro appt) norrnatr) .

result /rr'z^k/ r. (atso factitive) One of the uccD crs$ rccoqnr/cooi Case (;rarnm r. r(p, i .sr, !L ,r , j r , \ t , $hos!

r6ultative 240

t_

a_,_

,-

cc

,3

-

l rt:

l :I tt -

t:t:t:l .

.a

i -t ' 'iaiai3i"iaiai3iai.i.i.i.l.l.la

241 R-expressionreferent only comes into existence as a rcsult of the actioo of th€rerb, such as lrr:r ranrlrtion in Lisa did thit nat$lanon.

rcsEltative./n,z ltatN/ n. ,ot adj. An aspectual folm expressing astate resulting from an ea.lier event. fiis term is often reeirded ;s asFonym tor p€rfecr. but Dahl (1985) makes a case tor disringuish_ing.tbe rwo. He points oul thar English He a Sore and ne has-gone,oorn expresstng a presenl state resulting from an earlier adion.differ jn lhat onfy the first can accept the adv€rb sti : He is sti Bonevs. * He has still gone. Dahl proposes to restrict the term .resuttaiive,to the first form, which seems to focus more strongly on the presentstate, and to use perf€ct' exclusively for rhe seconrl, in which theearlier action appears to be more prominenr. (The first constructionis marginal in English, bur in.Swedish both constructions are tultyproductive.)

resumlftive pronoun /rt'z^mpnv/ n. (also shadory pronoun) l. Incenain t'?es of relative clause constructions, - or.n orooounwbich occurs within rhe relar i le clau5e in i rs. logical .posi l ion,instead of a gap. In English. resumprive pronouns are confined tothose cases in which rhe pres€nc€ of the more usual gap wouldviolate some islend coEtraiDt, as in the example That's the womonfttt I didn t know if she wot coming o, zar, in which sre is arcsumptive pronoun. In some oth€r languages, such as Welsh,resumptive pronouns are regularly used in most or alt rclativ€claus€s. 2. In a lcft-dislocrtion, the pronoun which occurs in thenon-dislocated pan of rhe sentenc€ ;nd is coreferential with thedislocated NP, such as rerin Lisa, I rcatfy hke her.

retained object /n'ternd/ n. A traditional tab€l for the underlvinsdirecl object in a ds.ive-shifted or r!,plic{tive consruc oninwiic;atrother NP has taken over ihe surface realization of a dir€ct obiect.panicularly in a passive srrucrure, such as rt r book in I was iiventhit book lor Christmas .

r€vcrse pseudo-clcft tr'v3:s/ n. A consrruction identical to aexcept thal lhe order of the two maior elements is

revers€d. Thus. the pseudo.cletr What t ne?d i! a oin; otbe hasthecorresponding reveBe pseludo-cte|t A pi of bei, i" ino, t

"""a.Revised Extended Stardard Theory ht\avdt n_ (REST) The

ve$ion of TraNformational Cra|nmsr current in rhe lale 1970s andderiving from the Extcnded Sr.ndfd fheory of a few yeals earlier.Th€ REST differs greatly from its immediate precursor; among its

major innovations are rhe following: (l) the introduction of Eacesrnto slrniactic representations; (2) rhe acc€ptance (in principte) ofthe X-bar syst€m as a theory of base rules; (3) an enofinous re_duction in the power of traosformational rules. with the wholeclankiog transformalional apparatus of earli€r years .educed to thesingl€ rule of Alphs Movement; (4) the increased aftention paid toformulating constrainls on rules, rather than fomularins th; rubsrhemselves: {5) the downgrading ot lhe earlie. surface structure andthe recognition of a new, slightly more abstract designated level ofrepres€ntarion called shaltos structure. !iewed a;rhe e(clusiveinput to the semantic rules; and (6) thc recognition of an entirelynew Ievel of repiesentation called Logicsl Form. No sinele Dubli_carron can be ci ted as rhe source of rhe REST, thoueh ahomskvt lq '1. lq77a) and Chom\ky and Lasnik t t97?l p.rhip a.. . -especial niention in this connection. ln the iiterature of thi time. theREST was often referred ro as the .EST', but a Ialer a€neration ofl ingui{s har usual ly seen rhe rwo framc\rorks as qui l ; dis l incr. Atthe beginningofthe 198tX. funher major modifications in the RESTIed to its replac€ment by the ve.y different framework ca edGoverDment-Bindiq Th€ory. S€e Newmeyer (1986) Ior someaccount of rhe historv of lhe REST.

rewrite rule /'ritrart/ n. The most usual formalism for expressing astru€ture-building pro€€ss in a formal grammar. In its most generalIorm. a rewrire rule;s simply an insrruction to rewrile some strins ofcalegories (convenlronalty given on rhe teft of an anow) as someother string ofcategori€s (on the right)i the only general restricrionis that the Ieft side may nol b€ null. Since, in the most qeneml case.any arbi trary,rr ing car ' he rcwrj | len as any other arbi fary srr ing.the derivat;on of a terminal string from an initial symUol cannot, ingeneral, be represenled as a (ree, but only as a sequence ofstrings,and hcnc€ the re\r,rite rule formalism is most appropriate to dis_cussrons oJ werk gmerative crpacity: consider,_for example, the'mpossibililv of interpreting rhe rute A B d E + d A C c E d as anunambiguous rree. Wben, however, sufficiently severc restrictionsare placed upon ihe permitted rules. the sequenc€ of srrings may bereplaced by the more informarive constituent structure rrees. This ist.ue of rhe subs€t of re*rite rules called contcxt-frE rutes. and.proyiding cenain precautions are taken, ir is also lrue of the lessrestncted subset €lled cort€xt-saNitiye aul6.

R-expression /,o:flk,spreJn/ ,. In CB, anv oven rmun pnrasewnrch rr not a pronoun ( in thc tradrr ionxl s.n\e ol rhat term). More

RG

r,a

l3 243 mkl rI : right.bmnching laquage ,l. A tanguage in which righr-branchio8; = construcriotrs predominate over left-branching ones. Mosr VSO andl1 SVO languages. including FnAlish. are righcbranching. Cf. l€ft_

precisely, atr R-€xpression is an oven NP analys€d as [-a, -p] andhe*e subject only to Principle C of the Binding Theory, namely,thar it be free (unbound) in all donains. Twical R-expressions areLisa, the dog, the last chapter of the book a.l,d lanet's cigaretks. "lhenahe is deriv€d from the phrase 'referring expression', used ins€mantics for the largest class of NPs, but the GB usage is notsyronlmous wi(h th€ semantic sense.

RG See ReLdond GrammsI.rheme ftilm/ r. A synonym for comrnent, prefered in the pbrase

' lheme and rheme .rhetorical question ftftDnkl/ ,,. A question which does nor

expect a respons€ from the ad&ess€e.right-branching /,ra1 'bro:nrJro/ n. A tlpe of consrituenr struc

ture in which modifiers and complements app€ar to the right of theirheads, so that recursion of these elernents shows uD in a treedia$am as repeated branching ro rhe right. English has a largenumber of such stnctures; the example below sbows the effect ofthe recursion of prepositional phrases inside noun phrases:

242

(

l: branchitrs latrgusge.

.1 righf dislocatiol n. A consrruclion in which some constituent: occurs at.rbe end-of lhe s€nlence, ils canonical posilion beiog- occupfeo Dy a prctonn: She s very ctev.r, Lrjr. Right dislocationsa are somerimes called afterthought conslrucrions. Cf. left dis-^ locrdo . R6 (1967).J

3 riShhnode raising |,. (also shg|.ed-cons1itu€nt cmrdlnsrionl Aa constructioD conststing of an apparent coordination of two sent rences in strich each senrence lacks irs rightmosr c.,nsliruenr. and a3 single funher consrituenr appears on thc right which is interpreteat2 as filling both gaps: L1da prcparcd. and Siobhan senert, the cucum.: bet sandwich?s . Right-nodeiaised consr rucr ions presenl formidablea difficulries of analysis.

? *"n, Roof Conshaint /rurfl n. (atso Rightwrrd Mov€mcnt3 Col'lrrht) The constrainr, in English and som;otherlanguages, by2 "hich

some element of a s€ntence which occ1lrs funber to rhe righr

; lhan irs expecred logical position cannol occur more than o-ne

r clause boundary to the right ot thar posirion. Thus. for exampte.? Thar[ 'uryrite! youl[that Li^ta smokesl it anLynS is we[.formed,

4, b.!t ' nw! lit sutptL'es youl lis amu:ind lthat Lird sn ot6l viotarest lhe Right Roof Conslrainr and is ill-formed. R6 | tq67).

! i 3 n*, n-rrp n. An op€ration upon srnngs. dehned as rouows: if ae i t tuncror category Xp of rhe form [xFX il is righr *rappea arounJe I e another caregory Y. qhere X and y are single etemcniiand W is a. I Z tPossrDly emptvl \lnng. lhe result is the string X Y W. Right wrapi I : wcs defined as a way of deaiing with c€nain rlpes of aisco-ntinuoos€ i a coostituenG- such as thos€ i usrralcd in p?6uaded Lba to leav?,

t | 2 ;?{:{::',;^:l',ii::,f'_i;:,f ::: [:-]flliT'::fi:::lS i e Gramnar. bur it has sometimes been extended to other sy;ems.

S | ? notuutr Hrsc'

C ! . "ot"

haoll n. Any of vanous semanr'cally or pragmatica y basedr I - -:'- or Pra$raucary oaseaC. I a tunctions ascribed to some element in a sentence or an urrerance,

;{ a i"il}x'1,,:",:l:it'"ffi *:T:lilHfff :ff:'fj;::.:;1c+ac-JJ

Der N'

N P P

I -,',\. , . . \

] P N P

c

Ltt

| ,,,'\I N P P

P

INP

IDarwinof his

Rolc-and.Reference Grsmmer

grammai, but several others exist, espccially in thf various kinds ofii{ctloDd garmtnrr (aI senses), such as rctor and undergoer.

Role-and-Referencc Grammat z. (RRG) A theory of grammardeveloped by William Foley and Robert Van Valin in the 198&,incorpolatirg a number of insights gained by functionally orientedfinguisls. RRG is a frrnctionsl grammsr in senses 1 and 2 of thattcrm; it is formulaled in terms of the communicative purpodes whichnced to be serv€d and lhe grammatic-al devices which are availableto s€rve those purposes. Arnong its distinguishinS characteristics area variety of lexicrl decompcllion based upon the Montague-stylepredicstc semantics of Do*ty ( 1979), an analysis of clause structurein tcrms of hycrlng (sense l), mapping from 'logical' struclures inromonostratal syntactic repres€ntations and the use of a set of p.nici-p.!rt roles o.ganized into a hierarchy from which the highest-.arling available role in a clause assumes the special superordinateaole of ac,tor and a s€cond argument. if present, may assume thesup€rordinate role of und€rgoer. RRG is unusual among theories ofgmmmar in the exlent to which it is slructured to provide equaltreatment for the grammars of languages which are very differentfrom English: such phenomena as non-configurationality, verbs€rialization, split ergativity and switch-reference systems receiveanalys€s which are no iless natural than analyses of the facts ofEnglish. Like most functional theories ofgrammar, however, RRGhas (so far, at leasl) received comparatively little formalization. Themost comprehensive pr€senialion is Foley aod Van Valh (1984);convenient b.ief inttoductions are Van Valin and Foley (1980) andVan Valin (191).

rol€domitrated language /'reol ,dDmh€rtrd/ ''. A languagpwhich lacks a consistently identified grammatical pivot in terms ofwhich clauses ar€ organized, sometimes regarded as a signifcanltt'pological category. Cf. rcfcr€ncedonimt€d langutge. vafl vdinaDd Foley (1980).

rfr.lrlr;tl n.1. A node in a tree which has no molher. Only one suchtrode is normally p€rmitted tc o€cur in a tree, as required by th€Single Rooa ConditioD; in mosl frameworks this is always the node S(for 'sentence'), though trce-adjoining gramtrrals recognize theexistcnc€ of a set of auxiliary (non{erminal) tr€es with other rco6.2. In morphology, the simplest possible form of a lexical motphema'upon which all other bound and fre€ forms involving that trot_pleme are based. For example, the Latin vetb meaning 'love' has

rulc orderlag

the rool on-, from which are formed lhe various stems, such aspresent azu- and perfect amdr-, which in tum scrva as bases for theconstruction of inflected forms like omot'he lovcs' and dzuyj 'I

have loved'. Simjlarly, the Arabic verb meaaing'write' has thetdconsonantal root t/b, from whicb all other forrr|! arE derived byvarious layers of afixation. Cf. steD, bs3e.

murd brackets /,round 'brektts/ See poreort€.a.

RRG See Role-and-Ref€renci Crsmms..

RTN See recursive trUrsition networt.

rule /ru:l/ ,,. Any sra|emeot expressing a linguistically sigtrificantgeneralization abour the grammatical facts of a paniclrlar larguagc,especially when formulat€d within the formalism of some particulsrformal description. The notion of a grammatical rule is oda ofthe most ancient conceptions in gamrnatical iovestigaiion. Mo6tmodem theories of gmmmar draw a sharp distinclion in prirciplcb€tween generalizations. which ar€ expressed by rulcs, aDd too-general facts, which are express€d by other m€ens, notably bykxicrl enEi€s in the leric0[. There is considerablc cont ovetty,however. over jusl where the line should be d.a*n, and one of tlnmost conspicuous tendencies of recent work has been the stctdymovement of statemeots formerly €xpressed by rules into the lcxicon. For some discussion, s€e under SaDcrrlizrtioo, and 3€e a&opsrtfuly produc{ive aDd Eetrfulc.

rule-governed adj. Denoting th€ pr€sumed property of humealinguislic behaviour by which most pbenomena can be readily seena5 instanc€s of the ioteraction of a relatively small number ofgeneralizations expressible by ruies. The view of linguistic behav-rour a5 rule-govemed is pervasive among grammarians, in whosefo.mal d€scriptions rules play an accordingly prominent part.Objections have often b€en rais€d by those who prefer to s€elinguistic behaviour as more 'creative' than rule-sovemed. brt suchnbj(ctrons are more lyp'cal ol non.linguists tha;t linguisls.

rule of construal See coDslrual, rule of.

rul€ orderlbg l'.tda \/ 4. In a derivational theory of grammar,any convention or stipulation by which some rule or rules mustapply before others in the course of a derivation. In the carlierrersions of TC. rule orderine was a major issue, but in cB itsrftponance has been gready reduced: rhe only significant orderiog

244 245

* ;

cie-l

e-it ,t ,

cL,

3333I3-

I

a,aooo,a,a\.

c:?i?1l(aia\.

iaoiaiaiairceia?

rule schema 246

e-t ,

L,t

LLLtt

13

oe,3et

e3I€

I.ae,aG,3o333J

???3

requirement is the piinciple of the tramformational cycle, apartfrom rhe sripulalion that cerlain rules. such as auaDdftr Rrliitrg,apply only in the derivation of I-ogical Form from S-structure. In aDoD-derivational framework, the issue does not even arise. S€eextrimic and intriDsic rulc ordering.

rule schema /'ski:me/ (pl. schemats /ski:,mo!te4 n. Any state-ment which collapses two ot more rules of granmar bv means ofsome abbreYiatory conventiod.

rule-t4-rule h''pothesis /har'pDees6/ n. The doctrioe that everyrule of s!,ntax that builds structure should b€ matched by a emarticrule which interprets that structue. The idea was inEoduced by thelogician Richad Montague (1970); it is accepted in certaio cllrrenrtheories of grarnmar, notably GPSG, but is rejected by most others.

ee

III

S 1. The conventional abbreviation for seatence (senses 2 and 3) 2.A conventional abbreviation for subject in the 'subject verb -object'

analysis of basic word order t}?es- 3- A conventional abbreviationlor ' in lransir i \e subiecl in the SAP anal ls i ' .

sandhi /'sendi/ n. Any of various phenomena in which the form of aword or morpheme is modified bl, the presence of an adjoining wordor morpheme: lroald + ]ou + ['wud3u:]; Latin /€8' 'king' (stem) +-r (Norninative) + /€r (i.€., re&r). saBknt elammar.

SAP /es er 'pi:/ A tdpartite classification of the principal NPargumenis in transitive and intransitive clauses. An intransitiveclause is viewed as having a single argument, the subject (S) Atransitive clause is seen as having two arguments, the agent (A) andthe patient (P) (or in some v€rcions th€ ob.i€ct O), either on€ ofwhich may be identified with S for grammatical purposes, producirgeither an accusstive pattern (A = S) or an ffgative pattern (P : S)Dixon (1972).

S-bar /es'bo:/ r'. The conventional label for the category whichforms a camplement claus€, such as the bracketed sequence in theex mple Lba said lthat she would comel. An S-bar tlpically consistsof a complemeotizer and a sentence. Originally, the name wasinlended as a purcly ad ftoc label: S-bar was not considered to be aprojection of the category S within the X-bar system. In recenlyears, however, the category has be€n reanalysed in vadous wayswithin various fram€works. In GB, S-bar is now identined with CP,the maaimal projection of tlle lexical category Complementizer. IoGPSG, all three of VP, S and S-bar are rcgarded as V-double-bar,the maximal projection of the category Verb, with additioml fea-tures being invoked to distinguish them. LFG, itr contlast, con-tioues to rcgard th€ category S-bar as having no particular relationto any other category.

Scde-and-Category Granunar /,skell and 'kategri/ t. Anearly name for Systamic Grar nar. Halliday (1961).

t1

iiii;r;r:r

i!:_tl-t

$ai!

S-commatrd 248

$coomand /'eskomo:nd/ ,- One of rhe commard relstiotrs, the6rst to b€ identificd. It srates'A node A S-commands another nodeB iff the lowest S which properly dominates A atso property domi-Olte6 B'. ri8acler (1969); onginally sinply @tM.!d.

aoF /skaup/ n..That ponion of a panicular sentence which isiltcrpreted as beiog affected by an op€rrlor present in that seo_Lnce, such as a quantifier or a negative, For example, the sentenceEvcrybody loyes somebod) has rwo distinci interprctations. In oneof them, the scopc of ronebody lies within lhe scope oI everybod!,rnd the sentence can be paraphrased a! .Everybody has somebodyor orher rhat she/he loves: in lhe orher. the scope relations arircvcrs€d, and the senience can be paraph.as€d as.Ther€ is somepanicdar individual whom everybody loves'. This is an example ofa 'scope arnbiguity . which can arise whcn ruo or more scoDe.b€aring elemenls are presenl in the \ame sentencc.

Earrmbling /'skremblt0/ n. In some analyses wirhin derivationalthcones of grammar, thc purarive prooess which is responsible forthc surfac€ ordering of elements occu.ring in s€nlenc€s in languageswilh frcc wo.d ord€r. Nev€r adequately formalized, th€ idea basbeln Seneraly abandoned in more rec€nl lheories of grammar,lhough the term is still oc.asionall) used informally to denote freeword order in general. Ros (l%7)-

secoDdafy object /'sekandri/ ']. (S0) The dired object in aditransitive clause, in circumstances in which rhis is treated differ-eDtly trom a direct object in a simpl€ transitive clause, this latterb€in8 treated like the iodirect objed in a dirransitive clause. Cf.Prl|rr ry obj€cr and s€e the discr4sion there. Drre. {1986); lhe tem'sut'.idilry object is al$ rourd.

sccood person /'sekond/ |l. Thar cat€gory of persor which includesreference to the address€e. but not refercnce to th€ sDeakerEnSlish uses only the s'ngle pronoun}'otr in this funcrion, thoughother languages often have more elaborate sysiems of second-person forms, such as European Spanish, with its four-way distinc-tion among alU, wted, vosotros ar,d ustedes; these forms variouslycontrasl in both number and inlimacy.

selection(al) restriction /se lekJan(l) rr,srrkjd ,r. Any of vari-ous semantic constraints reflected in the ability of lexical items tocombine in syfliactic structures. For example, *hlle Lita wruppedthe box of chocolates in tissue paper is we\c.ptional, the sFtacti-

c lly idenric l +Lba terapped the oftit of Neptune in tisl,ue paper iss€mantically bizarre trecaus€ it violates a s€lectional restrictionholding b€rween the verb ,rap and irs obiect. Astoundingly, rheserestrictions were for a few years in the mid-1960s regarded ass!,ntactic facrs to b€ expressed in gramman; most theories of 8lam_mar no long€r attempt this. Cf. sub.atego.i,i.arion. Katz and Fodor(r%3).

s€lf-€mHding /sel9 n. Thc phenomenon by which a category iscontained within a larger category of the same t'?e, such as an NPwithin a larger NP; see the examples given lmder rcc|rrion.

semantlx /sa'maotzks/ n. A oame sometimes given to syntar ands€mantics taken together, when they are regarded as a single unifedarea of investigation, as in C€Eerrtive S€mantics. The term is now

semantic form /$,mentrk/ n. In LFG, any lexical item that coa-tains the value PREDicate in ils lexical €ntry. A s€mantic form thatsubcategorizes for one or more functions is a lericd tontr,

s€maotic fulctiotr S€e scorniic role.

semaltic network r. (also sdsocirdve netrort) A network o..directed graph which is given a particular semantic interprelatios.Nodes repres€nt conceprs and arcs represent relations betwc€nconc€pts.

s€mandc role n. (also deeD crse, s€lrrDtic fl[.tioo, ftett role) Anvone of sev€rai s€matrlic relations which a noun phrase mav bear inrts claus€. classified from rhe point ofview of !h€- involve mint of theenrity denoted by that NP in rhe situation express€d by the cbus€,independendy of its grammatical form. Among the most widelyrecognized are Agenr. Palient. Exp€rietrc€r. necipieni. fiemJ.Beneficiary. Insrrumenr. Coal. Sourc€. plac€, Time and path; lhefirst few of these, denoting the more obvious particiDaots in asituarion. arc sorheiimes caled perticiFrt rd€. Simantic roles areftindamental in CEc GrrmDrr, where tbey are known as daqlcts€s; they are also important in GB (where they are kno*n as tlctrrol€) aod in many versions of forctiood g..DDrr (s€ns€ 2). cnibcr(1q65): rbade prcni.enr by FiI.loE (1 8).

s€I||rndcs /sa'm€ntrkJ n_ Thc branch of linguistics daalitg ,ill ttameanings of words and s€ntences. The telation bctrccn eyata uras€mantics and the location of tbe dividing line bct*€od thom bflc

si9r

ilelc-lt lcleI

;i:r:r:r;r:r:r:I:I:I:r:r:J:J

=

3ttttt33

-

-

-

3aa-

at?ta?aaa6

aa€

a,a???.a

249 lemantics

semelfsctive 250

a-v-c-, 251

i

-

a33a!t

C1a

.t

?

serial Yerb construcdoD

lons been matters of conlroversy. Several extreme posilions have

beJn maintained. One, associated with G€De'ativ€ semanti€' holds

that syntax and s€mantics are not distinct at all- bul constitute a

unificd ar€a of invesligation Anothe., associaled. for example.

with the Stsndord Theorv of TG' holds that lhe two are sharply

distinct, with syntactic structures being primary and the semantics

serving only to inlerPret s lnlact ic struclure\ ' A lhird atguably

r.pr."int.d by .ot. n.rsion: of functional grammrr (\ense l) and

of cogtritive $ammar, is that the tr{o are distinct but that the syntax

serve; only to realize underlying semanlic slructures Most linguists

rodav would probably ad\€ale some kind of intermediale position

in wilrch lhe rwo areas are distinct and makc indeP€ndent rcquire

ments but in which the dividing line is somewhat blurred ard each

area c:m have effecls upon the other- -Adt semsntic /se'mEntlU'

Breal (1911).

semelfictive /sem.l'fekn\l n. or adi. An 8.speca category express-

ing an action orevent which is perceived as hapPening exactly once'

as in one reading of the exzmple Lba sneezed. The s€m€lfactive is a

suMivision of Perfcclive aspect. Few languages seem to emPloy a

disiinctive form for this function. though Hopi is possibly one which

r;etltence /'sentens/ '' 1. Traditionally' any utterrnc! or wntren

sequence of words which is regarded as c-apable of standing alone to

exirer" a cohereot thought 2. In generalive grammar' the synlactrc

caiegory *hich is raken as the targest calegory caPable of syntaclic

ctru.'aai.fuatoo, all ot its componeDt pans t'eing bound together by

the rules of syntar and its entire structure being w€ll_fonDed; in a

fiamework €mploying the rcwrit€ rule formalism, the category is

repr€sented by th; dtisl symbol S ll is importan! to undentmd

th'at a sentence in this linguistically central s€nse is an abstract

linsuislic obiecl; cf utrrance ln the X_bat syslem the cateSorv S is

vaiouslv resarded as rhe maximal projection of the lexicalcategory

VerU 0tre C-PSC anatysis). as the maximal Projectron ofthe absract

lericai cateson INFL (the GB atralysis) or a5 a Projeclion of no

catesorv al;lithe LFG analysis) The structutal definrtion of lhe

.u,.io." ..nt.n""' was introduced by Bloomfield (1933) 3 ln a

,*i.,i'. ,,-.,ur., "ny

constituent dominated by the initial symbol

S'l a clsusc.,l In the oxymoron 'ill-formed s€nlence" an illjorm€d

structure which approximates to a sentence and which typicelly

departs from well:formedne$s only in one or two identifrable r€s_

t ,L.eecccec(

eacccc

pects. 5- In a formal grammar, any 6ilritrg which is generated by thegammar. Adt. s€ntetltid.

sentence rdverb n. A lexical item tnically having the approxirnatedistribution, and often the form, of an sdverb, but behavinc s€man-tically nol as a modifier of the verb or VP brr r.

"n op.."L, upon

the entire proposition. Sente..ce adve,b.s in English variously cx-press distinctions of modality, .valuation, illocutionary forcc andperhaps other notions; examples ioclude possirly, cc4ainty, un-doubtedly , hopefuIt, lonunatety , frankty, confidentially and brizfly.There is a case for recognizing sentence adverbs as a distioct lericalcategory, but they are more usually regarded as specialized meD_bels of the category Adve.b.

s€nt€uc* q/pe /tary/ n. One of th€ lour tnditional class€s ofs€nteoce, in a classification which attends only to surface form andnot to discours€ function, the four t,?es being strt Ee|rtr, oon-mrDds, questioDs and erclsmrtions, conventionally associated withthe four Dood categories declsiitive, iEFrrtive, inteNgrdve atrdexdredivc.

se ertid relatiye daus€ /sen,tentJv D. A relative clause whoseanrccedent is a complete s€ntellce, as in the ex&Ifle Eryland hav.beaten the West Indies, which anuzes me.

sententiol subject n. An S-bar which occupies the subjcct pogitionin its claus€, as in the ex allple lThot Lisa hat quit smoking,l ;wprise,

S€naetrtirl Subject CoDs-araint n. An iCrnd colitrtat whichstates that a WH{epend€ncy may not reach inside a s€ntentialsubject, as ilfustrated by the e$'nple.Who doet Uha Lira saw e intownl sutprise !ou? R8 (r 7\.

S€qUenCe Of teN€s /'sirkwens/ n. The phcnomenon, occurnng rnEnglish and some other languages, by which the tense of a fi;it€verb in a matrix clause places constraints on the tense ofa Rnite verbrn a complement clause. In English, tbe rule is simply that a pasttense in the main claus€ must te follo$ed bv a Dast tense in thecompleEent claus€: Lrrd says she wans a'BM'iy; Lba said shewantzd a BMWi but ?'l Lisa said she h,ants s BMW-

serid verb cons-truction /,sreriel/ r. (also ye serializrtion) Aconstruction in which wbat appears to be a single clause sernanti_cally rs expressed s),Dhctically by a sequence ofjultaposed separate

shadow proDoutr

verbs, all sharing the same subject or agent bul each wilh its ownadditional arglments, without lhc us€ of ove.t coordinating con,iunctioDs. Here are two examples. from the West African laDguage!Yorirba and Vagala, respectively:

6 mf iw6 wdhe took book came'He brought the book.'

n kpd kiyza€ mdng 6wlhe take knife cut meat'He cut the meat with a knife.'

Serial verb constructions are particularly common inwest Africa, ioeastem and southeastern Asia and in New Guinea. See Sebba(1987).

shadow protroun /'JEd.rul See nsumptiye pmooun.

shrllow structure l'leleol n. ln the Revised Ext€nd€d StitrdrrdThcory, a d€signat€d level ofsynractic repres€ntation *hich followsthe application of all transformations but prec€des the applicationof del€tion rules and filters. The S-struclu.es of GB are roughlyequivalent to the shallow structures of the REST.

sbsted{onstituent coordilation /Jced/ S€e rightnode r'ising.

Bhort passiv€ /.1.:t/ see lg€trtl€ss psssive.

rlmple sert€lce /'slmpu n. A traditional latr€l for a sentenceconsisting of only a single clause. The term simplex sentehc€' isoccasionally found in more recent work for the same notion. Cf.c trpoodd ltenlenoe, complcx sentencc.

slrnoltancousdistrlbudve coordination /srmel,temias dI'smbjutN/ n. A construction involving two coordinate s$uctur€swhos€ conjuncts are erplicitly paired off in ordert Lisa and larry&ank $'hisky and blandy, rcspectirely . Kac .t at. l\987).

Slngh Mother Condltion /'srogl/ n- The requirement that eachDode in a tree, apan faom th€ root. should have exacdy on€ molhcr.Thc Singl€ Mothe. Condilion is almost univelsally accePted ingenerative gmmmar, but sea SamFon (195) and Mccawley (f9E2)for argunlents against it. samFon (195).

Sbgb ltoot CordtdoD ,. The requirement that a tree should havcex..dy one rma (sensc l). This condition is univenally accapted.

slash

singufar. /'srggjule/ n. or adj. ln a language with distinctions ofnumber, that number category which is normaily employed to referto a single entity in circumstances in wfuch entities can b€ dis-tinguished and count€d. Th€ singular is overwhelningly themorphologically sirnplesl form in such languages, as iilustrated byEnglish crr, child, bot, compzrcd with th€ conesponding pluralfofins cats, chidren, bot"r. Cf. plursl.

sister /'s$tel r. A relation which may hold between two nodes in atree. lf a node B and a node C are both immediately dominat€d bythe same node A (in other words, A is the mothcr of both), then Band C are sisters.

sister-adjunction n. In ce(ain derivational theories of gmmmar, at}?e of rdjumtion in which the movingcategory becomes a sister ofanother specified category. In the abstract exampl€ below, lhemoving category D becomes a'right sist€r'ofE:

e1

zl9-r;liic;cltICTtlcl: l:t:ri!:rii:r:_r:r:t:-r:.Ilrs

2s2 253

!

arta-

-

-

I?aaaeaaaaaeaaaa

? 9+l lD E

B C

E D

Sister-adjunction was widely enployed in classical TG, but it is notrccognized at all withio GB, in which Chomsky-sdjunction is theonly permitted form of adjunction.

slash /sle.f/ r. 1. In GPSG, the feature which appears on a node toindicat€ that a gap is pres€ntsomewherc in the domain of that node,the value ofSLASH in a particular iostance reprcsenting the tt?e ofgap r€quired. For example, the abbreviated featue specificationVP[SLASH NP] represents a VP containing a 'missing' NP some-where inside it; such a node lab€l would appear, for exampl€, on th€VP node in the sentence Who did Jou re??, in which the VPb€eiming with rsa lacks ao NP io object position. The use of thisfeature represents the normal GPSG manner of handling ffIer{rpdep€ndscies. 2. (also solidus) A notational convention often Usedto abbreviate two or more examples of data which differ only at asingfe point. An ex?rmple is Lbai set ahe book down beside hzh!tatreli, abbreviating the two s€ntences Lisai set the book down

€

254

(-<sLsh crtegory

beside he\ and Lisai set the book.lo',rn beside heffdn. Th€ slash inthis use is a tlT,ographically simpler altemative to braces (sense 2).

slssh crtegory n. ln earlier velsions of GPSG, a tlpe of derivedsyntactic category rcpresenting a familiar category containing a gap.An example is VP/NP, representing a VP node containing aq emptyNP position. In early GPSG, such a caregory was regarded asdistinct from the category VP, but in aI mo.e rec€nr formulations,the category VP/NP, now represented as \?[SLASH NP], is re-garded merely as a VP carrying a panicular feature specification.

Slash Principle a. In GPSG, a principle proposed ro account for anumber of island consn:aints. Th€ principl€ says that a SI-ASHfeature specification appearing within a category must a$pear alsowithin a head daughter or a complement daughrer. This principleaccounts for the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Islatrd Cotrditiotrand parts of the Complex NP Constraint.

slash ter:minatioD /t3lmr'nerjlv n- In GPSG, any proc.idure whic\is employed to place a lower limit on the downward spread of aSLASH feature through a tree and thereby to guaraniee that thelower element involved in a SLASH dependency is preseDt in asuitable position. Slash termination is usually done by metarule,though other devices have sometimes t€en employed, srch as IDrul€s-

slifting /'shftq/ n. The const.uction in which a complemed ctauseprecedes its matrix claose: Lita b coming, l rba&. Ros (193a):'S(enteo@)-lifiibg'.

sloppy identity /'slDpi/ r'. Any of various instanc€s of d€I€tiorudder ide ity in which tbe deleted material is not strictly iderticalto t}le overt material supponing the deletion. Examples includeluliet has quanelled vlith het boyftiend, and so has Flaminia(in the reading of'. . .quarreled with Flaminia's bo''friend') andThe nngleader l{'as hanged and hb lolloweri imprisor,rd. RN (196?).

slot-and-filler /,slDt end 'file/ adj. Denoting an approach togrammatical charact€rization which employs substftutbtr herr6 asdiaSnostics. A series cf, such frames is constructed, each cotrtafuinga single gap or 'slot', on some convenient, if usually tuther ad hoc,basis, and items ale claBsified on the basis of their atrilitt to 'fill'particular slots. ThD.s, for example, the fuame Thi new - is8ood eight se e kr i+*ify the class of nouns, while ,-l: ir F?odmight serve to idefldry;lhe class of noun phrases. Slo{-md-filter

255 SOV language

approaches represent a development of the distributional emphasisof American structuralism; the best-known framework employing itis Tagmemics, but the single most ambitious attempt at using it tocharacterize the grammar of English is represented by Fries (1952).w]lile most linguists would probably agree that a sloFand-fiilerapproach can occasionally be useful as a heuristic device, few if anywould detend the approach as a promising basis for a theory ofgramrnar.

sluicing /'slursrt/ ,'. The construction ir which most of an embed,ded WH-question is deleted under identity, as in Someone is sweeton ,"ou, and I can tell fo! )',ro. Ross (1e69).

small clause /smr:l/ r. l- Any of various constituents resembling aclause but lacking a finite verb, pa(icularly a participial relativeclsus€. an adverbial participle or a gerund. Examples: The womanIwearinq gk\rsesl stood up; [Wanting to make a good imprcssion,]she chose her ouft carefutly; ILisa's soing toplessl upset her farht.See reduced dause, and r€fer to the remarks there. williams (19?5). 2.A sequence of an NP in objective case and a following predicate,when this is considered a constituent. Examples: I consider [he/inteltigentl; I watu Aou in ny oflicel; She o ered lthe rcom to becleane ; She nade Ius do ttl. The aralysis of such scquences asconstituents is accepted in GB but rejected in most orher frameworks. including GPSG and LFC. stowell(1981): Chohsky (198t).

SO /es'eu/ Sec secondary objecr.

solidus / solrdcs/ See slash Gense 2).

source /str:S/ n. The s€maDtic role borne by an NP which expressesthe start point ofmotion in an abstract or concrete sense, such as lremountain in We walked do||n frcm the mountuin and The mountsinbegan to spew out clouds d/snlot?- Source is one of the deep casesrecognized in Case Grammar.

SOV language /es eu 'vi:/ r. A language in which thc normal orderof elements in a sentenc€ is Sub.iect Objecr-Verb, such as Japanese.Turkish, Basque or Quechua. SOV languages universally rend toshow certain typological characteristics. such as postpositions, casesystems and left-branching structures in which modifiers (evenrelative clauses) preced€ their heads, as was first pointed o t byGre€nbers (1963).

L-(

LLf{.

te6

!i!l

il.-l

il

ct

sPecifier 256

c-c-e- -' 257 lqubh

specifier /'spestfale/ n. [n some versions of the X-bar system' a'co"er

te.m_ fot any category which occurs as the daughter of a

maximal projection ard the sister of a one_bar projection and which

sefles in some (often tather illd€fined) s€nse lo delimit the range of

applicabitily of the maximal Projecdon Convenlionally' deter-

minen ari regarded as the specifiers in noun Phras€s' degree

modifiers in adjective phrases and Prepositional sPecifiers in pre-

Dosirional phrases: llthesel old clothcsl. llvervl proud ol her sut'

cessl.llstriienl inro ne nokl. Tbe identification of sPecifier' in verb

ott.asei. it i"aieO ihey exisl al ail. is a maller o[ considerable

;onftoversy. Cf. modifer, rttribulc, comPl€n|eDt- chonskv (19?0)'

solit sntecedetri /sPlrt/ n The phenomenon in $hich an anaPho'

isense I ) has as its inttcedetrt a non-€xisrent noun phrase consisting

;f the coordinatioo of tllo oi more NPs occun:ing sepatat€ly in th€

sentence. ExamPles are Janet convinced Elrol that they should qel

naftied ald Janit persuaded Elroy PP(o to make love, in which the

aDtecedent of tft?y and of PRO is h each cas€ th€ conjunction of

tanet ^nd Elroy. Split antec€dents ptovide difficulties for most

approaches to anaPbora and to cotrtrol.

sptit eigdiYity n. A gammatical pattem in which ergativity is

manife;ted in some classes of s€ntences in a language but not m

others. In split-ergative languages' ergativity may b€ confined to

sentences wirose subject is oI a particular type (e 8 ' inanimate or

noo-Dronominal), to sentenc€s involving particular combinations of

NPs'(e-g., inaoimate subiect PIus animat€ object), !o Particulartedses o; aspects (usually, Past tens€ or perfeclive asped) or to '

wide ranse of other circumstances. SPlit ergativity is in fact qurte

commonithe Sreat majority of €rgative languages aPp€ar to exhibit

a sptit oi onJ rype oi another. t-anguages in which ergativiq is

conhned to sentences involving volitional actions have been gveo

the special name sctiv€ lrngutg€s. silve6t€in (1c76)'

sDtit infinitive n. The rradilional label for the English construclron

in which the formative lo is s€parated from a following infinitive by

an aalverb or a negative, as in the example 1d€ciled to 'edlY give x o

po. The name is a misnomel, sitrce the sequence to Stve rs not aniinfinitiu"' oo,

"""n " -nstituent (all current analys€s ag'ee that the

sequeDc€ 8?v? ir d 80 is a coDstituent a vP)' and hence nolhing is'spiit'. rriaitionat-grammariaos of a prescriptivisl bent have for

ein.ratiom strongly condebncd tlus construction' in spite of the

iacr that it is the normal Englisb formi their insislence on placing the

adverb somewhere else ignores the unnaturalness and even thcoc.asional impossibitiry of reordering examptes tike She decidad togaduatly get d of the teddv beo6 she had been colec.ting for y.an .

split-intransitive adi. Denotin| a grammatical pattem in whichrnlransitive clauscs are divided inro two typ€s dififring in rbeirgrammatical realization, most usually in the case assignid to thesubject NP,particularty in ianguages in which the choi; is entiretydetermioed by rhc identityofthe lexical verb or predicate. The mostusual lype of split intransitivity is that occu.ring in activ€ Lnguag6,but.other types occur, such as in Basque, in which a semanticallyarbitrary subclass of intransitive vertrs requir€s transitive morlphology. Cf_ fluid-iDrrs|Isitive. See Mertan (1985) for discussion.

SplifMorpholos/ Hypothesis ,4rar,po0esrs/ n. The doctrine thatinflectional morphotos| and d€rivational morpholog/ are funda_mentally difterenl and should be treated s€parately in the grammar.Irng accepted by most mo.phologists, this doctrine is re]ecteri bytb€ proFrnents of the Stmng Lxfr:slist Hypoth€sis.

sptit objecaivity /Dbd3ek,tnrti/ n. The Srammaricat panem inwhich some grammatical processes are s€nsitive to the dtuect objecvindir€cr object contrast whiie others are s€nsitiv€ to the Drimarvobjecrsccondrrj obj€cr conrrasr. Among tanguages exhibiring sptitobFclivjty are Sourhem 't iwa, Mohawk. Tzorzit and y,ndiib;mdi.Drye. (1e86).

sprttlllaad verb /sprer ,le.rd./ r. One of a small class of Englishverbs wirh the distincrite grafimarical property of rating rero i;rer_ndr drgumenb. either of which may app€ar as a direcl obJect. rh€other appearing ?s some kind of oblique object , as in Shc spruyedpatnt on the walltshe sprated the wa| with paim; fhey loaied. hafo.nro he |9aeonJThey toad?d the wa7on with hay. Ottei memsers otrhr\.ctass incfude cropd. .rcm. sm?ar afid spinkle. All tbe membersor Inrs ctas,s s€em to share a cenain semantic property. roughly thatofmoving a substance or a collection of ob.leits into" ..oit""t" o.onlo a surface. fte erisretre ot lhis ctas was rcponedty 6rsr Dot d byBarbaE H.lt Pan.c in unpublisie.r qo.tt rhc 6Fl published di$ussio, wrs bF'llEo.e (15'68), and rhe narne Y6 coired by r,vin and Rappapon (19s6).

e,:

tt

!r

a(.

a-

.t

€

€

Gag

aa?tC

e-jeleieieie1c1Crr l

tivlciciti;lci:i: l: l:rii;lc-ic-;

tt? "!Tl

/t*,lt.r..n conrinuum of (especialy texjcal) caregory Dcm-- Dershrp. by which membership ofa caregory is regarded i a matterat or cegtee. rarhLr than as an eitber/or proposiiion. Foa eraDple, rheaa

9-riS-structure 25u

word newspapet in ThL, neh'spoper he&llie might be regarded asii;ng somewhere on a noun-adjective continuum. Squishes arefundamental in fuzzy grsmmar; they represent much the samenotioo as clin€s. Ros (1972b).

S-structure /'esstr^ktje/ n. In GB, one of the ihree designatedlevels of the representation of the syntactic structure of a sentenc€.S-structure represeots the result of the application of AlphaMovement and of the Case assignment rules. but is itself subject tocertain fuflher operations, notably the raising and d€letion oper-ations involved in deriving both the LF-structure and the surfacephonetic realization. S-structure is roughly equivalent to th€ shatlowstructure of the REST.

stacking /stekr!/ n. The occurence of multiple adjectives or mul,tiple relatile clauses attached ro a single head nolun: o prctl\' littlewhirc house\ a ca l hat b exposed during the deat which is picked upbr thp rccei|in| player. Adl. stscked /stekt/.

standard /'st&ndad/ n. In a compsrative construction, that elementto which som€ oth€r element is compared. In English. rhe standardis normally marked by a pr€ceding to-,ln.atite than. Thus, in theexample aird speaks beier Frcnch than Sli' (loes), Sue is thestandard.

Standard Th€ory n. The version of Traffformational |jr.mmarproposed by Noam Chomsky (1965), differing considerably frcmthe original transformational framework sketched our in Chomsky(1957). The Standard Theory dominated work in syntactic theory inthe laie 196Os, but, under pressure from the advocates ofGen€mtive Sematrtics, it was substantially modified, giving rise rowhat became known as the Ext€nd€d Ststrllard T1€ory, which wasin tum follow€d by the R€vi!€d ExteDdd Standsrd Th€ory andthen by the Govcnme -{indiDg Theory. Until very rec€ntly.however, the Standard Theory dominated textbooks of syntax, andtherc are a Dumber of textbooks stil in prinr which pres€nt what isessentially the Standard Theory with a few accretions from morerec€nt work.

staared form /'sto:d fJh/ n. A sequence marked with an ssltrisland hence regarded as ill-foftrcd. .She smiled me.

sbrt sJmbol /'sto:l ,srmb.l/ See inttisl symbol.

stat€ment /'stenment r. One of the fundamental sent€nce tlT€s oftraditional grammar. having lhe form of an assenion thai someproposition is true. An ex mple is Lisa is a varrstotor.

statistical uliversal /ste,tlstrkl/ See relrtive univ€rsal.

stative /'stertN/ r- or adr. Denoting a form or construction whichexpresses a srate of affairs. rather than an eveDt. Engish does notalways distinguish statives from dynamjc passives. ThJsentence ?/rewindow ||as brcken, for example, is ambiguous betwe€n a stativereading and a dynamic reading, though the addition of adverbialsmay torce on€. or the other r€ading: The windob, was brcken b,lohn (dynali]lc\; The window was brokea a, l1,ee& (stative). Manvother Ianguages. however. have expl ic i i stat i !e conslruct ions: i ;Cetman. Das Fenst war gebrcchen c n only ha\e a starive reading(i.e., 'it had a hole io it,), white Dar Fenster wude eebrochen istr icr ly dynamic { i .e. . rhe window gol broken ). Srar iv i . is a suoerordinate aspecrual caregory contrasring wirh d],namic.

stative verb n. A texical verb whose meaning erpresses a srare,rather thatr an evenr, such as know, |9ant, undefitand. fear ot likr.Srarive \erbs in Fnglish are disringuished by rheir inability ro appearIn loe progressrve aspecr in ordinary circumsranc€s: *Ljrd i(knowingluhdarctandingfiikin| Frerci. (Some of rhem can, however.appear in th€ pmgr€ssive in special s€nses or consrructions: Lr:ra i,und?nundng morc Frch.h every day: Lira b 1ikine Frcn h (whercr/prcn rs understood as .rhe cours€ in French which she ispunuing').)

stltus /'stertes/ n. A synonym {or mood in the narrowest possiblesense of-that rerm, sometimes preferred to distinguish rhe cenrralnotion o['degree or kind of realily from orher n6tions frequentlvregarded as modai in nature. such as iltocutiouary force, e*ienn:atand evahativ€ distinctions and modsliay in sense 2 of that term.

srt€tn /stem/ rL In morphology, a bound form of a lexical item whicbtlTrically consists of a rool to which one or more morphologicalfom.tkcs have b€en added and which s€rves as the immediate basefor the formation of some funher form ot set of forms. Forerampre, the l atin vatb arnare.love', whose root is dn-, has anmp€rfect stem arn ba- ftom which are derived the various imper-fect fofins amabam.I us€d to love,, amabas .you used to tove,,amarat 'h€y'she used to love' and so on; it also has a perle{t rtem

c- i=c ;3 25e stemt

ae

c

(

eee

eeCcc

cce

a

IFci€ ;

c€r l

; l

/ - t i

G1

:61(;

e.etL.L.L.L-g,C-cie1!rcl

ID

d

strong equivalenc!stranding

26r

proposed. The framework was proposed by Sidney klnb (1966)i

see Lxkwood (1972) or Sullivan (1980) for an introduction.

stratum /'sEellem/ (pl. stratr /'stretta/) n l. In RelationalGrammar, any one of the several levels of organizalion t]?icallypostulated as forming part of the syntactic structure of a sentence 2.

More generally, in any theory of grammar in which the structure of

a "entence is regarded as consisting of lwo or more representationsemploying rhe same !ocabulary' any one ol thos€ rePr€s€ntations\oE:$is usage is raomnended by Lad$aw (1988)i comPare l'.vel Gerc 2).

strict c-commaod /str*t/ /I. A synonym for c_.:omDatrd, some_times used to make it clear that m{ommsnd is not the rclationbeing referred to- See the remalks under c'.omdsrd.

strict subcategorization See subotegorizattoo

string /strr!/ n. A s€ntence, or Part of a sent€nc€, regaldcd as alinear sequence of elements, without reglrd for any further levels ofsrructure. In the early days of genetative grammar, sentences innatural tanguages were almost invariably regarded as strings' ormore precisely as s€qu€nces of strings. Only Sradualy did generat-ive grammanans abandon this concepiion in favour of r€Eardings€ntences primarily as trodimensional tree structures, and eventoday senlenc€s are still regarded as strings in mathematical lingris'tics for purpos€s of investiSating the rrell g€Dcrrtiv€ caFd.y ofclasses of grainmars. See under tree for furthe. information.

string €quivalenc€ /r'kwlvelens/ S€e werl equiYdcoce.

stringset /'striqset/ n. A language, particularly a formal laoguage,regarded as a set of stlings. The strings€t defned by a graDmar i3equivalent to the w€ek generative crPrcity of that 8lasflar.

strong condrfons of adequacy See under rd€qucy.

strong crossover /sfod n. A convenlioral lab€l for those in_slances of crNove! pbctroD€n! which do not involve genitives andwhich are felt to b€ Srossly ungrammatical; atr crainPle is *Wftoi

does het think ei did it? ln such an etample, the WH_trace isA-bound by the pronominal, and hence the structure is ruled out byPrirrciple C of the Bindfug Theory. It is also, howev€r, ruled out bythe l,€fucs Corditiotr. Cf . we.k c.6ov.r

strotrg equiyalence /I'kwFalenJ n. The relatioo ehich holdsbetween two grammars vhich have the same strong g€Derativ€

amdv- from which are derived arndli'l loved , drna'I3.i'you loved"

?;;-vri 'hey'shc loved' and so on Bauer (1983) r€senes this term for

a form to which infieclional affxes ar€ directly added Preferriog

stranding /'strandlt/ n. Any of various phenomen3 in which some

element of a sentence occurs in the absence of afl associated ele-

ment *hich rvould normally accompany it and which is required

for its interpretation. A familiar example from English is prePci'

tiotr stranding, in which a Preposition occurs with no overt following

obiect. as a resull of WH-Preposing (see wH_Movement)'

E;amoles are Who ttcre you talkin| to? and That Rolb she aftived in

,s ftrr;d, in which the prepositions to arld in arc stranded ln all

varieties of Eskimo, a noun phrase containing an adjective can often

be oDtionally realized in a form in which the head noun ofthe NP is

incorporatc; into the verb, leaving the adjective stmnded but still

bearing any case marking or agreement morPhs; see exafiples

under incorporation.

strateg/ /'slralrd3i/ n Any of s€veral conceitable constructrons

which might in principle b€ used for performing some grammatical

function,-particulatty one which is us€d in a pardcularlangua8e For

examDle. the formaiion of relative clauses is accomPlished in a

variety of rvays in lhe languages of the world: the rclative claue

mav bc finite or non_finite (panicipial); it may or may not be

em;edded within the clause containing its head; if embedded, i!

mav Drecede or follow its head; it may ot may not contain a relativepronoun; it.uy or may not carry a spcoal marker of subordination;

it mav represent the relativized NP within itself either as a gap or as

u ."tu.piiu" ptonuun; "nd

so on The particular conskuction used

by a language is said to r€Present the 'relativization strategy' of that

hnguage.

Stratificational Grammar /stratlfr'kel.fan!,/ '. A theory of glam-

mar in which linguistic structure is regaded as consisting of a

number of distinci autonomous l€vels called 'strata', the telatioD

between lhe repres€ntation in one stlatum and that in the ftxt less

abstract stratum being conceiv€d as one of realization in every cas€'

The framework has been criticized as being so excessively unrestnc-

tive as to be consistent with any conceivable set of facls at all' but'

*hut*"i it" ..tir. or .t oncomings il has been sever€ly hamFred

br ils tvoosraDhicallv nightmarish Sraphical repres€ntations' whrcn

ui. "tgp'uuiy

r'tt. .otr "wksard

such repres€ntatioos ever s€riously ill

FL.strong generatiYe capacity 2A

cspacity - that is, they generate exactly the same sels of strings andassign exactly the same s€ts of structures to those strings. Twogrammam €xhibitiog strong €quivalence are said to b€ strotrglyeqlivalent. Cf. wcak Gquivalence.

strong generative capacity n. (of a particular formal grammar)The set of strings and their associated structures generated by thatgrammar, Cf. wesk generaaive crpacity.

Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis rl. The doctrine that rules of syntaxmay make no reference whatever to the morphological structure ofword foms, not even to inflectional morphology. Proponents of thisdocrrine reject the Splil-Morpholog/ Eypolhesis, th€ idea thatinflection is distinct from derivation; they reject the use of pon-digms and emphasie the syntagmatic aspects of word structure,almost to the extent of espousing an I&m-snd-Allstrg€meat vierv ofmorphology. Cf. W€ak Lexic{list H}pothesis. See Spencer (1991)for discussion.

strong verb n. In certain languages, notably the Germanic lan-guages (including English), a ve.b whicb innects by intemal vowelchange. rather than by affixation: sin8, sang, sun& b:rite, wroo,w tten. Cf. ve*.rerb.

strdctural ambiguity /'str^ktJerl/ r. An smbiguity involving th€assignment of two or more syntactic structures to a stnng. S€ecxamples under ambiguity.

structural description /dr'skrlpJ{r/ ".

In a formal graJnmar, arcpresentarion of th€ structure assigned to a pa(icular string by therules of the grammar.

structuralism /'str^ktJarrhzqv 't. l. Any approach to linguisticdescription which views lhe grammar of a langlage primarily as asystem of relations. Structuralism in this s€nse derives largely fromthe work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Virtually alltwentieth-century approaches to linguistics are structumlist in thissense, in contrast vrith the predominantly alomistic approach ofmuch nineteenth-century linguistics, in which a Ianguage was s€etrprimarily as a collection of individual elements. Io the words ofLepschy (1982), structuralism h marked by its emphasis on abstrac-tion and generality, while prestructuralist approaches were charac-terizcd by an emphasis on the concrete and the particular.2. (alsoAmcrican structuralisn) A particular approach to linguistic descnPlion develoDed in thc United Slates in the 1940s and 195Os. Th€

263 structure dep€ndence

American structuralists (or'post-Bloomfieldians') drew their inspi-ration from the work of l-eonard Bloomfield, though it is clear thatBloomfield would not have approved of some ofthei. more extremepositions. The framework was characterized by an extremelynarrow view of what constiluted scientific investigation and by aremarkable s€t of dogmatic principles which have been rej€cted byalmost all orher approaches. Among these pdnciples were thedoctrine of the 'separation of levels', by which no morpholqgictrlanalysis could be und€rtaken until the phonological analysis wascomplete, and no syntactic analysis could be undertaken until themorphological anal)'sis was complete, and the complete rejection ofary appeal to proceases in linguistic description in favou. ofa rigidlydist.ibutional view of linguistic elements often referred to as the'Item-aod-Arrangement' framework. In r€Jecting most of thescd&trines, the early generative linguists c-ame to use 'structuralist' asa term of abuse; they r€.iected the structuralist pto8J^mme en blocas a merely'taronomic'one, that is. as one concerned only withIabelling and classification, and not with explanation. Nevertheless,the achievements of the American slructuralists were cor$iderable:th€ir concem for explicitness, for pr€cision and for generalityhelped pave th€ way forg€nerative linguistics; their deyelopm€n! ofthe notion ofconstituent structure inffuenc€d the laler developmentof syntax far more than is often recognized; and their enormousresp€ct for primary linguisnc dara, at the expense of theorelicalrleqance. deserves more craaft'-tharFh is sometimes accorded, See

t: Huddleston (1972) and Stark (19?2) for accounts of American

; | ,- \tructuralism. and s€e Newmeyer (1e86) tor an account of rheL | " confrontarion b€t*eeo strucruralisi and generative linguistics. ,4d1.

'3 stmcturllist /'str^ktJarehst/.

{; structure /'str^kiJa/ ,. The s€t of s}ntagustic relations holding

sic among the elements of a sentence or some distinguishable subpartofa sentence in otherwords, the particular way those elements arcpul logether to make up that s€ntence or subpart. Cf. system.s

C i ? .nu"tu"" depeddence l'str^ktJr dr,pendrDs/ a. The seerDlngly

ci: j universal property by which the rules of g.ammar operate in termsof syntaclic struclures (especially constituent structure) and not interms of the linear sequence of words or of their phonologicalshap€s. lt is because of lhis property of structur€-dependence thatwe do not find rules ofgammar referring to notions like'th€ fou(hword in the sentence'or'a word of three syllables'. ,4d./. structure-dep€nd€nt /'str^ktf" dr,pendant/.

C;1:3l?e-l ' :e-l ' j

LLtLLte?eegCgeeccec

trg

c-l t-e€

v-?-c 265 Subjacency ConditionSlructurc-Preservation Constraint 261

Slrucfure-Preser!a(ion Constraint /preza!crJn len,slrernt/, fhe r(qui..mcnl. In somc d€rirarionat lheoric\ of sramn)ar. rharopcr l i ( )ns \hich chang! ' i t r \nracl ic rcpresenrir l ron durin.e rhecourse ol r der i \ l l ron mar- 0or aher lhe ideni i rv or local ion ofhbel ied lodc: in lhe t .cc. for ( \arnple. i f an \p node is pr. !enr atn)me pd'ni r t one le\cl of rcpresentar ion. i t mun be present ar thesrme poinr l l r . r l l l fvcls of rcprcsentar ion: i r may nol disappear. tuminto a Pl 'node or nlole to I di f fere i k)car ion \here no Np nodeqr\ prescnt el a. ear l ier le lel oi rep.esenrar ion. Thc requirem€nt of\ t rucrurc prcsenatron_ which is fundamenral in cB. was inrroducedby Emonds (1970); i t p layed a major part in cunai l jng many ofthewiider exccsses of derivations in rhe clarsical iheor\ ot TG

subcatcgorizat ion,,s^bkar:g.rar 'zerJn/ r . ( . r lso str ic l subcaa-qorization) l-he phcnomenon by which the membcrs of a sjngtelcxical calegorl do not all c)ihibir idenlical s\'nractic behaliour_Ii,r erunrple. somc lerbs (rransirile lcrbs likc ttl and ,,./.J)l rkc dircct object\ . shi le orhers { . in lrrnsir i le \erbs t ike .re andrrlk) d(' not: somc lerbs (srr,, decide) perm;t a f(tio\ljng rtur,comple,nenr clausc: some (aquift. nondei) permil a fo os.ings re./?.f conrplemcnt clause; others ( tr'l/. dre. rpcd* ) permir neirheri$rill orhcrs (art..on$d€l) permir both. Suircategorization facts arecornplex rnd often arbitrary. and rhc subcategorics requi.ed for\ rriou\ 8rrrnmaricrl furposes overlap almosr endlessl).: subcrtegorr,,dtron phcnomen:r represent thc principal area jn which slnlax islirrced k) get to grips wirh rhe properties of individrat words.Sl racticirns harc brcn slo* ro dcvisc clcgant lrcarmcni\ of subcrteeofizriion: lhe subcat€goriaaion frames of earlier aeneraii\'egrunlmar $'er. clumsy and inlolved a good dcal of redundancy.Whi le ( ; l ' jSc. al leasl . has succeeded in formulat ing a sjmplc andcconornrc!l nrechan;sm for treatinS subcarcSorization, manvln. iu ' , r . . i r . r(Jd or hur ldine subcal<g,, f i /dr 'on r(quiremunt\ Intoihc svntr)i. h.rvc prelcrred to rakc thc radicat srep of doing preciselylhc opposilc. lcading to the dcvelopmcnt in the 1980s of rhcories ofgrrmnar. such as Word Grammar and I IPSG. in which vinualh a/ l\ ! , . r 'h r i r t , ,mrrnn i . ,qu(ezed ,nro lhe .uhcrrcgori l r i ronrequiremrnts of lc\ ical i tems.

subcaaegorization feature r. In some lheories of grammar. no-rrbl\ CPS(i. a learure $hich is used k) express rhe subcaregoriz-rr()n rcqurrements of ccrtain le\ical item!. GPSCj uses feaxrrcs wirhirrbi t ra$ nirmes- usual lv jusr nur)rbers for rhis purposer features areprcseir t j r lc\rcal cnlr ies and r.e introduccd into l rce srrucrures on

lexical nodes. For exampte. the rute Vp J Vi7l , Np introduccs dsimple trarsirive srructure with rhc subcategori;arion rcarure lTlonthc V node. and clery verb jn the lexicon which can appear in tlarstructure carri€s rhe fearure [?] as part of its le{icat ontry. Suchieatures constirure perhaps the most elegant rrearmcnt of subcai-egorrzarion facrs currently availahte.

subcategorization frame /frer:r/ lt. A devicc for trearing rhe\urr.alegorlzatron requircments ot lexical irems. consisring simply ofa sritlemenr in rhe lexicat entr} for that item of rh. .i.t"rslt ..,iuir""or permits. Thus. for exampte, rhc lexical entry for rhc verb srz:nr i8hr includ( rhe f ime lV. _ \pj . mcan,n8 rhdr rhis ,erb cdnh( rn\rr ted jnto a V node rmmedidrct) fol lo\^cd h\ an Np. r , in / / ! ri /s , r?. .Simi lart ! . the rerb r€l / mighr have rhe framc [V. __ NpS'[-wHjl- allowing it ro appear in structures tike Lisi totd nte tharr ' , n! : td com such lrames \ $rc r(gutart ] u\(d,n.r .c. rnd rh(\i r ( , t r t t q ' c t c t ! u s e d i n C B . i n \ n i r c , , f a n u m h c r o t ( l r : r q b r c k \ F , , .one rhjng. thev nake ir difficult lo specify the dbrer.? ofa catcgoryiqnrt r \ lo stop thc !erb rep trom anpearing u h t"o r , , l lou;ng \R..:r \ rn - /r \a vn ae th? booA rcf . t /sa gryc mc tL.h,h,$" tnlanorner. rhe! are highl! redundanl. in rhar rhev merelv rcpcxtrnrormatron atready provid€d by rhe,ules of the grammar, !spornlcd out by flcnl (1979): rhe rutc Vp - V Np. for exarnple. saysth;!t ! rcrb can be folto*cd by an Np. info.rmarion wtricrr is icpearJJendlcsslv in rhc tcxicat enrry of evew s;m'pte transiti\c !crb

s:.1:1te-ry-r)./ - lr" ':qrr/ 4. qnv one.r rh( \afi,,u\ o\e,rdppi,,s\uo.r . r \se\ r , l J Ie \ rca l (atcgor ! shnh mu, l h( re. . , ,gnizea in,

i l :"1-:l .I l :,.,, lpr., ar{ rhe \ub(dresor} or adre(r;(. afr(J,ins l r arrnDUnre F\ l rron l t re. f t . j . ndtot. lotrro\ / . (1, ) and rtk.\uDL.lrcg!.n apnear 'ng in predicat i rc po\rrr , \n tr iS pnrr.r . ahdA,. .i i r i r T , . e r i . r . A r ' r $ , u h c a k . E o r i e . h a r c 1 1 3 ; ; 1 , , , n r 1 n a m ( \ ( I | r n : r ri rc \crb. coDnl noun-). hur mos! do not

\uhdelet ion . / . \halr , t i rJn/ , .

(dt$ comperalrrr subdcter ion) Arzn(r rpptred, f t , th( ab\cn(c. in cenain rrpe., , t comt, , rr i \e r , \n(rru nn\. or 3 quant ihins rr qual i t r ing et, mcnr in rhr , , .n\r ;ru.nrsen'ng !5 or conraining thc standard ofcomp r ison. In lhc fo ow-rng exa.nple.. rhc symbot ! , . reprc\cnts the subdclctcd quanri f icr :t t)rn Dt.rtc h\tftt gumts tnn t ottt c bao(,. i,: subdricle,/,s\bdr l i i t / . Cf comparat ive deter ion. B.c\Nn (tqi6)

Subjacen(l ( ondit ion , . r lA1.r, . ,nsr i - ,n.( l r tn r i . ln L,B. th(frrnLrt . ' l r ! qu[(m(nl ot t ]ounding Theon. tr . r ! , . n, , , in"te .r t t t l

i_?tccec(

t(

(

Ct(

cccC€

€

L

5af6I

II

sc

6

III

iI

iIIII

III

I

III

9-l-C r- '

subiect 26 C i3 267 subiunctive

cation or a movement rule may cross more than,)ne bound,ng node. I t;. :j:Tl]:: llT:m' '9f a picture of e on the tabre?. as opposed ro

v bcen raken to_b€ NP C :: who is *at a picturc ofe?h"-a hp.n n'^n^Gd f^r ^rtrpr lan- ^ ta.,

c e s s , t h o u g h i t h a d t h e s u r P r i 5 i n g c o n s € q u e n c e o f f o r c i n g w h a t l . :t rerc previously rcSarded a\ unbounded mo\emenl rulc ' . l ikewH_ subject-prominent language Ipmmln:nr/ ,?. A tanguage inPreposing, to be reinte.preted as successive cyclic tules

! : *hich ,grammaricat

*qlr"ir. iJiiy iJin, i"U" and ptay an

subiect / s^bd3rkr/ n {s} r rhe mo\r p,on,incnr or rh( sammaticar c r' :ilTl#!,Ji[ [J'F, ;]il:i#.:1i:lJ:ffi!"H;::T":'"#retations wlrich a noun phrase may bear in a,clau::;.li1:,,;:,1

::l : : prominint; trr;s p-p."y i.' ,.l""ir*", i"g'".."o ̂ typorosicauy

all, langMges subjects are prominent and **ili .lt.TTo:-li. t !' rrnportant. cf. ropic-promiEnt lrnguag;, rerercnc?-doninatedsubject forms rhe grammatical pivor in terms ol $hrch.rts cluuse,rs

C G la|rguage. Li dd Tl,omFor (1976).srructured and in l (rms of shich i t i5 related lo olher clau\e\ In thediscou$e. Subjects most typically exhibit a laLrgc number of gram g - subjecf raisiDg n. (also raising) The phenomenon in which an Np

;l:rliH".'LI:,':iii":J1.h;::,5:?l:H;i",1"';!H;,1,:; ! rl subiedivesenitiveaeb'd3ektry/,'ApossessiveNporapreposir-was introduc€d by chomsr<y lrvr:1 as a way liiff;t;;;#;; C i-j

ional phras€-with o/which is interPreted.s the subjecr ofa-nomina-

Ross',s isrand constrainlsr it has senerauy t.;;;;;,;;;;;;,;- c 3 [i'o verb Exampl€s are L'ia'r in ti%i a"iiet and Buflato s in

6f forcins whal

maricat. \€maoric and dr\€ourse propertres. as e),hau' trw\ sum- g, ? shich is lemantical ly thesubjei tof a to*er preorcdre appear\ on rhemarized in Keenan (19?oar Among the\c are the

.follo$tng: : ^ :111* i ,1. subjecr of a higber predicare. An erampte is lria

\ubjecrs represenr entiries wrlh ,ndependcnl e\i\tencc: subJect. con- *"!" t! li.tupp!. :^

*hich the NP / |J, is .emantrca y ihe subjecrtroi corefeience, incl,rding reffexives. pronouns dnd null anaphors. g 2 oI the Predicate be happy but tunctions grammatica y as the subjectsubjects control switch-reference systemsi rubjects control rerb - - tagr€ementi subjects are topics in unmarked conltru.rions: subj€Lts t I -,r,,.-^*.:::';::'i;;;:;;';;;*;*',,."ip,......1-"ul..i;;;;;";;;i'- c

,j ':-bjl:"j-:./:^b'd3^0k,ri , or ddr A lraditiona, ,abcr ror aized. quesrioned and .lefted: subjeds undergo ra'sing: subjects ) ,: set ot morphologcally dislincnve verb forms occurnng In cenainr e c e i v e m i n i m a | c a s e m a I k i n g ; s u b j e c t s a r e a g e n t s i n u n m a r k e dconstructions. whiie few of itre.e p.op"ni.. muy be Lrnique to e 2 nneo lo certarn tlpes of subordinate clauses and which often servesubjects in a gi\€n language, a subject ma) usually bc idenrrfied by c !

ro.-€xpress such mood qrlegories as .emoten€ss, unreality or possi-the faci thar ii extribits moie ofthem than any other NP. Languagcs : :

oilily European languages diff€r in the extent to which the subjunc-in which subjecrs are prominent (he majonqJ are variousll-caltd Q - trle.forms genuinely contrast wilh indicative forms; In ihe majorilysubjecr-prominent or r€fercnce-dominated. z In some ana\te.. d S ?

oJ crrcumstancrs in rhe majorily of lhese languages. the subjuncriv;consri luent of a phras€ $hich ptavs a role some$har ana)ogou. ro i : .

rorm Isoblrgatory in most circumslances in qhich i r ispossrbiear a .rhe \uhjecr or r sen,encc. For e\ample. ,n the phrase tra irelusat t :' :.Lo^lt:T'nl:,*

^.a rrdundant erpression ot."'n";n ryp.. oio,n" "t',n. Lna ' rs $merimes,ceirded a*hc subicc, or rhe Np

I l-i ;fi":il:l'J",[":K"i']JT._:,Tfl;:::ilx?:ffiil:ll::-sense2:racke.doffoe77). f i3 r,iri,*g. *a",i;!, -io;;;""#..i#.il:

as wer as artersubiect-auxil iary inversion r. The vanel) ot inrersion in shrch € i

"

\ ,ubordinatots l ike befoit :*tt tn. '*"*n-* ( in cenarn circum.an"aurir iary preiedcs a,ublec'\P. as in /, 'hp.,,mins?. whol i lZ ;: '" : : : : l :T

' l l : ' :" ' l"9lv in a comPremenr ot p t hecho re que thewourd vou'tiie: and Nev have r ic?n \u& a ̂er\

l | = l1'*Tll,. il'li'j,1fr.':Jl,lj[#:Tl:::ff1":l,j::;i":l::1;'Subject Condition ,&an'drJn/ n. An istand cons.raint tr hich states (.-:? :]^":

t9-'- -Tilt'lc in Norrh American speech and in formal

thai a wH-dependency may not cross the boundary ofa subjecr NP. I lz vanelies of,Bdtish English: if I Iwre) you . . .; I suggest she ldol it; r

This condition is invoked to accounl for rt'. itt to'-.cn... .r t tl tecomnend this lbel done'

e 'i"- ) , ,l s -

subordirEte claus€ 28 269 suFnessive

NPIPLUR +] {PERS 3l (a third penon plural NP). Cf. exteNioo.Y. subs m€ /seb'sjutm/.

subhactiob /sebtrekJq./ r. Any morphological process involvingthe removal of part of a root. In Fijian, for era$ple, vetbal rootsare rendered iDtransilive by subtraclisn of a final consonant: /@ut-'c3iry', ijdtr. kaui yohlak- 'Eo ̂ w^y', tatl. yawai rui- 'see', intr. t i;sautn- 'repay' , i^tf. sau.

subtre€ /'s^btri:/ n. Any part of a liee coosisting of a singl€ nodeand all the mat€rial dominated by that node. Cf. loctl iubtlte.

succession /sek's€I!./ n. The characteristic of a gammat formulatedin terms of the X-bar system in which every non-teminal node ofthe form X" has a daughter of the foim )91. Succ€ssion is widelyarsumed to be a desirable characteristic, but it is violated in one wayor another iD nearly every published allal]sis involving the X'barsystem: such familiar rules as M + S' aDd N' + A'N' areinconsistent with succ€ssion. Komai and Pu um (19q)) u5€ the term'Weal Succession' for the conditioD ihat every non-terminal of theform x" should have a daudter of the form )9, where m is les!than or equal lo n. Komn rnd PuIu (r9t0).

succ'€ssiye cyclicity /sck,s€$v sl'kllslti/ t. ln cenain deri-vational theories of grammar, the Phenomenon by which anuboutrded depeDd.ocy is inierpreted as resulting from a s€tiesof local movement rules, each obeirg constnints on boundedness.The successive cyclic interpretation of wH-Movement was ore oflhe chief cons€quences of tbe iDtroductioo of the Srbje?rcy Coirdt-tior into later versiors of TG. ldi su.tsdve cydk.

sttffr /'srfrkV n. An aft! which follows th€ root in tbe formcontaidq it. Engish examples include the nouD glural suf6x -r (asin crrt) atrd the dcrivatiooal suf6res -?r (as itr reriler) atld -rarr (as inlapprnas). Cf. pnft, bft, dr.rd!, sFtu.

Sqr€r.Equi /'surpor,elcwi/ n. A Dame forD€rly applied to cas€s ofoptional co[trol crdsing more than one claus€ troundary, such as inthe etample Litai thouSht it rl,ould be easy ei to leom French. Thename reflects the old Equl"NP lxledotr analysis of control construc-tioDs crossing only one claus€ boundary. crird€r (190).

superessive /su:perresrv/ r. or adi. (aiso supr.sdve) A cas€ formexpressing the s€mantic notion of 'on' or 'on top of'.

suborditrate claus€ /se'bc:dlnet/ n. A traditional label for any

clsule which is embedded urrder a higher clause Subordinate

clauses are of several types, the most imPortanl beiDg adrerbial

clsusas, c{tmPlemcnt claus€s and rclativ€ clrus.s.

subordinating conjuncaioD /sa'br:dtneltlD/ n. The traditional

term for a subordinstor. This traditional name is now little used in

lioguistics, since it leads to potential confusion with the term

coDjunction.

subordination /se,b.rdl'nelId |, (also hlTohxis) The ph€nom-

enon by which one clause, the €mbcdd€d claus€ or $rbordinatc

clause, forms a constituent of a larger clause, the matrix clrr,sc

subordinator /se'btrdlnelta/ r' A lcxical category. or a member

of this category, whose members serve to introduce adv€rbial

cf.Euses. Engfish examples include before' after. "hen,

$'hile, if'

atthough, becaLte and wheiever. The lraditional name for these

items,-'subordinating conjunctions', is still occasionally used Many

analysts regard subordinaiors as specialized members of the cat-

egory Preposition.

sobsttntive /'s^bstentrv/ 1. n A traditional. but now virtually

obsolete, synonym for noun. Some tradit;onal grannanans also

included oronouns in the class ofsubstantives 2. d,li (al!o notrliDd)

In those ;ersions of the X-bar system in which lcxical categories are

decomDosed into the binary featutes [N] and [V]' denoting any

category which is [+N], in other words, nouns and adjectives'

substsntive uniYersal /srb'stantlv/ ll- Any fotmal object which is

universally present in grammars, or al least universally available'

Exarnples include the ;ategories Noun and Verb Phrase and the

features [PLURAL]and IFINITE] Cf forDsl unir€rssl'

subsaitution frame /s^bstl'tjutjn ,fretm/ n. An} one of the diag-

noslrc \lring\ used in a slot'snd'fill€r aPProach lo Prammalicalcharacterizaiion. See the examples under that entry.

substring /s^bslrll/ n. Any Parl of a string lhich is under

subsumption /seb's^mptf4/ ". Th€ relation which hotds betwcen a

rnorc ecn,rral crtegory A ijnd a morc \Pc(ific cat(gon'B vhen B

conrarn. r l l ot Ihe lcarur(s of A and some addrt ionr l fealures

b€sides: in this case, A is said to subsume B For example' the

category NPIPLUR +l (a plural NP) subsumes the 'atcgory

:it.eta.-a_tttcgg

cccecLeecccc

sCFcGcc-G(e

.l

!t

rt

irir

i?

superffx 270

sup€r:fix /'surpofiks/ n. (also suprefix) A suPrasegmental (stress ortone) distiflction wbich serves as the sole exPonent of a grammatical

distinctioo, conveniently, if somewhat abstractly, regarded as anaffix. A simple example is thl stress contrast distinguishing certainnoun-verb pain in English, such as rccod (N)lreco (y) andcontest (Nycontest (\\. A more elaborate example is provided byihe zairean language Ngbaka, in *hich the lour majot tens€/aspectforms of all verbs are marked solely by ton€s: falling, Ievel, faling-rising and rising:

Form 1 Form 2

gMt) gbata

2'7r switch reference

surface structure /'s3:frs/ r. 1 ln various derirstional theories ofgrammar, that level of syntactic rcptesentation which is leastabstract and which typically s€rves as the input to the phonologicalrules. In the Standard Theory of Transformational Grammar, thesurface struclure of a sentence was simply the lree that result€dfrom the application of all the transformational rules; it containedno record of its own derivational history, and it served as input tothc phonological rules, but not to the semantic rules. In theExtended Standard Theory. surface structure served as part of theinput to the semantic rules, along with the deep structu.€. In theRevised Extended Slaodard Theory- surface structure was enrichedby the pres€nce of null elements called traces, which alowed it ro'remember' cenain aspects ofits derivational hislory, and it becamethe sole input to both phonological and semantic rules; in thatframework, it contrasted with a slighily nore abstract level ofrepresentation called shallow structure. In Government-BindingTheory. the old shallow structure, oow renamed S-structurc. hascome to b€ regarded as one of the three principal designated levelsof representarion. along with D-sFuctur€ and Logical Form, andsurface structure (now often c-alled 'surface form') is apparentlyregarded as having no panicular svotactic significance. though it stillseFes as input to the phonological rules. 2. A label sometimesapplied to a tree represenring rhe consrituenr srructure ofa sentenceeven in frameworks which are not derivational. (homsty (t965)-

SVO language /es vi: 'au/ r,. A language in which rhe normal orderof elements in a sentence is Subject Verb-Object, such as English,French or Swahili. SVO languages universally tend to show many ofthe same typological features as VSO languages, though not soconsistently, as first pointed out by Greenberg (1963).

switch function /swrtt r. A grammatical device found in manylanguages *hich sewes lo track a particular parlicipanr acrossclauses and to indicate the possiblyvarying grammarical or semanticrelations bome by that padcipant. English uses a switch-functionsystem. as illustrated by the example Lrid nrrr ro the librurt and 0asked for a biogrophy of Thomas Hardy and 0 w,tt given this one.Cf. switch reference. Foley and Van Valin (1984).

switch refelence n. A grammatical device found in ce(ain lan-guages which serves to track a particular grammarical or semanticrclation across clauses and to monitor whether the participantsbearing that relation are the same or d:tferc t. Such a s'srem

Form 3 Form 4'cleaD''pull'

welmers (1973) provides some even more striking examples ofovert pronouns and prefixes which consist solely of tones with noassociated segments; such tones simply 'muscle in' on the followingsyllable in one \r'ay or anothel. N@: rhe fom suPranr's Prereded bythos€ tinSuisls with a knowledge ot t atin, bur. they bei!8 a nircnty the* day6,\uperfix is tar more frequent in G.

superlative /gr'p3:l3tlv/ n. or adi. ln laoguages exhibiting thre€degrees of comparison for adjectives and/or adverbs, that formexpressing the highest dege€ of comPanson: e.9., English tr?86t(ftom bid, worst (from bad or badly) ^nd most beoutiluJ \ftombeautifur. Cf. pctr,itive, compsntive, cxcessive, ebtive.

supine /'su:pah/ n. 1. In th\. grammar of Latin, a distincl non-finiteform derived ftom one of the paniciPial stems ofa verb and servingto express certain typ€s of complements ln the familiar l-atinphftse miabile dictu'wonderful to tell', dicl! is th€ supine of thevetb dicerc'rell'.2- In the grammars of cerlarn other languages' aconventional lab€l for a non-finite form whose functions are more orless reminiscent of thos€ of the htin supine. The telm has nogeneral linguistic significance.

suppletion /sa'pli:J{'-i n. The use of lwo or more distinct stems forforming the inffections of a siogle lexical '/.em: SolAre . pe6onlpeople, bodlworse. Adj. suppletivc /sa'pli:tlv/

suprsessive /su:prereslv/ See suP€resslve.

suprafix /'su:prafiks/ See suPerfr.

gb5t5gbltj

syllepsls 272

eDcodes simulaneously the relative discourse referenc€ of two Npsin conseqrtive clauses and th€ grammatical relations of those Nps.Swiich referenc€ is particularly common in Nonh American lan-guages. Th€ following examples, from lakhota, illustrate the us€ ofthe two coajuoctions no alrd tha in delermining the ref€rence ofsubject and object NPs; the first is the .same-referenc€' coniunction.tbe s€cood the'6wilcb-refereoce' conjunclion:

0-a AA GGKI63sg-anived and 3sg-3sg-killed'Her arived and killed himj.'

GA Cha 0.0-kt€

syntactic blend /srn'teknk/ n- An utterance which switches part-way rhrough from one well-formed structure to another, the wholebeing ifl-formed: an example is +h's my car is the prcblem. Seeamcolutho[, z€ugma, apo koinou construction.

syntactic category n. Any formal object *hich is available ro s€rveas a node in a tree. In early generative grarnmar, syntactic cat-egorics were usually regarded as mons& with no int€mal structurernd $ere usually represenled by purely mnemonic names or sym-bols like V or NP. In vinually all contemporary work, however,synlactic categories are analysed as complex slmbols with repres€n-tations lilie [+N] [-v] IBAR 2] I+PLURAL] [3 PERSON], andsymbols like \D are regarded purely as tyt ographical abbreviations.See Gazdar et dl. (1988) for a very g€neral formalization of rheootion of a syntaclic category.

syntactic feature See f€alue.

syntagm /'slntem/ n. (rarely slrtagma /srfl'tagme4 An occasiona_lsynonym for consEuction. NoE: in oany Euop€an tugugcs, this *ord hrd as rhe erad equjvalcrr of ihe English eord phre. .adj. synt g|rrdc.

syntagmatic rclation /srnrag'm€tri/ |l. Any retation holding tr€-tween two clements which ar€ simultaneously pres€nt in a singlestructure, such as that between a verb aod its object. Cf. pofrdlg-matic relatio[. Sasu.e (1916).

syntax /'stnteks/ r. The branch of gammar dealing witb the organ-ization of words into larger structures, panicularly into s€ntenceslequivrlendy, the study of sentence structure. /dj. sytrt{ctic, ry rc-tical /srn'tektrk.-ll. Nm: ihe fom srnbcriol is t@ditioDd, bur conrcn-lb..ry !.age aForg linguisrs favo6 synrrctic.

s]'nthetic /srn'o€trk/ dd./: Denoting a pattem in which gramrnaticsldistinctions are expr€ssed by variatior io the forms ofwords, ratherthan by the us€ of addirional auxiliary words. Examples includeEngli.h eat. eats, ate, earrrS and Basque gr.aond .the m^n', gizonari'ro rhe m n', gizonorckin 'wirh the man', Sjzora&

.the men', ctc. Cf.mslytic.

sFthetic latrguage n. A tanguage characrerized by a high fte,qBency of synahetic structures, whetler infecti[g or rggtutiutirg.Examples ioclude l-atin. Arabic, Turkish, Basque and Georgian.See Horne (1966) for discussion_ scNeser(lErE).

:j

iiiiil

!lii!i#

tttI9a3II3-

e3-

-

-

aa??aaa?aeaaaaaa4a

synthetic langusge

'Hq arrived and hej kiled himj.'

Cf. twllcb {hrclion. J.@bko (1967).

syllepsls /sr'lepsls/ See 'lugms (sense 2).

swutrg dssh /sw^! 'deJ/ r. The symbol .-', used to separatealtemative afld equivaienl grammalical forms: p roved - proien.

sFcrt€gor€Datic item /srlkatagen'met*/ r. A lexical itemwhicb belongs to tto lexicd category or, equivalently, which belongsto a category of which it is the ooly member. English lexical items*hicb are often treated as s)'ncategorematic include ,,ra, infinitivalto, even (as in Even lames enjoyed the pony ) alJid pleare. Fornal togic.

synchrouic /srt'krDntk/ adj- Refer7|,ng to the description of alanguage at a paniqrlar motrrent in time (not necessarily ihe presentmoment). ,4bsr. n. qlchrcny /'sqkrani/. Cf. diac,lEotric.

Eylcrttism /'sqkretrzrp/ ,. (also rcutrrtizstion) The morphologi-cal phenomenon in which two or more morphosyntactically distinctlorms ofa lexical item are fomalty identical. In I_atin, for example,Senirive and darive case forms of nouns are usually drslinct (atn trr'friend. g€nilive rrni.i. dative amicol. bur in .r:srem nouns rheyexhibit syncretism (pudla 'etrl',

Ee iti'vetdarive puelae\. Adj. sltt-credc /sr!'krct*/.

syndeton /'srndrten/ n. A coordinate structure involvins the ex-plicit use ol coordinaling conjunctions tike and. ,4dy. syndcric/sh'detrU: absrl. n. syndesis /'shdrsrs/. Cf. ,syDd€ton.

syresis /'srnrsrs/ n. Agreement wirb s€nse rather than with torm,as i The Cabinet are divided on thir bsue.

system . - 1

I - ,' lL-rL,tt

cric\.

ir

IIIIIIIIIIIIIItIIITIITTIIIT.l

$ystem I srsri4t n- A verr qencral t.r:ii ior an organized scr of..n,letine Dossibilities among thc erammatical or lexical elerr€nriof a langLage, oiten coisidered together \rith a ser oi statcmenrs forchoosrirg among these possibjiiiies. For exanple. one mighr \peakof lhe pronoDn systen of r laDgurae. meaning the con]pt€r. in\ en-rorv of pronouns oc.urring in il .tnd rhe mles for choosing amongthem, olrne mtghl speak of lhe'rerbai s\stem of a langua8e.meaning rhe conplete sel of tcssjble |erb farms and the rules forusiog them. The nollon of a systcm was inrroCuced by Ferd;n3nd deSaussure; it represenls an elaboraiion of the traditional notion ol aparadigm, but diffen in that il empbasizes the releiions among rhcclcments, ralher !han the elements thenicl \ rs.

Systemic Grammar /sr sri:mrl/ ,. A rheory of gramnar devet.oped by Nlichaei Hal!ida] and his coileagues during the 1r,\r r:!.r.d.cade-r. Firsr iniroduccd in Halliday (1961.), the framework { ..originally ca1led Scal-nnd-Category crammar. Stslclnic crsmnalsees a gra;nrnatrcal s]stem as a neNork of inrerrelated syslems oiclasses: entr!' conditiors define the choices which can be ma.iewithin cach systcm; these choices bccome increasingly speciiic('delicate ) as the analysis proceeds. Systemic crarnma. is a func-tional grammar in sense 1 of that term: it attaches ovcrridingimportaoce to the elucidaron of cdnmunicative tunction. and iranalyies incaryorate a g'eal C::l .f cll''nmrnicari!c. pragFraric andsocirtirrguisti. information or" a sr,n ..t commonl) cncounr':red irother app.oaches. Its troponents hale particirlarly srressed ;,s ltility in lif ,nalv,rjs of text"(. an area hevond the scope of mosi olhe.thcories .)f srarnr,ar. and indeed SJ-stemic Grammar is so diffe.erlfron orher apf'roa.hcs in ils rnotivatbn end ,)bjcctives that direcrcomparisl.n is alnoit imDossjble. fhe most convenient briei intro-ductjon is Modey (1985); a mc.re detailed introduction is Bu.ler(1985). A .igorous foniriizatior is p.ovided in Patten and Rilchie( 1987).

system network ,. In Stsremic (l.amrnar. a body of interrelatedrules which. takeo rogerher. specify the set of well-formed categories alailable in the grammxr

TAG ili; er dji, See Tree-Adjoinins Crarnmar.

Tagmemics /r:eg'nirmrlis/ "-

A framework for granmaiical description developed bv Kennclh Pike and his colleagucs.Tagmemics is a slot-and-f[er approach which is primanly design,j(lro rllow fieldworkers to rcduce corpor:r of dala to coherent descriprions efficicntbt it is particularly associated wirh rhe SummerInltitute of Lihguisrics. an association of missionary tinguiltsde\otcd largel\' 1() Bible rranslations. See Cook (1969) or Joncs(1980) for an introduclion.

tag question /'tsg k$esrf:n/ r. A qdcstion which immediatclyJ , , l l o s \ " . r d l e m e n r r i J $ h r , h . c n e \ r o * r l c o n n m o r r o n . c r r h c rexplicitl! (as in Sii.,r 'bn, ,srl rlr€:) or rhctorically (as ;n ,Sr.tttish, is slle?). Thc formarbn of rag qucstions in i:ngiish ir norori,ouslv comple\. mosr other langlages managirg with an r ..iriablclag likc Spanirh lr?o:

tag statement /|:.g srertm.nt/ ,. A starcmeni which innlcdiatelv ibllo*5 anorher sratemenl and which sen.es ro reinfofce lhar6nt l tatemenr. a! in. !r1 's l r ish. she is.

TAL /li: er 'el/ Sce tr€€-adjoinins lansuage.

tangling /'teoglr!/ r. Thc phenornenon in which rhe arcs in a trceconnectiDg morhcr5 to daughters are permitted to cross. in \iolationof the Non,tangling Condilion: see the cxample under rhjs lir(

la\onomv r i f l . r iJmr. a. An\ nropos. J . \ . r(n t , , . Lb( t i rp rnJc r a \ r r \ r n p s r a m m a r i c n t e L 1 l e n r . . A t J t t r , . . r t , : \ l , i ! r i r n m . r r , c i ldescrlpooo nccessarily ircorporatc some ra{onomjc elcme rs. burIne term ta\onomic has pa{icularh be.n u\ed by general ivexngu'sls as a term ol abusc for thc work of thc American structur_at i \ ts 1\ef s l .ucrural ism'. shich I r( \ r(ga,Lr . ( \ (r55,Lr t , ! . , I .f e r n e d q l ( l c \ i r h d l r o n a r l t , c e \ - , . n . ( o t r . t t " n , t r o r , . l J / .taxonomic /t:rk:; nomrk/

fLtttgeCccccctttecc

5C

c€

6cecF

3!3

-

-

-

-

taa?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.a

aetc

t--L.

276 t--

aenc I'tithU adj. Denoting an activity which has a recognizable goal!ii; achievement ofwhich would necessarily brhg the activity to anend, as in the examples Li^ta b cleaning the ffidqe znd We drcve toCantetbury.2. Deaoting a verb or predicare which, intdnsically orin a particular case, exhibits this semantic prop€ny, such as theverbs in the preceding examples. Cf. it€lic. See Comrie (1976) fordiscussion. carey (1957).

template /'temple / n. A general pattem for the formation of wordforms belonging to some lexical category in a particular language. Atemplatg consists of a linear sequence of'slots'or'po6itions', eachof which can or must be filled by one (or occasionally more thanone) of a specified class of morphernes. For example, Young andMorgan (1980) proF,ose an analysis of Navaho verb forms iD termsof ten positions, as follows: (1: theme) (2: iterative) (3: distributive)(4: direct object) (5: subject) (6: theme) (7: moddaspect) (8: sub-ject) (9: classifier) (10: stem); in any panicular Navaho verb form,some (though not all) of these positions will be 6lled by appropriatemorphemes. The template approach to inflectional morphologyseems panicularly appropriate for many North American lan-guages; it was hiShly developed by the American strucruralists, andformed much of the inspiration for their ltcE.rrd.Arrrr8ce.laview of morpholory generally.

temporal clsus€ /'tempary ',. An sdvcrbirl datl3e which express€ssome notion of time. Temporal clauses in Engish are usually intro-duc€d by one of the sutrordinatofi beforc, afkr, sin e, while, wfunand h)henever. Examples: The phane runB I'9hile she *at in th.bathl lBefote Lba cane b Blighton\ she lived in Donet.

tens€ /tens/ n. 1. The gnmratical clt€gory which correlates mostdirectly with distinctions of time. Tense is a frequent category in thelanguages of the world. but is far ftom universal, Chinese being anexanple ofa language *hich lacks iens€ entirely. Tense distinctionsare very fr€quently marked on finite verbs. English exhibits aminimal tense system with a two-way contrast between past andnon-past forms, as illustntedby Lisa lives ia France as. Liso lived inFrante; L'Ja it stuokinq $- Lba vras smoking: Lisa hts fnithed heressay vs. Lba had fr\ished her essay; Lisa sats she will come vs, Lbosad she h'ould cotnc. English lacks a distinctive fulure t€ns€. A fewlanguages, of whicb the Nen, Guinea language Hua is the ttest-known example, have a two{erm system contrasting futurc andnon-future. Latin and lh€ Romance languages show a three-term

217 thematic relalion

t€nse system with past, Pres€nt and fulure t€nses, though the use oithe future is bighly restricted in some of lhese languages Somelanguag€s exhibit more elaborate tense systems, distinguishing, for

example, recent past and remote past tenses. The New Cuin€alanguage Yimas has a rema*ably rich system of seven tenses: fourpast tenses, distinguishing varying degre€s of remoteness, a Pres€nt,i nearfulure and a remote future (Foley 1986). See Comtie (1985a)

for discussion, and see also abcolute tensc and relative teGe. 2 Anypanicular tense form exhibited by a panicular langrrage, such as theEnglish Past tense. NoE: traditiolal grdmar often u*s th€ tem teD*' ina lery l@s€ manner thar @ves mr only distinctiod ol tensc hut als those of

r9e! dd eneiimes eveo furrber dinitclions. Thu. Latin is $metimes said to

have sit ten*s'. whet in reality it hd th.ee tenses which intcscct virh two

dp€ctual caGgdries to produe sir distincl s€ts of foms ll would be very

@nve.ieni to have aD udbiguos tem for refering io anv sitgle one of the

tens asD€ct-m@d &siinctions made in a sinSle language. bul no such l€.D

aDDeas to b€ m e.

ten-s€d /tenst/ ddi. Denoiing a clause, a VP or a verb which is finiteand which is therefore marked for tense.

telm /B!m/ n. In RG, any one of the grammatical relations Subject,Direct Obj€cr or Indirecl Object, regarded as fundamental in thatframework and usually designated as 1,2 and 3, respeclively Otherrelations are regarded as'non-terms',

terEiDal trode /'t3:mrnl/ n. (also l€lt A node in a tr€e whichdominates no material; this is usually a lexical item.

terminal slmbol /'slmb!/ n. In a formal gammar employing thercw.it€ rule format, a symbol which cannot be rewrineD by any ofthe rules in the grammar and which hence can ooly ever appear as aterminal node in a tree.

TG S€e Trenslormational Crammar.

TGG See under Transformrtionsl crammar.

t ur-trace efiecls /dst'trels r,fekts/ n. pl. Another name for thephenomena covered by the Complementizer-4ap Constnint.

tbernatic relation /0lmatrk/ n- (also thematic rcle) 1. Tradition-ally, and still currently, the contribution made by some element ofas€ntence to the informatio! content of that sentence. The mostwidely rccognized thematic relations are topic, c.omm€rt and focus

L-l_t_t_,

i,!l'iiiirir;r;r

J

thematic structure

t'-f9-r27a L. topic

2 In GB another name for th€ta role see rhe *,nn..", ""0..

L l :- l,me .r ttrc ottrer semantrc roles recognized in cas€ cramrnsr arethern$tic saructure (sense 2).

--r ! ! l : ,--". ̂ ^^-".^-^,,. . --. ̂ , --"

thematic structure n. l rhe srructurc or a sen,."* "."" ,,". ,0. t ! i i:fi;#:1i:"liil-*, * cB. thc modrre which dears

Fi!x!{iiill,,1.fi::THillS'#:::,rJll*1,.*";: : i i ;:l.u.l;x;{H,:;'".;:"*tT?:.j;,'ffi::*ihil,.jjl:me sel or rneh roles {s€msnlic roles) a\\igned by a verb or p'edi- t - |

- ,.n..n.. .rrr.rur.' is mediared ch'etty by rhc proje(tion principlecate An example is the thematic strucrure or rhe verb k l. repre L- : a and rhe Theta criterion. cbomsky (1981).senredasl l {exremal):Agenl:2trnlernal) :patrenLl.ro*,r l i . . r ro,ceot ^ ! -temimlogy in cB is enremely u.fortusare. to sa] ,r," o^,, ^ i, ,""0". 9 I Y ilxrd person /furd/ n. That category of p€non which inchtdes nonnn€diate IDtediiat @nfuion wnh rhe long esratttisred n6r se6e. C - ; - reierence to lhe speaker o( !o lhe addressee. 'fhe English pronouns

rheme /oi:m/ a. r. rn morphoro$. an order synonym ,", *" e - I I ji:-li;,'i,'"!t#.1,:'.ii"'J';rt,;1":1":,,i::'Jll!l; ^'* t'lsense rr ' now lr l l le u\ed 2 A synonvm for lopic (sense l) con c - i e .h:rr-person imperat ive a \n imp€rar iv€ directed ar someonerrastinB with rheme I - comrnenl r. J. The s€manlic role borne bv an * I aNP erpressing an entity which is in a state or a r,c,;,,;;;;;Jh L

g- - J . it.r than the addresse.; s€e exrmples under iussiv€ Gense 2)

undergoing motion' such astheba inTheba L' di y,rhebouir;; C- a e T\1A ?'rir em cr/ An abbreviation for'tense mood aspecr', often'{"ffixi"Y^:!';:^x*:flitJi:fi';TyiH:T:tr :-i ? ij*,xi,:Hii:.:;:,:::.,"'.",:ilil1*ii.i::;i*J1"","".)

Theme and Padent' and some analvsts confiare the two :

- i : tm€sis /,tmirsrs/ n. separation of the elemenrs of a compomd word

theory of graDrmar /'oleri/ r. l. The branch of tinquistics whi.o e - | 3 by other material. a! in phat things soever lor '\,hasoeier thing,s, arinvestigates the characterization of ttre gramrnars ot natu,at t ! ? nt she took her dress off. ^s opposed ro She took offher drcss.languages. which rrier ro delermine the proprnies which such 1. I 3 /ir_inlinrtive /ru:/ n. A corlenrionat tab(l tor an inhniu\dl v<rl,

ilHfiil.:i:'l"i"**,t1iil;;il"::T:':1,;',;:il:.ti"#ij : Ii imrlr::*lllltj#::k:,;ll.x::;f\;tltial of such proposats are covernrnent-I

f**[*nt"#":#Lr".l1ilfiT**.ff#,fl';##: :_i 3 ;:i1;1,"::,il,Jfl".:jJ]JB":;:HlJ.#[";:,*""*_:#rheta criterion /''i:ra krar,rrarien/ ,,. (arso ,.criteriotr) ,, o". .-! 1l :;'#i'i""'.1i:J::::ii:1-'.ff.'i$]:::i:i"ilT;:'.'."i::i:l

the requircment that the arguments ofa verb in a \vnracdc structure C= a !h:1t,o br] is not a constituent of any kind. cf. bare inffnitiv€.

il'.:': :TJii.:T: ;""::i:"d bv the verb's rexicar ;nrry must march

5 : ,.H;fi j;:,:":"""y_:Jlr:::"J:::":l,lffi:Tl":" fil;:ffi:'H3#:T3:?f;,I"Si;xlx$,i'"iff*'srances or proper ;! ; ;1'i:;-l['l::,"#:'::*'Tf,::::'.'::':""]::liT:'H,1":ni:

-':r******'u*,l**ff *+su****r;,l

:i:

(jse-i =

topicalization 280 L-; 3 281. traDrforDrtiorr ll 'i

struclion of (omc lind. Scc e\amples under lopicalirstion. 2. ln ." | : o[ comPutadonai resources: sFcifica]ly, itr computarronat trnguis-

Philippinc languagcr. a c',nvcntiona,lab€lfor ano!ertly marked NP Z a: tjcs..denoting a gramljrar or class of grammars capable of servin'g as

which c\hibi ls\ome. bul nol al l . of the lypicalpropenies ofsubjecr\ a :3 lhe basisofa ptfs€r which gives resuits in a reasonablc ahouniofand which contrasts in thos€ languages wirh an {ctor (sense 2). an -- | - time. Absn. n- tEctability /tr.ki.,b rtil.NP exh'bir ing the rcmaining suhjecr propcnies. See Schacbrcr e | :(1976) for discussion. e I I traditioDsl grammar /tre'dlJenU n. A latlel ar'9lied loosety !o the

I I : entir€ body.of gammaticat descriptic!: i._r Euiope and Americatopicalization /,tDprkalar zerJnal n. The phenomeoon in whicb C-: 3 during the whole period before the rise of modemlinguistics in the

snmeelementofarentencci\s ingledourasthetopicbytheuseofa C-! =

iscnt ielh centuo. bur panicular ly ro rhe descript ions pres€nted inmarked cl,nslruclion. In English. rhis is done by preposing r-he : | : \Lhool textbooks in the ninereenth and early twenrieth centuries.topicafized element: IThis book) I canl rcconnend; IIn ttu pa*l e | :

The term is often lsed with clear pejorarive coDnorarions, reflectidgstood a bronze sta.ue. e i3

lie sometimes inadequate nature oftraditional descriptioos ad tbitopic-prominentra'suase,,Dprk,prDm,i"l,ll,1l,Tl"s"..," i ie il:*,:ffiJjffi,ffJf:fi!|*:yil"Ji,H'i**l

which topi6 are ovenly rnarleJ and play a prominent rote in tbe . I --

r;;:r,il,r1ffi*#;j:;:l;::"r"il*li**"rffifij : i: fij:"*fi:'li:frrJ:i:::'"rur#mlj1;ilil*ifi*t1{';';;;;l;;;;-;';;;;;c";-";;;;#;; ; l; If":::i4l:'T'i:!Ulle'l,T::,Hffi:lXb:tu:11roush-Moveme,nt tt^r,. rhe phenomenon in which rhe underry. : i : ::"Jtr,'lX:fiff"f"t'lffiX'-::"t"t:Tl"ff,ffifmm-ing direct objecr ofa verbin a complemenr of cenain predicates s C I

t ably more lbguistic€Jy sophislicated lhan earier araditiorslr(alized as the (urface subjecl of thal predicare. For eraEple. the C : 3 descnptrons.

ijtfj:n"#,.,'t:"!::;":[#":'i;*Ii'Ji".}[lx,:;:ff : i: riffiEijffiij;"*#iffi*"'ffi"*;Tt;#it';byRoscnbaum(,e67);thcn"."-",""'"*"""';::iH';":"Tl"'"lTfi ; I ; i""ff*:"t"l;:*

tasks as coriparison, transrition aaa dmJoh\cNarion rhat moi ol rhe English predr€re\ pemrtr'nA it are *mtutr

- I ^

erlcsion'of ee o' d6cuny.ttr. loueh hata 8d.st. ni --. "01* '. C a=

o-TL"3 r:fTb,q n. A.seoeral rerm for any s.ruc1'rle or stnng'ubject 'aF'nf is als ()lsionall) found n the orde, lne ratur.. C = ? wnrcb ts regarded as derived in solne way from atrother structure oi

toy grammar /trr/ see grammar fragmenr. C !a stnng regarded a5 more basic

rra(e /rre,\/ n. r {r) rn rhe RESr and in GB. a purarive.ir"l a ! a irHtr|IJ,;,1#Jii"#::tflJ",t*H."T;,:*.:t"ff"tl

l[,"#8"*si,itilp;;ff$1ry# i i ; tti;p.f!ii,]#ft1tr1f#,H'#ffiF#f;l"mk#$.:1ti":5.'*{ffi{i'*i"$ffi : i : p:"*:; m:';'r*Tr,**:d:,{*xf*2 rn naturar,ransuase p,n."..ine, u ,".o.0'Jiiil' il""^'"J"i;l; ; - I -- i'irlii.tli;l*#11?,i.llT**""ffi1';:*ll':*,*::tlthe constrttction by a parser of a parse for a particular inPut

c-! 2 tnear shings of element., "o"rr

a" u"i*""" u"true a'd passive srruc-tractable /'lreklrbl/ ddi. In compleriry rheory. denorrng a probt.. 1- _l 2

luresin Engltsh.l .D tiisconceprion. on€ of rhe srrucrurcs rs rcgard€d

or class ol problems which can be solved using a ,.r'."rt. ,fn""", I I 2

as oasrc and rh€ otler is regarded as dedved ftom it by the a;on of

ar-2

transformational cycle

the tmnsformation. whi€h is seen as ao oPeration upon strings. 3. Inthe period from about 1965 to about 1976, a formal. directionalstatement expressing a syslematic relation between two subtrees. inwhich one such subtree is regarded as basic and the other as derivedfrom it by the action of lhe transformation. which is s€en as anopention upon subtrees. In this conc€ption, the structures of thesubtrees involved are permitted lo b€ specified in virtually unlimiteddetail.4. Sioce about l9?6. a lormal. directional $atement simrlarto thal described in sense 3, but differing in that very severeconstraints are placed upon the possible characterization of thesubtrees inlolved, lypically to the cxtent thal nothing may bespecified beyond the requiremcnt that som€ category should bcpresent somewhere both before and after the application of thetransfbrmation. No+: lhis brief arlemPr aI characrerizing the va.yif,8 in-rerpremtiors shich have bccn altached lo lhe term lransfomation neglec$ a

rumber of details. such ar rhe crister@ in Chotrky (1957) of an entircl!

*pmte *t of generaliz€d o. doubl.-be rmsfomations. which had lhe

tunction of conbining two sparate s€nrenes into a single *nletre- .{di.

traDdormational.

Fatrsformational cycle /transfr'merJ.nl/ ".

{al\o cyclc) In iheStandard Tbeory of Transformational Grammar- the chief principlegoveming the application of most transformational rules to trces-Cenain nodes, called cyclic nodes, ar€ designaaed as having aspecialstatus, and the subtree dominated by a cyclic node is called acyclrc dom.rn. Whcn transformations are appli€d to a tree, all therules subject lo rhe cycle must apply first to the lowest cyclic domainrn th€ tree, ahen to the next higher one, and so on, until the ruleshave apptied to the highest available domain, each particular apPli_cation ofthe rules to a particular domain beingcalled a singlecycle.Most usually, the categories S and NP are designated as cyclicnodes, though other suggestions have been made. The PrinciPle oIlhe lnnsformational cycle (usually called simply the 'cycle ) isretained in GB, lhough it seems to b€ regarded as less cent.al thanfomerly- In th€ Standard Theory, cenain rules, ootably WH'Molement, wer€ regarded as cxcmpt from the requi.€merts of thecycl€, but in GB all lransformations are subject lo it. Fillmore (l%l).

Transformational Grammar n. (TG) (nore fully, Transforrr!'itional Gd€rative Grsmmar. or Trc) A theory of grammar con_ceived by Noani Chomsky in lhe l95G and elaborated by Chornskyaod otheG during the suc.eeding decades. Chomsky's ideas wereoriginally laid out in lhe massive and forbidding work The Logid

st

e- t ^?83 rransirivea ! \-r\

-: - 9ru u:eof Lineuisft. rr€oly. coftprered in r95sbur nor published

L_ t unrir rws.nreineory*a;d;;i;;;;;";;.ff'fiffi::.'JI;t - t Chomsky s te57.book Sl nncic Stru.twet. which onerea a 6riet ani

c - ? :J:.:I'.TT[ ;:fJ".lffi ili,ll"','J;j',"I]J,: :*;,,lil;

282

C--, 3e-l 3e,i 3c-i €c-i 3e -i .c-:3

linguists; however, they were take4 up witl, cnormous enthusiasmby a younger generation ofl;nquisrs. and within a few ve"r T.t h,.loy a younger generat'on oi l:nguisrs. and within a few years TG hadb€come rhe orthodox mainstream in American tinguistics. Thechangeover was accompanied b) a greal deal of b]rrerness, asdescribed in Newmeve. I lq86r In raAi ah^-"r-descnbed rn Newmeyer (1986). In 1965 Chornsky published ,4rpe_cbol the Theory of S),ntat, in which he presented a virsion of tC tfratwas greatly revised fiom the early one and far more comprehensive;rhe rheory described in ,4rt"crr qujckl' b((ame |(no\an as theStandardTheory of TG. rFor 'ear\ . (rudents of I inguist ic\ refcrredC i : ro,he rosTand re6s;o.i,"r'r.;;;";;"r;;.il;',il'i.JilHi

e:3 3 and The New Testament'.) TC was the firsr expticitty generative

e approach to grammar in modern tiftes. and for manyyeais the only!r!; : ; l;:;';Tll,::ti::'.J'J:"*#.lit',1il:#ff111;:lJ

C : a Rllcb|e r6rrls). but ir proted ro be remarkabty bad ar anatysing a

e ! e ;:",',;:"::.'.il'.1ff:i"1"*il:ffiT"il,:T*.::$'H:[";e i ? Ihmr} and rhe Rcvisad Exrend€d Slandard Theory). and il was

r | ? Hl'llJJ.ll',fi:'#,n;1'i"l ?:t,.'J,;[ j::ij" :::.J-'ii:l:C ! a terms dnd also Sr"na*a n"ory. cenerarive Semartics. SeeC : 3

b*.v., 1to3o, lor a hisrorical account o[ rhe devetopmenr of

: - i : rransir ion neawork han,lt . ' t n.A mode or sraphicat represen.f I - tarion of possible sentence s

e i . ".'"t",,ir,."""i,,'ii;:T':$:.:ffi;'1#::':;":ilf;j

$ : iffi Tf; ; Ji Tir"lT: j lil',i:i:i,.T Tff : ;l;ll,,iiil"""t.iC

-i 3 r."^ntoD trerwork grammar n. A ope or netuork grammarC

-. 2 *hich uses rraffition ner$orks ro exhibir ,r,. ,^"e. or-;;;-t.q+

"

suflace \rrucrures. See woods (1970).

C { ,2 tta"siti"e /,kansrrrv/ cdr. Denoling a verb. or a ctause conrainins

t-;,: ;1"1 il'l';J,'':H",S"ff ,,:li:',. y :,.*:.:,::f :, ),:,,.,#:eac*'e

tr8Dsldve adJec'dve 2U

a'L.L,a-L-t,L.t ,e-L,qC'Clcic;ci€iicii

:ii; l l:rliiliii)ln)l-tl,i liLrt:Lli;J

trec

d2snoy, underyo, prchr. Others (rbsolute tranitiY€s) can oPtio-nally appcar without an oven dir€ct object; examples are eat,understaad, kill al;d point. A few traNitive verb6 can do this oDly byrcceidng a reflexive interpretation, such as l'aih and ,rndters. Verymany tmnsitive verbs, the so-called uraccusative verbs, ca! befteely used as intransilives; examPl€s Ne sink, melt, toll ^ad col'lapre. Finally, some transitive verbs can be used intransitively with apassive iDterPtetation in the mediopessivc (or 'middle') construc-!ion; examples are rsll, woth and cook- k Eng)ish, mo6t transitiveverbs can undergo passivization, though there are a few apparentexceptions, such as tr, suil and weiSi (one sense); the tramitivestatus of these verbs is questiooable

tr8rsitive adjective n. An adiective which requites or pe.mits afollowing complement, usually expressed in English by a pre-positional phrase but in some oiher languages by a suitably case-inflected }{P. Ex^mplesi proud ol her success, deliShted with herrcsuhs , devoid ol signifconce, ataious about the decision , Iriah@ed

tratrsltive verb pbrss€ n. (TYP) A lab€l sometimes apPlied tocertain discontinuous sequenc€s consisting of a verb and atrothetelement separated from it by a direct object NP, \rhen these areregarded as fominS discontinuous constitu€nts Examples: tiv

lpinuadedl me fa go'!; She lrnade] the childrcn lclean up ttu messl;i lconsider'l het la friindl, We want o lpaintl rhe bathrcom lwhitel:I iregard) ier [as very clever]i Sh.lir-setudl a coin linto the slotl. See

rigit w|.ap. Bach O9?9).

hatrslative /'transletPl n. or adi. A czse form occurring m som€

langlages which lpically exPrels€s a state into which someihinBchanges, such as Finnish vedertsi 'into water' (veri'water') fi Lumi

muumri vedel,.si 'Tlrc sno\r tumed rc watei

transparency /trens'p€ronsi/ 'l. In GB, the property of a.node

which fails to act as a bsrrier' ,4dl- traDspareot ̂ rans'perent/

fu@ ttl,tt n. l. (also trec tltryrsm, Fee structurc' Prrse tr€e, PhrrseDrrtcr) A glaphical repres€ntatioD of the conslituent structute ot a

sentenc€ in-which eact coostitueDt is rePresented by a flode label

which indicates its syntactic category aod the immediate constrtu-

€nt! of eacb category are linked to it by lines ('arcs'). Here $ an

example represenling the s€ntence Liso bought thal blue skirt i4

----------..-_NP VP

| __,/zr----,_,,_N V N P P P

/\Det N' p Np, ll

AdJNIN

llllLisa boughr thar blue skin in paris.

The formalizalion of trees is far from being a triviat matter. T.ees asrhey ar€ commonly conc€ived ar€ subjecr to a numberof condirions,the most imponant being rhe SiDgte Root Condition, the SingteMother Cotrdiaion. rhe Eiclusivity Condirioo and rhe Non-rrngfigConditiotr. Other conceptions are possible, however; see Mccawley(1982) for a formalization which rejects two of these conditions.Though American linguists had earlier used rcDresenrauons eourv_alent to trees \rith no labels on the nodes, rhe irst modern tree, rob€ published were those in Chomsky (1956, 1957), in which workstrees were rejecr€d as inadequate; rhis rejection resulted from theoverriding concem of early generative linguists wirh representingsentences as sequences of sfi|rgs. Though Eugen€ Nida (1960)made exrensive use of trees wirh unlabelled nodes, lrees continuedto b€ very rare in syntactic work published in the early 1960s, and itis significant that E. R. Gammon, in his detailed 1963 strrvev ofg1aphical represenrat ions of synracr ic strucrure, make. no meni ionof trees in the modern sense (though he does include Nida's un_labelled trees).In 1964, Paul Postat (1964a) wassti dismissins rreesas in principle inferior ro srrings, rhough inreresringty ir wa\ ; rhalsam€ year that Jerrold Katz and posral published the first work tomake extensive use of trees. Choosky made very sparing use oftrees in his influential 1965 book, bul by this time trces were beinqwidely used ro reprecent sentence slructure, Nevenheless, as lafe ai1968, James Mccawley stili found it necessary to prorest against the

\at

\'

\.

\t'

'lt

.,

c-4

Q:te-

26 L-L-Lf - 3

aaaa

-

28't Irfuger

pr€vailing tendency to regard trees as s€condary to strings, and ithas been only slowly and gradually that linguists hav€ becom€sufficiently lamiliar wilh glsph theory ro realiz€ that tre€s can b€usefully regarded as primitives in theirown ight, and not as inferiorreflections of strings. NoG: Mccaetey (tgSS) FDinrs out rhar. srricrtyspeaking. a t - st rcr@ (an absrracl tir8uisric objet) is distircr hon a r.Ed.gtu (a graphiol reprewnrarion of a tree srructu.e), bur rhe distincrioo istudy inponani in practie. and is usua y iSnored. 2. Any of vaious othergaphical representations of sentenc€ structure which are remi,nisc€nt of (botanical) trees, particularly a dependency tree.

Tr€€-Adjoining Grammar /,tri: odjrrnr[/ r. (TAc) One of aclass of fomal grammars in which trees are taken as primitiveelemenrs which can be combined into larger sFuclures. A TAGconsists of a set of initial trecs, each dominat€d by the symbol S, aset of auxiliary trees. each containing at the bortom aoother in-stance of the category which is its root. and the operarion ofadjunction. which in!€ns an auxitiar) rree inro ar,orher tree.Adjunction is performed by excising from tbe marrix rr€€ a subtreedominated by a node X. replacing the €xcision by the auxiliary tree(which must be dominated by a node of category X) and ins€rringthe excised subtree under lhe other instance of X in lhe auxiliarytre€. Here is an example, showing the adjuncrion of the auxiliary&ee B into the matrix tree A to produce the result C:

B i c:

Tree.Adjoining Grammar

Dependencies are treated by joining two relat€d nodes with an arcwhich is pres€rved in all adjunctions; such arcs may be .str€tched'without limit and may cross. Simple TAGS are weakly. but notstroDgy, equivalent to context-ftee gramma.s. TAGS enhanced by

the use of local coniext-dependence for adjuocrion a.e .mildly,context-s€nsrtive; the languaSes they describ€ constitute a proper.rlbser ol rhe itrdexed langusgs. bur rhey are srilt capable oi ha;d_Irng crN-serial dcpendenci€s. TAGS were develoD€d br Ar.avindJosh' and hrs col leagues. heginning $i th Joshi pr.r / . t toZS.l , con_venrent rntrocluctrons are Joshi (1985, 198?).

tree-adjoining language n. (TAL) A languagc defined by a trec-adjoining Crammar.

tree-adjudction l'. The distinctive rype of rdjunction which isemployed in tre€-adjoinfug gram|nars.

tre€ diagram See tr€€.

lree-pruning /'pru:nr!/ n. Io classical TG, a convention bv whichan\ node in a rree which. as a resulr of rhe operarion of transform.arions. came to dominate no malerial at all *rs automaticallvJelered from $e rre€. The convenrion was rendered redundanr wir[the acceprance of the Structu.$.hB.rv.rbo Coosrr-rh0 and tlrcintroduction of Erces. R6 (U'66).

lfoe shrcture See trtr.

trial /'rrar;l/ ddl. A disrrncr trumbcr caiegory erpressing eracrlythree entities_ Very few languages have such a fotu, and clearexamples are hard to findi rhe .triat' traditionally impured to Fijian,for instance, has turned out to be a paucrl. However,- thiAustronesian tanSuage l-arike has recentlt been found to have atrue tnal (Laidig and Laidig l9q)).

hiangle noLaaion /,rraratsl n;u.retJq/ n. A notarional devicduscd ro simpl;fy tree \tructures by omirtinS lhe derails of someorancn ot the tree whos€ internal structute is not at issue. Th€\uppre\sed subtree is represenled merely by a triangle with a noderaDer at the top and the lexical items ai lhe bottom. See the exaDpleon p. 288.

tricllhg /'trrkh!/ Se€ percotrrion.

trigger I'trrga/ r. Any eleoent io a ,cntcnca *hich drak€s somcrequrement ets€*here in thc setrteoce. For cxarnple, a subject Npwhich requires ageement in the acrb is raid to .t iggc.,

"giec."otIn the verb. or to act as a! agreemetrt .trigeer', the velb beh! the38r(emeni targer'. SiEilarly. a v€rb o, a preForst,n i, a;3e_

L-f- lL-i

;iiii!i+i_r:-rt!r:-.r:-r:^-!:J;-lrs

S---T\"lb

T

c d

T

S €

,,4\, / \f r g

S

,,.1t\a T b

S e

-/T\f ' l z

ac

tuple 288(-

t_

,_

I

a

;

I,

nrarking language rnay trigger a particular casc form on ils objectN P ,

S

l\ ,--,-\fie hamstcr b€hind lhe bookcase.

tuple /'tjurpl/ See n-rupl€.

Turing machine /'tjuarlo ma,Jiln/ r. The mon Poqerful llpe ofautomaaon. Turing machines can be constructed which are caPableof carrying out any kind ofcomputaiion which can bc performed onfin ite strings at all. See Partee e, dl. ( I 990) for a brie i introduciion.Turing machines were conceived by the British malhematician AlanTuring in thc 1930s. See also uniYerssl Turing mechine

TVP See transitiYe ve.b phras€.

type 0 grammar /tarp au/ See unrestricted grammar' chomsk)(1959).

type I grammar Ar^n/ Sec contextseDsitiYe granmar' chonsrv(r95S).

type 2 grammar /rul/ Scc cont€xt-fre€ grammar. Chomtk-! (1959)

type 3 grammar /ori:/ Sec regular grammar. chomstt (19se).N({! or th. abovc: ir some oI his other elrly Publications. Chomsl'r'. !\cd a

diifercnr nunb.in8 st5tem tion that Srren h..e. $hich is the onc thli has

gai..d getetal a(ePtancc

t lpolog) ,rar pol)di i / . I Th( cla\ t i6calron oi ldnguage' In telm' oftheir structural features. N{orphologicall} based lypologies wereinlroduced very early in lhe nineteenth centur-1. lhe most famousbeing the isolating/aggtutinsting/infl ecting tyPology of Wilh€lm vonHumboldt. See Ho e (1966) for a briel history of morphologicaltvpnlog!. S)ntacr ical l t hased l t?ologi( ' dar( , 'n l) t rom th( l 'J6$'the pioneering work being that ofJoseph Greenbe.g (1961) on bssic

I

ttl-

tte

cC

cc

ceeal

(a

{

289 tyFlog/

word ordcr rypology; since then, very many syntactic tlpologieshave b€en proposed. involving such class€s as non.conngurationd,refenDce{o.rdnat d and topic.pmmjrent languages. See Croft(1990) for a sulllmary. ,1dJ. typologicsl /tarpr lDd3rkl/.

UCFG See unordered contexa-fr€€ grsmmar.

UCG See Unification Categorial Grummar.

UG /jur 'd3i:/ 1. See univ€rsal grammar. 2. See unificsbon grammar.

ultimate constituent / ^ltlmat/ n. Any element, normally a wordor a morpheme, which is a constituent of some category and whichcannor i r \el f be brolen do*n inLo smatler conct i luenl\ .

Umlaut /'umlout/ n. A type of infl€ction by vowel change in thercot. as in toothheeth ̂ nd mouselmice. Umlaut diffen from Ablautonly in its histoncai source, and both terms are usually only used bylinguists who are aware of the historical Iacts.

ulaccusative /^n.'kjurzetlv/ n. or adi- Denoting an inlransitiveverb or predicate. or a construction involving one of these, whosesubject NP i5 not an agent or (sometimes) not an actor, or, in someconceptions, whose surface subjecl is an underlying (direct) object.fypical unaccu\arves ^rc drc. nett . ?xplode. Jal l do\n- |Jt .vanish, be smatl, be red and many asPectuat verbs. Unaccusativepredicates exhibit distinctive grammatical behaviour in some lan-guages, for example by taking postverbal subjects when otherintransitives take preverbal subjects. Unaccusatives rec€ive a dis'tjnctive grammatical analysis in certain theories of grammar. no-rably RC and CB. See Crimshaw { loRT). Ct. unerlat ive ceotrPullub (unpublished worki; Perlnt(er (1978)- NorE: recently the tem erga_live . popularized by Keyser and Roepcr (19Ea), has been widely used lor thoseunaausatires which can be used both transitilelt atd intransililely- parlictlarlv

in GB: ke ihe.emarks under erystive Gense 5)-

Unaccusative Ilypothesis ,4tal'pD0asls/ n. Tb€ proposal thatunaccusative verbs and predicates have an uoderlying direct objectbut no underlying subject. This analysis is accePted in certain derivational theoies of grammar, notably RG and many versions ofGB. The 6rst explicit pubiished proposal ofthis hypothesis was thato, Pe.lmutter (1978), but the idea had earlier been put fon-ard by

ci., .r rol unergalive

C- f 3 Paul Postal and. less explicitly. by others; see Pullum (1988) toi a

e , l 3 h i r ro r i ca l summan.

C i 3 unbounded /^n'boundld/ adt. Dcnoting aay phenomenon involv-

C i -- ing two elemenls which may be arbitrarily far apan. Cf. local.

C i 3 unbouDded dependency .I. ral'o long-disrane dep€ndency) An!- | - deprndency lsense l) rhe r$o ends ot $hrch may be s(paraled byC | - an) rrbirmr) disrdnce. The mosr ramrlrar e\ample rn hngli .h i ,C i - WH-q estions, but ct€fting, topicdization and relative claus€s may

also in !o lve unbounded dependenc;e, . The exrsren(e o i unhoundcdt I : dcpendencie\ .on ' t i ture, o major heddache lor . )nracr ic analys i . .( i : a n ; a l l s o n \ o r . p c c i a l m d c h i n e n h a ! e b e e n p o s t u i a r e d r o d e a l * r t h

( i : l1'#;:iH.i'J:J;i"i['"';:il"3;T;"',3lt'd':::T,"#t I t t unhounded dependencres a' .on\rning or charns of locsl depen-g i - 9T:rT, GB by usins trac6 and GPSG by using its slash feature.

( | O I rC doct $mcrhins \ imi laf b! uins arc. In t strucrure..

. I a uDdergoer /^ndr 'giur/ f l . In RRC. a 'uperordinare semani ic role| | - rrpical ly a.\umed by rhc lower ranking ron a cenain hierarch)) olC ; e r*o o'gurn.nr \P. i ; a clau,e. cf . aoor.

Q | 3 uderlying l^nda lan\/ a.lj. Denotlng any abstract representation

I l e which d' f fers appreciabl\ I rom rhe .ur{acf rorm 'r i \ posi ted a.I | ^ r c p r e ' e n t i n e . M a n \ r n o r a l l ) l i n g u ; s r \ w o u l d a r g u e t h d r h o n , . f o rC i t in\rance. i \aredl i /J l ionofanun, ler ly ingbrrnor.orthat.onjugabtc

C i 3 teal iTe' an und., l ] ,ns contu1at" ptus qbl€. Tleories ol srammal- I a di l fcr greaLlv rn the eyrenr ro $hrch Ihey sre wi l l ing ro countenanceC i : unde,t ,ns represenrar ion. Deri \ar ional f teones or giammar l i t ee ; 3 lC ard aB ol(Ln posrulare highl! absrrao und(, lying repre'en

€ I - I a l i o n , o f s v n r d r r r t , r r u ( , u r c . t o r e x a m p l e . L 6 a r ? c n L ' @ b p h a p h i .

' I = o l ren r \ \umed to real ize an underh ing r r ructure a long rhe Lne\ of

| | ! Tcn\c 'ccnlL$a tnt be happ.r , l . Trc rc ,F undert ) ,nsro,n qa.h^rused

f i Z b\ Bl@mreld r lo l l 218, rhouBh Bloonscld. use qa5 s l .shrh d i i ie lenr l ,om

c l. '":^*-.:l '.t l ! r

r i ? x:"i:l:fi i:J::i:l I ;J.11$: T::1;1 1., li, iJjH i'.'J.Ij]::S ; a F l ( f t underly ingly unspecrf ied and mu\r thcrelorc be pro! ided b) a. | -- default mechanrsm. y uod€rsperi l / lnd;spe,rfar/ .

C | "

"1"T1111:_ 7,^n'3:satrv/ ,..or ddr. Denoting.an intransitive verb

: | ^ or p 'edrcare whore \ubjecr rs an agent NP or rsomerimes) an adorC i

-a \P. Ilpical une'sarives ate run. junp. rns. dan ?. fprkft and. tess

.--\ 2c-i zta?

ungranrmatical 292

obviously. r".?iy", r/eel and.l,.an.In Engl,sh. un€rgarives oftenj::-rn't (pse'rdo-)passivizarion: the t'ence was jumped ovet br theho^e; tht bed was ept in bv Georye WtL,hingro,_ Orher iniran,sir ' \es lunaccEal irest do not pcrmir passr! izrr ion: - .Ve\rco wastt ^h.J in bj Anhrc\c Btcttc. tThi\ bed qo\ dipd in b\ C v/. ,Washington. Uneryat;\es receive a disrinctivc gramnatical anaty;srn certain theories of grammar. notabl] RG. Cf. unaccusative. ceotrPulluo (unpublished work)i perlDu c. and posrat (l9ri_1,.

ungiarnmaticd /^ngra,merrkl/ (also deviant (sense l)) See i -form€d.

unificatiol l,ju:rrfr'kerln/ ,]. In !anous theories of qr3mmarmating use ol c\pt ic i l and we -Jc\etoped .y*em, of iynracr icledrurc\. a formal procedure for combinrng r$,, \ dlegor ies Int i , one| $o r3tegone\ c?n Lrni f \ as lonS ds th(I di , not c, ,nlarn conf lr( . r ingi4rormatron. th€ re\ut l ing catcgorv con!ain\ J l t rhe informarion ineach of the two inilial categorics. The concep! of unificarion wasinLroJuced b) Kay (t9?9): iL has gi len r ise io d shote tani tv ofgrammalical framework\ collectrlet) knoun r! unifcation grsm-mars. among which LFC, cpSG and HpSc are particularh Dromi_nent. ln lhese frame$orks ] ln i f icar ion plays a cru;rat rote in pas.rngrnlormation around nodes in trees so a\ lo handlc such phenomeni

Cnification Categorial Crammar', rt.Cc, An etaborarcd !e,{ron of Catcgorisl crsnmsr in which cat€qone\ mal be Iuflher.pec' fred b! fearures and may conlarn !dr i ; lcr which arc inst. ,n-liaied by unification with orher categories. Each erpression in UCGbelongs to a syntactic caregory and has a phonotogical form and asemannc representalron,

unification grammar ,r. (UG) A generjc tabet fo. any grammaticalfram(sork rn uhich unif fcat iotr ptays a prominenr pan. iee Shicber( lqA6) for an rnrroducrion ro uni6cat ion r ,rammars.

uniformity /ju:nr ftr:mrri/ ,r. (also uniforE bar-t€vel hypoth€si!) Inthc X-bar system, the requirement rhar every maximal projectionshould carry the same number of bars. Implicit in early d'iscussionsof

. the.X-bat svsrem. uniformrr) sas ixpl icul ] . advc,6a1q6 6,irctendoff (1077). who propos€d rhree bars for naximat projec-lruns. Uniformity i\ widely accepred. and ar presenr rhere is some.rnrrrg or a consensus in favour of tso bars on ma,( imal project ions,tfoLgh s.:!eral iinB,Ists h!!e argurd f,)r one bar. other; have pro_

: l:; i3 2q3 xnpassi\e' z \v l: posed larger numbers than thr€e. and a few hale rc.jected unitbrm-'-

13 irl entir.:ly. Sce Kornai and Pullum (lq{) |ltr discussion and

/ .\ relerences

; l ! unisinistral i t ) 4u:nr\rnr\ rrr ' t l r / x lh. : pron(.rrv or d .c$r irr rute

: l : , ur icrr ha' cr icr iy onc carego^ ro rhc lor ot rh( r | row. 'drnrr ieJ b)

: r: :::"Y11T: :::.I::.i:"ilt.:-:i'"_::t'i:1:-1'::: ltl'lil:cf l3 m{rst conccptions ofthc notion (conrext-rrce) phrase structure rule.

C l- universal /iutnr v3:\1/ n. Any object or property wh,ch is posited as^ heing prescnt in the grammars of all languages. or at leasr at being

. , .a , labr( ro lho.e l rJmma|t . e !cn r I nor dcrur l l ] real r /cJ 'n .om(

i tv Uoiversals are sometinrcs divided into forn.l uniy€rsals. ha\iog ro

i i 3 :ro *'th. th: i1T

i,eraTmar can take. and substantiv€ unirersals,

( I 'ha\'ing ti) do with the objects which can be prcsent in a grammxr:

( i -

iee e\amDles under those entries. See also absolute universal.= r€lati'e un,tersal.

Q ; = iDerpl ic i t l ! ) by Chornsk,v (1965: l l7). 2. Sometimcs. by e) ircnsron.

t I "

:::11p.:::i l l l l l:plinciparstructure'bu,ldinsrurcsmishlbcthe

C i. ( ni\er\al Base Hlpolhesis /hdr' tnH)'r* r. L In-lC. rhc con

- Ia lurr Ihxr rh( phra\( \ ln ,c turu ru lc \ o l the berc ( \<n\( 4r mrghl bee r- lecture th^t thc phrase stnrcture rulcs ol the baic (sense 4) might beidenlical in the grammars of all languages. llrst suggested (rather

( l"

c l:same in thc srammars of all langu.rScs

: I ; uni lcrsal grammar n. , t iCr fho\c grammari .J l n 'operr i ( , s irch( t - h, Jd i ' r rhc Frdmmdr\ or J l l ( \ i , r ins Jnd porrrblc narurr l rJngui, !c i .

c l" shich dclinc the noiion possiblc gramrnar'. Thc clucidation oftheproperlies ol universa l grammar is one of the chicfgo;ris ofsyntacticf " iperr ic . u f uni \er jd l grammar rs . 'nc ot thc (h i ( r ! r ' i l \ o I synrrc lc

? rh--or !q i 'C t 1 universal Turing machine,. A parricutar Turing nachine qhich5 r<5 t- rs capablc ofemulat ing lhc behaviour of any other Turing nrachirc.

r i ? S e e P a n e c , r , / r l u q r ' r o r d i \ c u i s i o n

L l ,

? unmarked form.1nm.r: tr fJ:m/ r . fhar onc ot l$o or m., , !' - j -_ .omnerin! f , ' rm. $nrlh r \ In somc sen\c lhe . imple\ l . r 'm,, .15; . hasic . For examples and discussion. ice under merkcd fo.m.

€ t i ttnordered contexlfree grammar /^n Jrded/ n. (UCFG) A rype

7 of conrcrr frle grammar consisr;ng onl\ of immdiate domin.lncea rules. \ i th no statemcnts of i inear prccedencc. A UCFG gencrates

5; '€ , 1 $ild tre€s. Badon €r d/. (tell7). ^ t4

7 t' 6'll"::;:'l; T::,::i :;' :r-::.:::l.:":::::"lt':,:^:l::lC ll, -1

lhe prefi\ u' is alachrd to th€ p0slive parriciple ol a transitive

,c-l ?6'r€--

unProductive

verb, which may be accompanied by an ageni phrase. as in I/ira ivol was rnnotked by the crc|9d. Unpass*es prcsent difficultiesof anafysis, since they have no corr€spondiog acrivet aThe crcwdunnoticed his afivol . T\ey represenl a clear case of morPhos'-ntac-tic mismatch, s:nce unnoticed is a morphological unit. while th€syntactic stnrcture required appears tobe 4t-lrroticedby the nowd|

unproductive /,^npre'd^kttv/ adj. Denoting an affix or a pattemwhich occum io certaio cases of word formation in a language butwhich cannol b€ extended to new instances of wotd formation. AnEnglish example is the sumx -sr?ip, which occurs in such words askin|ship ^nd lriandship btlt which cannoi be extended to newinstances. lt is possible for an unproductive paltern to becomeproductivei an example is the suffix -wrre, which was until recentlyentirely confined to a handful of words like cloc,t wbe, otherwbe andlenglhwbe, brt *hich has now become produclive: mon?yltt:t?,productionwite, healtht lJe and so on.

unrestricted grammar /^nrr'slrlkttd/ n- (also typ€ 0 Errmmar) Atlpe of formal grammar emPloying the revrite rul€ formalism inwhich any arbitrary string may be rewritten as any other arbitmrystring, the only limitation being lhat there must be al least one non_null calegory on the left of ahe rule. The class of unrestnctedglammars is the most powerful class of gmmmars which can bed€fined, and such grammars can weakly generatc any system whichcan be geo€rated at all. Untestricled grammars are lherefore equiv-alent to Turitrg mrhifts- and are generally rcgarded as b€ing vastlytoo powerful to be of any linguistic interest- See also Peters-Ritchiertsults. Chomsky (1959).

unspeciffed object deletion /^n'speslfald/ n. The phenomenonin which an inrr inr ical ly rransj t ive verb appears In an apparent lyintransitive consfuction with no overt direct object. but the subjectis slill interpreted as the agent and some unsp€cified entity rsunderstood as the direct object. ExamPles include Lba is eannq,I've been painting for years, He dinkt too much and He htill killagarn. In English, only certain transitive verbs can be so used: *lye

were discustingi 'l olten inagme. See abcoluac lransilivc and ctmediopasive.

untens€d /^n'tenst/ adt. A synonym {or non-ffnit€, one often pre-ferred by generative grammarians.

295 ulleratrce

up arTort / ^p areu/ n. In LFG, the syrnbol 1 , attached to a node ina lree to mark funclional ioformation passed up to the f-structure ofthe node's mother. See the examples under irctionsl schema.

utlemnce /'^tarans/ n. A particular piece of speech produced by aparticular individual on a particular occasion. The Americao srruc-turalists regarded utteranc€s as constituting the primary data forlinguistic investigation; generative grammarians, in contrast. fre-queotly attach little importance to utteranc€s, regardirg them ascrude rcflections at best of an underlying linguistic reality andpreferring to focus their attention on int.ospections. See Labov(1975) for a critical discussion of th€ theoretical starus of utrerances.

aI

7,zic-lt-l

iii!;j.-f!l:r:l

Hil

294t33333-'

-

a-aatt

a-it

3??aaaaaaaaaa7aaaa

a-e-e-c-L,c-cc

Cet(

(

s

297

a

?a-

-

?

qe

cici! l

ciqirl5i- lr l€i- , 1t r€-:l| | l

verb phiase

V See verb.

valeng/ /'ve etrrv n. 1. Tlre number of argumenls for which apanicular velb subcategorizes: /ain is avalent (no argumelts), dr? ismonovalent (one argumedt), desclib. is divalent (two arguments)and giv€ is trivalent (three arguments). 2. More gencrally, thesubcaEgorization requir€ments of any lexical item. Tgoilrc (1959),

Yalue /'velju:/ S€e l€sture valu€.

varlsblc /'veorieby n. l An algebraic symbol which may asliumeany one of a specified range of values. For example, in the X-barslstem, the variabl€ X is often used to represent the range ot lexic.lcategories which can be proj€cted into phrasal cat€gories, itrcludingat lealt Noun, Verb, Adjective and Preposition, add possibly otherlexical categories. Similady, the notatioo V', where the sirperscriptr is a variable, may be used to repres€nt arly projeciion of thecltegory Verb, with r t}?icaly ranging over the valucs 0, 1 and 2.2. In GB. another name for a WH-Eac€.

vastness theorcm See NL vsstness theor!|ri.

V-bar /vi:'bor/ a. In the X-bar system, the ooe-bai proiection of thelexical category Verb. Analyses differ as to vrhether this crtegoryshould be rccognized at all and ako as to wbat, if it is recognized, itshould correspond to. Eady versioDs of the X-bar 3ystem usuallyidentided V-bar with the category VP, with V-double-bar identifiede! S; however, a nultrbe. of pheDomcDa (ftonting, deletion, etc.)strongly suggest that VP musr be 4 marimal projection, and hencertrost current analyses simply dcny tb€ cxistence of the one-barprojcction. Rec€nt versioDs of GB rcaogtize a dbtinction berweenV-bar and VP; the distinction, hovcvcr, b not stroDgly motivated,and it appears that the label '\?' is assigncd somewhat arbitrariiy tothe highest V-barin a tree. See Haegeman (1991) fordiscussion. Cf.verb pbras€.

rerb /v1:b/ | , (V) One ot rhe most imponanr lel tcet calegories. andone wnrcn rs sfemrngt ' unr\ersat. Thc cla\ . of \erbs in evcr, languag€ is both large and open. Grammatically speaking, verbs aremosr obviously distinguished by the fact that each verb rypicallyr€quires the presence in its senrence of a sp€cified s€t of Ni? aryu'-ments, each_ of -which t'?ically repres.dts so.,e panicular s€matrticrole and each_ofwhich may bc requi,.d to appear in some particulargrammalicai form (particular casc marking, particular preposition,<r j . ) . ln a.rer ' hrgh proponron of tanguage.. rhough noi in ; , \ erbs(cne as Ine to€us ot marking for lense. and orLen also tor aspect.mood_and agreement jn pefion and number with subjeds andsometimes other argument Nps. Semantica y, verbs mositypica yexpress actions, events and states ofaffajrsj €ar, /ie,tnow, coitapse'.

v€rbal noun /,w:bl/ n. Any fofm of a ve$ which can serve as thehead of a noun phrase in a nominalizatioD, particularly a g€rund.

verb-complement clause ,. A compl€mena claus€ which serves asa complemenf ro a \erb. as In lhe exdmpte\ Li ,a wanls Ib bu, aB Uwl and Lba enpys Iiatchin? .usb)l

verb-fiDal / larnt/ a,.lr. L Denorrng a ctau\e in which the verb occursat the end 2. Denot ing a tanguage in \ \hich rhis is the normdlpsrrem, 5uch as an SOV language.

verb- iDit ia ladt. I Denoringactau,e in $hich rhe \erboccur\ar rneDegrnnrng. 2. DenoLing a tanguage in \ lh ich thn rs rhe normalpattern, such as a VSO tangl]age.

lerb-medial dl . L Denotrng a clause in which rhe \erb occurrner!ner rnrtra y nor f ina y. 2. Denor,ng a langLrage in which rhrs rcInc normat pa ern. .uch a\ an SVO tsnguate.

"::1 l lT* T rvpr L rhe s,,nrad,c caresor! consrsrrns oi r rerhano rts comptemeors and al\o. jn.mo\r analyses. i ts adj-uncs. rht:r i :C: ' ] ,T-,

ryprcall) luncrions a\ a predicare. rte carepory \ p:. l l*: . . . i '* d ma\rmat pmjecriun in severat re,pecr: ana accora'ngr. uithrn.rhe-X bar \)\rem. i t n u\ud y rega,ded as rhe mJ\imdll:-"J:^.1:i."

or.rhe terrcat cdregorv verb. rhough io some cart)rcrsron\ or lhe X-har \ )s tem. Vp wa\ ident ihed as rhe one_bal

l l :F. i ' :" Y' v" he,ns idenrif ied s h s v ruafly a arHt].e{agrec ltlat. in d simpje exampte ,uch a\ Lia bou?ht th:s tt|t inrdrrr. th( sequence bouqht rhb ,Li rn pais 6 a Vp. Therc rsress Jgreemcnt . howe!er . about construct ions involv ing !erbcomplement -t?s.

In rhe example Lisa has Jinirhed her esiry. the

v

c. "lC.- t

Verb Phrase Deletion 298 e-

seuuence nr?blr./ rPl e'(dt N reedrded b! rll ar a VP buL the tc'nger e

il;;';;;il"t;; ,"o.,: ;. t'".uieaâ;tr.'"ntrl I gllr'::.'l ci . r . . ""r i ' V-1 apnroache' rncludint CPsC rePard rhi- ds a

Clarqer \?\ i rh th, nructulc I 'P\ VPI TC anrj the crr l rer tc^rons

aol -8, ho$c\er. drd not eten IcgarJ rhi \ sequcn

or" i . . . int ,nu."a lo analv\e lhe sholc sentencc a' havrng lhe C i, , ru. ,rr . l . r t ' ,+ux VPI \ \ i th rhe au\ i l ran I?ar located under the

f I

s t r u c t u r e l . \ P A U X V r J \ \ l l n I n ( a u \ r r r d r r

AUY noie. Recenr !er \ rons o l CB in contra ' l r teat ha"n. tshcd v I

f t€r ArJt at a con\ l i luen( . but not a\ a VP: in ' leaLl l l | \ regaroeo Jr e I

I lij; lii, ;i: lj":l'i:llll, lj")iii ii'l lH':'i' ::i':[:i:"'l: : iH;;":. ; ' l , , ; ; ; ; . , i 'er rhe ca,esorv \? ts uni 'ersarrr present in (

|lansuaqp\. or e'en In clrnfiguralronal language': rn nanrc rar' 'an_ e I

ru;ru:i'::,ff.::i:,:f:i'li -"i:i"'i';"1't..i:1,'Jri'':l I isei al .o ohantom caregory 2lnt 'adirronal glrmmar' a laner orren E I

;::;:j;n':ffH, ilJ*3."1i,H$:j:: i:-,fi tr;j:[ : irheory ot granmar recogni. 'es such d 'eq ence a\ con\lr lutrng a . '

Icon\rruent. € i

Verb Phrase Deletiotr See vP deletion : i

"i?;ff.:"J*lf ''i$ff L,i:;:" ;: ::H " l'; Tl:il' ;l-,f ;:: ; It Hfl l5'l5r"i:J':!n$: l:;:r::ffi" -:l'lll.'lr^;; 1 Ie. \ rcm n: t n?inet Frau t r l tTt He danred \ r i lh m! wr le )cs le 'oay L

Ii rrer"l l t he h"s ve\terdav wrrh m! $rre danccd can b: reclsi i : 6 i

?:,:,::::::;::,\::îi:,i::i-'ii:i';Jl#Ti;:^'""i!'{i"'!iîis-iirr.n ..-na Po\irion i\ ill-formed: tcc\tem Pt tuI ntt nPtn"

""' \ IP?tantt . f 1

\crb sedal izal ion / . , rr i ) lar ' /er ln/ See s€rial rerb con. lruct ion :

j

verification system /verrfl kctJl/ See evidcnti"t : I

rersion / \3:3n, n An,)d ho( lubel aPnl 'ed t" ' " ' i ( -* ' "nt tr ' "" ' t ] |

a ir i i * , lo^ i" lhe !erbal morphologie' of rar iou' lanPuages rnel i I; ; ; ' ; . " ' or len u'ed in connect ion $i th beorPian- in shich i r

C I

denotei cedain inf leclronal dis lrnclron\ o{ \alcnc! drslr .ncl I ro[ A I

,*"r i . ' ;q. t ' " , i r r ' dko appt ied for e{dmfle to rhe dist incl 've lL , l

afiirmative and negarive verb forms of Aleut. The term has nogeneral linguistic signifi cance.

vertical bar'/v3:trkl 'bor/ n. An abbreviatory conventiotr servingro col lap\e two or more phra\e srrucrure rules or immediate domi-nance rules which rewrite the samc categoi,. For example, thesch€ma c - I BcF cG ] BH i I ser,,cs ro abbreviat€ the four rulesC J B C F , C + C G . C J B H a n d C - L

Visser's Genemlization /'vrsez/ n. The observation that an obiectNP $ i th d tol lo$ing complement can always and ont) be passivizedi l rhat complemen! relare' to rhe objed. For example. We p€r-suaded Lka a go and We regard.ed Janet as mcompetent can bena\\ilired ro I L'a nas pcr\ua.tud ro go and Jane! wa! rcEar.tcd asinrcmpeten!, \hne we Uon\ed Liv ro go and Janet stick us astncompetent cannor be passivized to *a,id 'yds promised to go andawe were struck by Janet as incompetent. Obsenanon: vis*r (t963_73,III:2.21 l8) I .ame: Joan Bresnan (udpublished work, 1976): Bresnan (1982b).

vocative /vokatrv/ n. or adj- l. A noun phrase used for directaddres.. such L\ Lka in woutd you give ie a hand, Liv? 2. Arnorphologicaly distinctive case form occurring in some languagesand typicafly serving this tunction, such as I_atin amice, voc;ti,r; of

rorce /!Jr\/ n Tle grammarical calegory e),pressing tbe reladonsbipoet\\een. on lhe one hand. the participant rotes ot lhe \p argu_ments of a verb and, on the other hand, the qrammatical relationsbome by rhose,ame Nps. ln Furopean languages. rhe most famil iarvorce contrast is rhat b€tween acaiv€ and passive consttuctions. Inan actrve construction, stJ€has Lba wrcte this pap€r, the grammatj-cal \ubjecl ry.p'cauy e\pres\e. an a8enr. and rhe direcL oUjcrr ryprcarry expre\ses a parient. In the corre\ponding passi\e. as in Ir ,^popct |9a: Biftpn bv / na. rhe lubject is rypicalty a parienr and anotr l 'que obJect. i f presenr. e\presses an agenr. Orher categones otvorce ex6t rn some languages, such as midde, reflexive, causativ€and adjutative, to nam€ a few. See also diathesis, afld see Shibatani(1988) for some discussion.

volitive /'vDLtN/ ,,- or ad]. Th€ mood category which expresses awrsh. somerimes srbdivided into desidemtive and optative. NoE: thelem boulomaic is also found, but is rejected by patrner (1986) as etymo

rl

3

)

-

299 volilive

.i-t

?.- -?-vc- -'YOS language 300

VOS language /vi: eu 'es/ n. A language whose basic word order isVerb-Object Subject, such as Malagasy (Austronesian) or Terena(Arawakan). VOS languages are mre, the known examples alloccurring in Mexico and Central America, in Amazonia or in theAustronesian family.

vowel alternation / vquel c:lte,netjq/ See Abl.ut.

VP See verb phrase.

VP deletion /vi: 'pi:/ n. (also VP adaphorr) The phenomenotr inwhich the second of two identical VPs occurring in a sentenc€ €n besuppressed. This phenomenon is usual in English- Thus, forexample, the second clause in Fenela won't have been tt/itingIeners, but Lisa v)ill have been witing kt@s arculd norma[y bereduced to one of . . . but Lisa vti have been e, . . . but Lisa willhave e or . . . but Liso t /il e, the different Possibilities reffecting thesuppression of differeDt \aPs.

VP preposing n. The construction, ocauring in c€rtain circum-stances in English, in which a verb Phrase precedes th€ rest of itsclatrse, as iD She hail to pa:s that exam, and Ipass iq stu din.

VSO language /vi: es 'eu/ a. A laDguage in which the normal orderof elements in a sentence is Verb Sub.iect-Object, such as Welsh.VSO languages univenally tend to exhibit certain 4'Pologcalcharacteristics, sucb as prcpositions, abs€nce of case sFtems andright-branching structures in which modifiers folow their heads, asfi.st pointed out by Greenberg (1963).

Wackeruagel's Law /'vo:kr,no:gb lr:/ r. Tle sralement tharctltrcs tend universall' to occupy the secotrd posirion in a sentenc€,where 'second position' can m€an either .alter the first word, oi'afier tle first pirase. This.rendency is iUusrrared by the followingexamples hom Serbo-Croarian. in which rnj andJp are ctirics:

Taj-mi-je pesnik napisao knjigu.rnaFme past poet srote book'That poet wrote me a book,'

Taj pesnik-mi,je napisao knjigu.rhat poet me-Past wrote book'That poet wrote me a book.'

Wa.kenagel (1892).

Wackernsgel's positioo |,. The s€cond posrrron In a senreoce, inwoicn cutrca tend uni!ersallv to occur

parnlt{ontractioD /,\rDnJ/ n. The phenomenon. observable inmosr North.Amencan varieties of English. by which the sequencepad ro tand other similar_sequences) can tle contracled if. an-d onlyfr. rnere rs no gap present between wdnl and /o. For exanple - | wairto .!o [t can be contracted to I taanna do n; Lisa is the woian ] wantro ree e can tre contracted to Lisa is the wotnan I wan u,ee;but Lisais. he woman I want e @ 8?t the job cannotbe conlracted lo "Ljrd js.ne woman r wanna Ber rhe job. Such data hale ofien been inrer_preted as providing direct evidenc€ for the existence o{ gaps insyntactic structures; their significance was fint pointed

-out Uytakoff (19701

I{eak conditioDs of adequacy See under rd€qu.acy.

veak crossover /,wi:k/ n. The usual label tbr a s€t of crossoverpbenod.na.inrolving rhe coindexing with empry caregories of NpsfEsfde Senitwes. as in .Who; does hb, nwther love ei?-This appearsro De rrr-rormed. though perhapsless strongly so rhan cases of sitongcro6$v€r. but rhe coindef,ing of rjs with lhe empry category is nol

weak equrvalence 302

e-1c1?'t5

e-e,

aeecEtIcg

eeeeeecccec€

iaa3tIg3

J

-

acaae3??a??3

rt

aoota?

303 WH-MoverDelt

prohibited by any of the PrinciPles of GB's Binding Theory' The

i*nne*s Coniltion tras been proposed to deal with cases of this sort

weak equivaletrce /r'kwl!3l.nv n (also sFing equiralence) The

relation which holds betwcen two formal grammar\ which have lhe

same weak geneIatil,€ crPacity' i.e ' which Senerate exactly the

same sct of strings. Cf. strong equilalence'

rveak qenerative capacity n Of a panicular formal grammar or

class ; lormal grammars lhe sel of senlences \rhich it can genemte

when tbese are regarded merely as linear strings of elemenls' with

no consialeration oiany structures which maybe assigned; cf strong

generative capacirl. Weak gencrative capacity mighl apPear lo be

;f l imi led l inguisl ic interest bul . unl ike strong generatrve capacrly '

i t has provci to he mathematical ly traclable and a numb€r of

interesi ing re'uhs have been Proved qhich aIe cenainly of l inguisl ic

interest- 5ee the Pet€rs-Ritchie results, $oss-seri'l d€pend€ncies'

Ziff's law, and see also the Chomsky Hierarchy'

Weak Lencafst Itypothesis n. The view that inflectional and

Oeriuarionat morphoiogy are fundamenlal) different in thal deri-

vational norphoiogy is handled in the leYron while inflectional

morphology 'is

rreatea in the syntax' Cf Strong l-€xic'|isr

ypothesis.

rdeak verb ',. In certain languages, notably the Germanic languages

tincludine Enqlish), a terb which Inflecb by atfiralron ralher lhan

f"i'i.-?r '.'".r .r'-e.: love. toved toved: smit?' snited lnitcd'

Cf. strong verb.

weather t /wedar 'It/ n The dummy it that occurs as th€ subject of

weather v€rbs, as in tt's rcinin8' when this is distinguished from

other occurrences of dummy t' such as that occurring in extraposed

werther verb n A verb expressing a meteorologrcal phenomenon'

|'rch ̂ s roin, snow, driazle or |reeze' Weather verbs' and wealher

"*ol.*;on. *"n*"ifv. universally tend to exhibit unusual synlaclic

orooenies; in English. for example \rearher v€rbs lequire a non-

iefirenrial dummi subiect ir' as in /ti 'ai'in8i lhey permit no otber

sub.iects at all, ind are otherwise devoid of subcategonzahon

requrements.

well-formed /wel 'ft:md/ adi. (also gramsdicsl) Denoting q

"t-ct*., putticuturty a sentence, which is consistent with all tbe

requiremeots of the grammar of a panicular language_ A well,fom€d senrence is not n€cessarily regarded as acceptatrte by native,peakerr: processing

_difficukie\ arising from lengrh or compteriry.or pragma c 'mptausibitiry, may induce a rpeaker ro re;eci a pro-posed senr€nc€ which is incontrovertibly we -formed. As anexample, consider rhc s€ntence Ftounder flounder badger badgel4omd?.In an! reasonabte view of Engl,sh ,yn,"*. , t i i .

" * ! t t -

rormed. bul \peate^ pr€senred \rilh it often rejecr it because (heprocessing difficulti€s it presenrs are so formidabie that they cannotunderstand it. (Cf. rhe identicalty formed senrence Games chitdrcnpla!. indude m.nbtes, ,fihich presenls no such processing diffi-cul t ies.)

WG See l,i,ord Grammar.

WH-cleft /,d^blju '€rtJ/ See pceudo{left setrrencc.WH-dependency ,. A rne of d€pendcncy invotving a WT-h€n

an a conespondrng gap. as-i uslrared by rhe era mpte Who, tud youtat LLsa wos tarktng ro e,t WH_dependencies in Engtish and man)

::H;XH|:"' ***.nr rhe oursrandins examptes or unboundi

WH-Frontiq S€e wH-Mov€rDeor.whimperative /wrm,perrtrv/,. An urrerance which has lhe form:11

q,l*",- -b":.1h..1"rce of a requesr or a co mmand: Courd youop?n th? ttoor'!: Woutd you sit do|9n, please?l Can you hand ni thepreru? Sadct 0970)

WH-Island Cotrstraint n. An islsnd constr&int which slates that nodependency may reach inside an embedded WH_qu""tio", ; iti;;_lrared by the €xample *Who d;d Lisa te| you tahen she had seen e?Ros i1967)

WII-item /'arta/ r. A lexicat il€m which serves mrrinsically ro ask a:::'-,'::.:,..:jl i.. ,i", whar, when, .ne,e, .ny

", n"* ;i rnsiii,or an fqurvatent hem in anolher language. Such ir fms ha!e di ; inc_uve grammatrcat propeni€s in many languages. Nuft. rbe nme dehvamor tD€ roodenral tad rhar most ot rhc Enttish on6 r.Fn srh rhe onncgretic i.queae 'r-.

ci6icic-iell( - r

3 trVH-Moreoent n. l. (also \,tf|.FronarDg. wH-hep6itE. wU-i' *51 !9. nh.norn.non by which i u,n-ir".'"pfr"^ i"A

Jc,trn,(r Inrfiat or clause-initial posirion. ralher lhan in dr;.logical.t posjtion lypical of non-WH-irefts of rhe same catrgory. L.xamples2?AI

WH-questiotr 304 305 word formation

a particular instance of Alphr Movem€nt- -

L

Y:llfl*, A question.involvins a wHj.em. such as rytal a," +)oI] dorng.. Lt, ycs{|o quesfon.

inclttde What did you say?. Who $/as Lisa tulkin| to lort night?, Didshe tell you h/hat she wanted? af'd The day when I met Lisa wos amemorable one.2.ln various derivational theories ofgmmmar, theputative grammatical process by which a WH,irem is moved ftom itsunderlying position to its surface position; in cB, this is regarded as

esntiat ro disrirguish rh.se teo quire disri!( se.s€s ot rhe re.n .eord,.Obtereaterhar ,ours id€gr .6mar, thelemr.word, isnsedinyeiorherknses,

ilil:T*"#ff '.;:"1"T*r:iT?,:i*,}"3;"1!""e""e,iWord-and-Paradigm adr. (wp) Denorimaricar characrerizarion *n,"n,"u.',-*jli jl,T.oj,"iilll""illl.cal items into inflectionat clasles and th;resentarion of paraAigrns

i"XHlXir:t:i"',:1t:,l:TAIJ:::l':iflfi ;*:y,";"j,;,lTlAncient cr€ek, rwo highly inflecting languages which lend lhem_s€lves to this son of presentation, aid ismarians or a ,radir,onar persuasion. ,":':l' ;fi'ff,r.:LrliHInctdental use $irhin the mainslream of lingutsltcs. Hctrn ( t9541

word class AIo:s/ See texicrt c*t€gory.*::9_jg"- /rl'.1

" (ar"o ,no.pr,*y,,r!crrc wordr A parricurarmorpnosyntactic form of a lexical iiem dmat,car en, ronmenh F",;;;;;: ;;iljl#f ;tTil,T fl:I

ire jyo 9llerenr word forms ripreseniins rhe srnste rexrcat ir€mDrot in differe grammarical circlmstanc€sl tne same r\ rrue ot116"":;", :i ; ";:::;"; :: ;; :tr ;::;,#1"::i "::;i t ::: :;: ;i ", x!,:i;::9I1:,::,d:l'""

**d forms. since rhe' occur in qurte differeni

:ililli ji,lHTJi:*i"; i i;i,t|^ lt r!\ l!,, : : : :.i:.i H:coftprete set of l{ord forms which cao repres€nr a srngte texical iremconsrrtutes rhe paradi8m of rhar texicat iteml an exampte woutd b€'J,..jlll:."?"":,*" of a spanish verb or rhe fu aecren.ion or a

word^fo-rmation fc:,merJl/ n. A collective rerm for the ser of

isj j:i1i:j,iii f}lJr,r:"x':".il.f ffi fu:::: ;ii+iti:ili q#H:,:ru:x"+*m;:r _*rormatron i5 often refened ro as dcrivaaionat morphotog/: rhis is rngeneral qurre, distincr from inflectionat morpnobg/. In most lan_tuagcs- \!ord formarion processes constir

;l'":*:' :l e"r''n, e'd;;:;;;.H:' i""':', J'l;,fi ::lJ:f:?:^;;- . .* : ,

, " rnregrare uord formation inlo synrax, bur lhese;1.",T.T.::i:

^.,rerv successrur. and mosr cunenr irameworks"J,,ur( poftr ,orr.ation by texicat .utes contajn€d within rhe tcdcon.

i!*.Jm."^ t*,fi,n8 ro e, ? see also BiDdbr ru'r i'a t-jo

rvild tree /warld/ n. A three-dimensional rlDe of rree .,rr",r.. ! !lresembling a rhobile. somerimes suggested as;ppropriate for tree- ( .ll -word-order languages: consrituent slrucrure is assisneO io u -.r.._ 9 i3tionaf manner wirhin the tree. bur rhere is no li-near orderins t ) )aelemenrs. Linearization is produced by some kind of aaattiina t -fY

machinery. One novel proposal is that tle trer should casr "

( ;?\hadow onro a flat surface. with different ( rieotations ot the tree a J O

ffii'il'":'Tl::lJ, j'H1"li'iT;"?"T;i"lilli[.5'S:T"jir]a'Boas-Moulron mobde by Nash (1980). whib poasibty appeating, C _l Orhe idea rs very ditficutr lo formatiz€ in a u;tut w;y.';d ,fi ] I isuggeslion has not t!€en seriously taken up so tar. ).tdh (i980l. I I :

word /w3:d/ n. L A tcrical iten: a single irem U"ton";n" ro -r" (

lt ?lerical cstceory. having an identifiabte meanrng or-gimmaricaf f

-i a

Iuncrion andr]?icalty a fairly consisrent phonolog-ic"f "f,"rp..

tf,"rgh i -!

3PossrDr) exnrbrlrng a certain aDounr of itrf€clionat variarron reflect_ . l ^ing ils grammatical environment in particujar senrences. In this I I tsense o[ the lerm word . such forms as 80, 806. went. going and ( 11 il'Jff ,x';#,i:,n:T,:'i,j:J:.'is:fl ,::*,11;.,aHf ;-i.in a panicular grammaricat environmenl. In rhis sense ot rtre re# f

-'i -'word ..lhe forms go. goes. went. going and Bone are alt ditrerent i -J I;#iilfi *JTIJ:#i:"t';:::i::Y'::::i:,':.9:-la

_ . ! . \

wtl.trace n. (atso rari.bt€) In GB, the cmr 'r"!:

behind when a wH-ilem o."""0 ""0 *oilf ,l#,,lfl;Yff';: +_i?li5'"i"il;1"i15':".i"1,9',-'::-':";x*" 1:T,g :-\*^*". v a2

five word forms, since the go ot I [o o Rone on Tuzsao] lr,ate po e 1 ?of"I.r'am @ go to Rom? are regarded as synlaclicatty a incr i"

"pii. 5l Ooftheir identicai form, and much the sameistwb,ch arso each repres€nt t*o .yntaaicary a;Tin.Trl?Ii Tjlli; c -1 ?

c4.s

word-formation rule

though some approaches postulale a dislinct component of the

Eii- mar to deal with word formation.

word-formation rule n. In some approaches to word formation, amle which is posited w;thjn that component ofthe gmmmat dealingwith word fbrmation and which serves ro identify a (typically par-tially productive) process involved in the formation of cerlainwords. A simple example is the following rule for the use of iheEnglish agent suffix . as jn witer. singer. i/Ict:

[[X]v#€4lN'one who Xs habitually, professionally . .'

Wo.d-formation rules wcre first proposed by HaUe (1973); theyhave been particulatly devetoped by Aronoff (1976) and Scalise(1984).

Word Grammar ,. (wG) A theory of grammar developed byRichard Hrdson in the 1980s. wG is a version of dep€ndencvgrammsr: grammatical inforrnation is almost entirely contained inthe lexical entries for particuiar lexical items. and syntax is seen asconsisting primarily of rules for combining words. The cenlral syn'tactic relation is that of dependency (sense 2) between words;constituent structure is not recognized except in the special case ofcoordinate structures- Statements about words and th.ir propertiesform a complex network ofpropositions, and there 's little €mphasisupon thc conveniional division between different grammaticalcomponents. The framework is preserted in Hudson (198a- 1990)'qhich are thc mo\l dcce'cible inlroduct i"n.

word ord€r /.:d./ n. L The linear sequence in which words occurin a constituent or in a sentence. 2. By exlension, and'Jery fre-quently. the order in which phrascs occur in a senience. See alsobasic word ord€r. f.ee word order.

W? See word-and-Paradigm.

wrap /rapl n. A cover term for lhe operations of right nrap and l€ft

wrap.

W-star language /'d^biju sto:./ 4. (also w* language, word-st r

laryuage) A synonym for non-corffgurational language; the termderives from the suggestion that such a language has as its onlyphras€ structure rule the regular exprcssion S - W*' where W

represents the category 'word', most other syntactic machinerybeing locatcd in lexjcal entries. Hale (1981).

t3tt!9a

XAD_ JUNCT In LFG, the usuat abbreviation for open adjunct (seeunde. oFn firnctbr).

3 X:bg s.ystlm /,eks'bq:/ n. (abo x-bs r[eory) A svsremI

oesrgneo to tormalze lhe Feditiooal ootioa.head ofa construction.' atro ro constraro Ihe ratrge of possit{c phrasc atructure rules, Tb€3 ::T:l_,1".yr:.m

is lne reco8nitb! 6rt.rrrtactic categories arei proJie(Ied nom kvcal items w:jcb ,r! tbci,lexjcal headi, so rhatI I-. Tl*.o Noun pbra3€. for ex.d;t . i" *"ry."a

". jiri.i"-*

.t' rom rne category Noun priEarily in rcrpocl of tbc value asSmea tia a rearure convenrooarry crttcd IBARI: NouD is INOUNI IB-AR 01.

? !1,.,T;1 rlg$Ll#.,1,1Hffir,ifif ;'.: *::a proposals sugg€sred JNoUNI IBAR 3l). rd"

"y"Lil.trg* *-i"a TS*o syntactrc caregories a\ (!npl€! ,yrnt. Mo.t vc-nions of' tbe slstem incorporate some kind;f requirEo€trt tb"a

" *[""r"

? *:y"o l-1": ' n.*. a.requirch€nt _hil. ;-;#;;;.i*"iit Erquy reouces r.be nuDb€r of phras€ stucture rules which cso be; TI:l Jll. X-bar sysrem was firsr sugtcsred. in a somewhar in-:' XP""1

rorn-. by Z€Ug Harris (t951)i it was re"ived Uy tVoaot Lbomsty (t970). and developed uy rosept emooosirior

-Ji

a more panicularry by Ray Jacliodo6(19@1 Ad;"lr;;;;- ary theones of gramoar incorporste lomc venion of thc systln;

? :1,.j,::l:I.11::,y!.clsc: 3s-prescor.d itr c,,a". " Jir-lhi.l"

a ::.::i'--'J :",. *c1iared. A criticst re vicw of X-ber pro.ti; is

- arvqr In norDar and pu um (1990)i tbesc aurbon i&atifv sixt . prope.rries which arc conmooly associated ;[ ,h;;;;";a "Y:'llq,

succecdor, sdo;fiy, Frprty. """h"th.i

;;^ optio|rllity.

i i.""9H l" LFg ib.e gusl .bbravitoo lG op€n complemenr- rsee unoer opet firacrioo).

,

tt

306

S-c.4

-ia,t

i,i:ie-l€--l

iiiiII:r:I

ii:n:r: l l: ll'- n:rIl:,lli-,Ll

F-il;-llTI

yes-no question /,ies 'neu/ n A question which exPects one of

the answers yer or no, such as Ale you comins?l a polar questioo

Yiddish fronting I'yddl n A semi-jocular label apPlied to in-

stances of the fro-nting of fo€used elemenls which are t,?ical of ttc

Yiddish-influenced English of the New York City 'r!t but which

sound odd to most other speakers of Englisb' Examples are M|

brcther in-law he wants rc be and A Gennon car I should btt\?

a

tf(

(

eca

€

i€

333t!a3a

3eee9Icta?tooaaa2??2s,tI

z€ro See null elem€nt.

zero anaphora /'zrrrau/ ,. Tle use of a null €lement as an anaphor(scnsc l). as in Lira .a,a? in and e sat down.

zeao-bar category x. In rhe x bar sr..stem, any caregory whos€reprrsentation inlolves a bar value of zero; a l€xicsl csl€gory.

ierGderivation ,. {also conErsion) A type of word formation in$hich a qord is shiftcd from one l€xical caregory to another withoutthe u5e of an! afiixes: for example. th€ derivation of the verbsac..s\. ne!\|ork and ndpolm from lhe corresponding nouns. of ihe\Lt6s goolproof and brc,, from the coffesFnding adjectives andof the nouns rar, and delaf from the corresponding verbs.

zero determiner n. A deteminer which. in some analyses, ispostulated as being present in NPs containing no oven dererminer.5uch as ryagfi€ni. Sponlsh eine and a/.rr. Such a determiner bassumed lo be an actual lexical irem which happens ro have nophoneti. content. This analysis has the advantage of greatly simpli-h,n8 the s\nractic representation of such noun phrases by makingrhcm idenlical in form to other NPs coniaifling ovc( determiners.

zeugma / 2ju:gmr/ n l . A consrruct ion in which awordorphrasewhich is required to be consrrued with two other irems can in faclonly b e correcdv construc(l wirh one of them : Aa ve you ever wantedb kurn FrcnLh but didn t kno|9 how to go about it? Cf. snacoluthonl. (.rlso syllepsis) A coordinare strucrure in which each conjunclberr! a sernantically or grammarically different retation to the resro! rhe sentencc. thc resulr ranging iion the comical ro the ill-Iatmcd: H( k)ok h6 har aN1 hLt leave; He watched tte bafite dtholkl.tt and u tetes&pet *Hnam pftked up hk tille und off d Btitbh

Ziff's Law /'zrfs ,lr:/ n Thc observarjon that any arbitrary stringc.rn hc interprcted as a proper name. This observation has poten-trall\ seriou\ consequeDces for the invesligation of s,ed g€nersdvecapacity: su(.h a \rring as ol tdmirulLon detaying after seet ehistted

IIIIIIIIII!IIIIII

ZifPs Law 310

never the go \ ronld not normally be regarded as a s(.ing of English,but what is to stop us from iolerpreting it as a welfformed srring ofthe form NP rees NP, *ith two rather srrange proper names as th€NPs? zifi (r960)j Manaster-Ram.. 0988).

References

PrDt?edi,lgs of the ntt Anntnl veetins of LeRcrkelev LittquLsrics Socrry. Ber&eley: Univcrsity ofCrlifornia.|'aperc fron th. ntlt Regional Meeting oJ the ChitutoI rag!6f l . Sd,rcrv. ( hicago: Unrversrrv of ( 'hrcae.,

Lastern l-Dtguisric So.iet r"\an!ru! Langldg. nnd Lnryuislk Theorr\tudies ot Languaqe

.'i t? it? it? it? its;t. i9l le+ ie; iei i3, it

ii::il;iliii-[2

:,i-e

Abbreiiatiolrs

(-/_i ,

Con|p. Ling. ( oneutational LinguistiLsl L i&ndalions of LanEuagellAL lntemationol lounol of AmencuD LuLgubtic:.tL Journal of Linguistics| . \ Ling sf t Ana!\ 'sbLg. LanSuageLI L,guLltic lnquiryL & P lnguLtti.s and Philosophf,vtls n I'rot??Jings of he nth Annual Mee ts ol th! ttonh

.\LLlSL

Aho. Altrcd V. (1908) ' lndexed grarnmars an extension ofcontexl-trec grammar\'. Jounnl of hc Assocution lot Comput,t!.Urchinerv 15 .11-11.

Aissen. Judith (19?7) the interact ion ofclause r.duct ion and cau: -rr le clausc union in Spanish, NtrS 7. Carubridge. MAr MIIPrcss. Revised yersion published as Judith Arsscn and DalidPerlmutter. Clause reduct ion in Spanish. in David Perlmutlcr(ed.). Srrdter ot Relalionul Ctunnal l. Chicago: Universit! oiChicago Press. 1983. pp. 3dI-103.

\1987) Tzot.i! Clauy, Strl].llr/e, Dordrcchr: D. Reidel.Aissen, Judirh and David Perlmu er (1983) Clause reduci ion in

Spanish. in David Perlmutrer (ed.), ,tn/drer in RdationulG/.r,r,na../. Chicagoi Unilersiw of Chicago Press, pp. 16(}-101.

Ajdukiewicz, Kasimien (1915) Die synraktische Kbnncxiiia,.tr"lerPlliloraphica l: l-27. Translatcd as Synractic conncxion ir Sro|r(

e4Q't

Referenc€s ?l 313 References312

Mccall (ed.), Polish Logic 192419J9, Oxfoid: Oxford UnivenitvPress, 1967.

Anderson, John M. (19't1\ 'the Grannur of Case: tor.,ads aIacalistic Theory, Camb'idge: Cambridge University press.

Anderson, Henning (1989) ,Markedness theory _ tle flst 15O years,,in Ofga Nf. Tomi6 (ed.), Maft?dness it Syn.hrcnt and Diochrony,Berln: Moutoo de cruyter. pp. t-{6.

Ande6on, Stephen A. (1985) .tnffeltional morphology', in TimothyShopcn (ed.). Iang/agc Typotogy ond Syntacri. Description, Voi.3. Carrbridge: Cambrid8€ Utrivenity press, pp. 150-a)l.

Anderson, Stephen A. and Edward L. Keenan (1985) .Deixis'. inTimothy Shopetr (ed.), Iangutge Typolog, and SrntacticDesciptian, Vol. 3, Cantbridge: Cambridge Udversity eri*s, pp.2s9-308.

Andrews, Avery D. (1988).kxicrl structure', in Frededck J.Newmeyer (ed.), Lingubics: the CambfidSe Suner, Vol. tLinguittic Theory: Foundatio,rs, Cambridge: CambridSeUnivenity Pres!, pp. G8.

ihe formalAour, JG€ph ahd Domhique Sportiche (19&2).Ontheory of govemment', Lingu*tic Review 2: 21l-?,6.

Aronoff, Mark (1976) Wod Fonnation in Genrrctive

a-i 39-i?e i:t i:e-i :ei:eli :cri icTl!ii:lri:! ii::i:ifi::t:c!t

Things with Work, Ortord: !a:4::E:$;:I;2T.fr?!i:!t: a

(e&), Readings in Mathemoticat psJchology, New york: JohnWiley, 1965, pp. 7S-1(X.

Earker, Chris and ceoffrey K- pu um (19$) ,A theory of command.elatiotrs', L & P 13: l-34.

Barlow, Michael and Cha es A. Fereuson (eds) ( I98f) Ageement inNotulsl l,anguage: Approaches, The?,ies, !3rcnirior6, Stanford,CA: CSLI.

Banon, c. 8., R. C. Berwick and L S. Ristad (1987) ComputatiorutComplexity and Naturut Lanqua|e, Canbidge, MA: MtT press.

Baudoin de Coudenay, J. (tSs\ Versrch einer Ttuoie der phonetis-che n AIR rrutio nen. Snasl]trlll.g.

Bauer, Laurie (t983) EnSlith Wod-fomatian, CambidselCambridge University Press.

Berwick, Rob€rt C. (1984) ,Strong generative capacity, weak gener-1!]e-3pacity, and rnodem tinguistic theories;, Comp. Liig. t0:189-202.

-.- (1987) 'Computatiooal complexity, mathematical linguistics, and

irnguistic theory', in Alexis Manaster-Ramer (ed .), Maahcnari" ollanguag?. Amsterd^n: lol|tr BeDjamins. pp. l-17.

B f ale. Barry J. ( | 990 ) Re tatiornt G tomrna\ tl)rc{)n: Rourtcdre.Blansin. Edward L. (19E4) .Decbricaetiarive atrd dativc', in F. itad

(ed.), Objects: toi'ads a Th.ory of Grunnatical Rdarlbrr, NewYort: Academic Press. pp. 127-50.

Bloomfield, l-eonard (1917):Iagatag Texts wirt cftmnuticalAnlryrir, Unive$ity of lllinok Studies in ktr8uage atrd Uterature,Vol. 3, nos 2-4.

- (19i3) Ianguage,New yo.k: Holt, Rinehan. Winston.Botinger. Dwighl (l9nl Meaning and Forrn- Lr)odon: l,on8man.Breal. Michef ( l9l I ) EJJ oi de s"rnantiqu", paisi H'rchenr..Bresnan, Joan W. (1976) .Otr the form and fimctioniD! of transform_

ariols , LI 7: 3-40.-^ (1c78)'A realistic transformatiotral gramar'. io M. Halle, J.

Bresnao and c. A. Miler (eds). LinSuirri Theory ondPsl:!!Pq:a! Reatirt. Canbridse, MA: Mrr-rress. pp. r_i9.- (l9m) 'Polyadiciry: pafl I of a lheory of texical ruies and represenr ations'., in T. Ho€lstra, H. vatr der Hulst and M. Moong;tle.,sl.l,elkal Gnmnar. Dordrechr: Foris. pp. 9_121.-.:

!.9.f ttSSZ"l The Mental Reprcscnution of cnmmaticat^?rd.rons, Uambridge, MA: MIT press.

-.,( 1982b) 'Controland complemeDtation,. iD J. Bresnan (ed.). Ift"

m-enan xepresentarion ol Gramnutical Relations. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, pp. 292-390.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Pr€ss.Austin, J. L. (r%i2\ How To Do

Clarendon Press.Bach, Emmon (190) 'Problominalizetion'. tI1: l2l-2.- (1974) Syntactic Theory, New york; Holr, Rinehan, Winston.- (1979)'Control in Montague glammar', l,/ 10: 515-31.Bach, Emmon and William Marsh (1987) ,An elementary proof of

the Peters-Ritchie theorem', in Walter J. Savitch, Emmon Bach.Wifliam Marsh and Cila Safran-Naveh ed6l, Thp Fom;Conpkitt of Naturul tanguage, Dordrechtt D. Reidel, pp. 4l-

BaliHittel, yetoshua (1953).A quasi-arithmetrcalnotationof syntac-tic descriprion'. Lg. l9 47 58. Reprinted in yehosbua Bar_itilet,LanSwBe Md Infon wtion, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1964,W. 6114.

- (1964) Language and lnforrnotion, Reading, MA: Addison_Wesley.

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, M. Perles and E. Shamir 0961) .On formatpropenies of-simpfe phrase strucrure Eramrnaft'. Zeits&nfl furPhonetik. Spia&wbsenschafl und Konmuhikanonsforcchuip't4:14!72. Reprinred in R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush -i e. c"tint",

I

I J I )References 31.1

Br€snan. Jonn W.. Ronald l \ { . Krplan. Stanle) l ,e lers and AnnieZacner (1982) Cross-serial dcpendencics in Dutch . 1/ 1l : 6i3-35. Reprinted in Walter J. Sa! i ich. ErDmon Bach. wi l l iam Marshand Gila Safran \aleh (cJ\). ttu Fornal ConeL.wrt of *-atunlLanardaf. Dordrecht: D. Rerdcl. pp. 186 319.

Brrzio. LuiSi ( i981) lntrans' t ive verbs and l tal iao auxi l iar ies.unpubl ished Ph.D. thesis. MIT.

- (1986) ltaliun Synta.l: u (;oftrnnvnt Binding ̂ pproath. Dor-drccht: D. Rcidel.

Butler. ('hris (1985) Slstemic Littgristi.s: Theorr an.j.App cotions.Lond(! .r Bxlsford.

Bybee. Joan ( l9i l5) -Diagranmatic rconrr i t \ in srenr inf i€cr ion relat ions . in Jl)hn Haiman led ) . I .o t{ur n. t lnrdf. Amsterdam:John Rcrrt i t nr ' r f . pp. 1l -+l i .

Cattefl. Ray a lrij,l) s.rrtd an.1 Scnantics. vol. 11: (ompositePredi1tes in Lnglish, |aew York: Academrc Press.

Chafe, wallacc L. (l967) Senlca MorphDlog, and Dklonary (Sm1th-sonian Conrribulions to Anthropologv. Vol. V). Washingron, DC:Smithsoniafl Press.

- (1970\ J't?uning and th? 'trdurc of Languog?. Chtc eo:Universiiy of Chicago Press.

Chapman. Nigel P. (1987j I.R I'drsoq: 1tuar\ anl Pructice.Cambridgc: Canbridge Un jvcrsrrv Press.

Chomsliv. Noim (1956) 'Threc models for lhe descnption oflanguagc. /R[ Trunsactions on lnfornation T/'eon. Vol. IT2.pp. 1l1l . l . R.pr intedinR. D Luce. R. R. Bush and E. Galanr:r(eds). R.a.Ir'gr in Mathematical P. '.hologr. New York: lohnWile!. 1965 pp. 105-24.

- (195?) .\'nra.r. Srrt!.ru'€r_ The Hague: i\{oulon.(1959) On cenain formal propenies of gramnra^ . lnlo nation

anLl (ot114 . . . : I37-67. Reprinted in R. D. Luce. R- R. Bush andE. Galanrcr (cds). R"dlrrg.r in lllathemntical Psvc,ology, NewYork: John Wiley. 1965. pp. 125 55.- (l9r,L) Sorne merhodolog'c)l remarks on generative grammar'.Wotd 11 119 39.

- \1961) Currcnt Issues in Lingur ic Theot:-.TIte Hague: Mouton.- (1965) ,4rpp.r o/ rhe Theorr ol S\nt.Lt. Cambndge. MA: MIT

Press.- (1963) Lung nge and lllind, New York: Harcourt Brace

- { tgl l ) r 'Rcmnrks on nomrnal iTrr ion . in R. A. Jacobs and P. S.Roscnbaum (eds|. Readin$ n EnBlLth l run:tbrmatio$al

Gran,nu. Wal tham. MA: c inn. pp. 181_22t . R! f r i , ) !cd in NoamChornsh. Sradl?r on S?mantics in Cenu.ntr? Grummar, lhaH ru. r NIouton. 1976, pp. i l 6 l .

( le ; I ) Deep st ructure. sur face srrudurr i rno iema!rr rc !nrcrr rc tJ r i , r n . i n R . J a k o b s o n a n d S K d s a , n o t . t , . J r r \ n t , t h t t 1 t , t n t t , l land ()rk,ntal Linguisti.s pr.sentc.t li Sho1, ;:.nori on the O.cashnel hi' .\iltLelt Bi,n .t\. Iok\i,: TEC. Rcprinteci in Noam{h{,nrsl! ll?dte. oi .t.tnamit! in Gen?ratir? Grummat. 1,hci l l r lu( : luouton. 1976. pf .6 l i t9 .

References

(

e

al

3arl

c i=! i': "'li#Iiu:iT;"ffi;,"Ti:"J::;l;ff"t.i\..:I:tit:€ ! - RrnuhJr l . urn\ lon. pp. : l l -1h Reptnt(d rn \uam Cn. ,m\r !

€ i : !; 'y;,-, t--

",a n,".r 'd,.rrur. Nes \ orr \o,'h Horhnd I,n

; ! : r'r;ii;i:,',#r:ir-i,.;fi{{,::";.ff-'! l; "iJ:';,,Ii#

'n s{ad.'|^' ,;'anna, rhe. a e l t o - - r r O o $ H m o \ r n k . n r ' . r n p . \ ( u t r c , \ r r . . t . u . a s o * d D ( t

: ! ; J, :i"lll'" r(d\) /;/r,/1 s'r/, r." r,,'r, e,a..l. p'..,'

: i 3 "i l :;; i ' ' ' --

ol 'I '"n1dnn thtP'r'artrD N'w \"'k: \o,.h'

: | ; ,,j,1;;1";:,",;;H_l,li,ll" iil.i.,itil:iJt i,x::: ,;l ,- l l +

t t e N t ) I " . r u t p \ . n l ; ^ n i n r a , d B r h t r t \ D , r r r t i e . h r t - , r i .

; ll ; , '.,|,il'l.t'#;;.';$::";.$l,i;lr,lt:i';,. ".,.":, " ,,- lt -- N. tl5 !)..t.

: l! : ' n'i i

: l ': ': ' ""'^ on "hi(i '| 'c'. ' ins rur( , ', rt ,h hn rn,r.n(\ih

S l l Z ( l a ' l s r (nh .n \ . { t xh r i . 4 r , r . / , , . r t o l r , ra i , \ ( q \ , , , \ .

e l ! a " ; i , " ,"1 ' ; ; i ' j l i j , i ' r r r ' | ( r ' r rr( 'ear ' \ ( r 'nt i "r ' ,n 'we, , , ,,e i ! a r r i , - r , r r rp ,cr . r " - r , , , . r * " . , , , ,nr , , i , ts . r , , i \ . r , , , \pres\ .

: ii : ^,11:;:,,iji1ilt;.I,l,i,i:lrlll;J;Ii,".:t^ri' rreo,,,',.' ,7n

Z,],",;1,1,.. ' i i , , : 'J|J'H::." ' '" \ '^n7 /,,x{' | cembrids(

; l ! : - Il;lii; iffi,""i:tii:,;:,TT,"h..:;t,':l? ffi;.,"",,c1! 2a)2

ffi

Relerences 316 i1'7 References

Dholoq\', 'n Timorhy Shopen ledt. Lanquaqe TvpoloS\ and'Svmaciie

Oes"nuion, vol 3. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry

Press. oD.309-48- ' lssbj Sorne senerat properties of relerence-tracking slslems '

in D. Arnold, M- qrhnson J DLrrand C Grover and L Sadler

(eds), Essayr on Gnmmaticol Theory and Unire^al Grumma\

Oxtord: Clarendon, PP. 37 51.Comrie, Bemard and Sandra A ThomPson (1985) 'l-exical nominali-

zation', in Timothy Shopen (ed ), Language Tvpologv and

Syntactic Description, Vol. 3' Cambridge: Cambridge Univenity

Press. oo. 349-98.Cook, W;ter A (1969) Intoducion to TaSmemtc '4n'lrrr'" l-ondon

aud New York: Holt, Rinehart' Winston

Conoer. Robin ( l '180) Montague\ syntax. in Edirh A Moratcsik

aia Jessica R \\rrLh teds), Svntut and Semanti'! yol l3: (wknl

ADDrcachcs to Svntat.New York: Academic Press pp la 4'l'

Cor;;fr. Creville ( lg'e l) Gender. Cambndge Cambndge U versrrv

Press.Croft, Wilfiam (r99O) Tvpotogv and Univenals' Cambidgel

Cambridge UniversitY Press.tulv. Chriiropher (1q85) The complexity ol the vocabulary ot

S'"-taru', i & P 8: 345 5l RePrinted in Walter J Savitch'g--o" fiu"tt, wiuiam Marsh and Gila Saftan-Naveh (eds)' Th'

Fomal Comptexity of NaturuI Langutge. Dordrecht: D' Reidel'

1987 . oo. 349-57p"r'r, OiL" tlge5) r"^e and Aspect Slstenls ' oxfod: Blackwell-

Derbyshrre. Desmond C ( lq6t l Hixlaryana lCanb) slntai struc-

nne' , UA L 27: lZA2t 226-36- (19'79) Hixkaryana ll-ingla Descriptive Stud;es 1), Amsterdam:

North-Holand.D;;hl-. Desmond c and Geoffrev K Pullum (1981) 'object-

iniaial languages', /J 4L 41:' 192 2r4'- (1s86\-Ha;dbook of Amazonian Languages' Vol l' Bert;nl

Mouton de Grulter.Dil"-ai;.; c (ig;a) Functional G'amnar' Amstedam: North-

Holland.-'"iiogo--i 's*"nt.* .enrences: basic priocjples and apP[cation of

Functional Crammal , in Fdith A Moravcsik aDd Jessica K wrfto

leds), Syn/,-Y and Senanti(s. VoI LJl. Currcn! Apprcaches to

SvrtaY, Ne" York: Academic Press. pP 45-75

n#.',q.diiriisizi;R.*ulstcij jazvk' ['riri nutul lansuase']' s6o'u*-'i'i"ii'i aty' op*''"it;; PL;" K*kn ' (T'bilisi) 42'3' 1-28'

)iron, Robert M. W. (1972) The Drirbat Lansuage of No hQueennand, Canbridge: Cambridg€ University press.

- (ed.) (1976) Grummatical Categoies in Austratian Languales.Canbe[a: AIAS.

- (1977a) 'W}lere have all the adjectives gone?', SL l: 19-30.Reprinred in R. M. W. Dixon, Where Have AI the AdjectivcsGone? andOther Essays on Semantics and Srnta_x, Berlin: Niouton,1982, pp. 1-62.

(19'77h) A Grunmar of y,..d'.z, Cambridge: CambndgeUniversity Press.

- (1979) 'Ergativity'. as. 5sj 59-138.(980) The Languages ol irrlati, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.(1986) 'Noun classes and noun classificarion jn rypological per_

spective'. in C. c. Craig (ed.), Noun Ckssu and iategirizaiion,Amsterdam: John B€njamins, pp. 105_12.

,owning. Bruce T. (1974) .Conetative retative clauses in universatgrammar, Minnetota tyorking papers in Linguistics, no. Z, pp.| 1 7 .

towry. D?tid alal wod Meaning and tvontaguc Granrnar,Uordrechr: D. Reidel

'o*ty, David. Lauri Karttunen and Amold M. Zwicky (eds) (19g5)Naturul Language parsj,r8, Cambridge: CamS;age UniversityPIessr€ssler. Woltgang U. q85l .On the predrct ivenecs of \aruralMorphology , JL 2t: 321 37.rye' . Marrhew-t tq8b) pnmd^ objecrs. secondary obyecrs and anrr_dairve . la. 62: m8 45rrl€y, Jay (1970) .An eficient cootext_free parsng atgorithm..

l::T'::':"; :l,o: ls,ociarion to, compunng jilo-:iin",u a.4i.'-{{r, Kepnnted in Barbara J Cro./. Kdren S. Joncs and Bonme:;^1.10:,j:d)

R?adinss in Laturut Lanpuasc pro.e$ins. rl,\Arros. ( A. Mo,gan Kaufmann. tasb, pp. 25_J3.:kman. Fred R.. Morav( l ik. Edith A. d;d wirrh. Jes\ ica R. reds.,(1986) Mdrtednesr. New york: plenum press.nonds,. Joseph (1970) Root and Structure presewing Trans-Jormanons, Blooming.on, IN: Indiana Unjversiry Linguisics Club.-.(1q76) A Tnnsfomarinnat Apprca.h b r"gh"a iynrar: no ,J.m1.ture-prcrcn[ne. ond Lo.at tranlomoro,s. New yort:

n g d a h l I l \ a o e r I t u b . l t . p a r a . r t i c e a n \ ' . I t p r . \ \ 4\p'nal i { lerc:d j jq ' r l I I he reprec€nt ,r

eiqC;

at

- 319 Refercnc€sRefer€nces 318

ents' , Lg. 67 | 126-62.Faltz, konard M. (1978) 'On indirecl objecrs in universal synta)(',

CLS 14, 76-37.Fillmore, Charles J- (1963) 'The position of emtrcdding transform,

ations in a Srammar', Wod 19:20&31.- (1968)'The c-ase for case', in E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds).

Univercals in Linguistic Theory, New York: North,Holland, pp.r{8.

- (1977) 'The case for case reop€ned', in P- Cole and J. M. Sadock(e&r, Syntax and Senurrrts, Vol. 8: Grammaticol Relations. NevtYork: Academic Prcss, pp. 59-81.

Firth, J. R. (1951) Paperr in Lingubncs, 1934 1951.landor,i cd.ordUniv€rsity Press.

Fodor, Jerry A. (1983) The lt4odulatiry of Mrnl, Cambridge. MA:MIT Press.

Fodor, Jerry A. and Jerrold J. Katz (eds) (19&) The Structurc ofIAngrltge: Readin4s in the Philosophy of Language, Engtewo{ACliffs. NJ: Prentic€-Hall.

Foley, William A. (1980) 'To\rard a universal tyfrology of lhe nounph!as€', SL 4: 171 99.

- (19 \ The Papuan Languases of New Guinea, CambndgeCambridge University Press.

Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van ValiD (1984, I'u\ctional Syntaxand Univercal Grammar, Cambridgcr Cambridge University Press.

Fowler, H. w. (1965) A Dictionary of Modetn Englith Usase,O ord: Oxford University ?ress.

Fowler, H. w. and F. c. For,ler (lq)6) ?re l(tng s En8lirlr, Odord:Clar€ndon Press.

Fries, Charles C. (1952) The Strucnare of English: an lntroduction tothe Construction of EnglLth Sentences, N€w York: Harcolrt,Brace.

Garnmon, E. R. (1963) 'On representiog syntactic structure , lg. 39:369-91.

Garey, H. B. (1957)'Verbal aspect in French', L8. 33: 91-1t0.Gazdar, Gerald (1982)'Phrase structure gnmmar', in Pauline

Jacobson and ceoffrey K. Pullun (eds), The Notwe of SynttcticReprcsentation,Dordrecht: D. Reid€I. pp. 131-36. Reprinred in J.Kulas, J. H. Fetzer and T. L. Ranlin (eds), PftrTorophy, Languageand A ifcial Inte igence, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988, pp. 163-218.

- (1985, Applicabiliu ol Indexed Grummarc to Naturul Languages(Report no. CSL[-85-34), Stanford, CA: CSLL

Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum and Ivan A. Saq

?- ! (9a5) Generalizett Phrase Sttucturc Grcmmar, Oxford: Blackwell.

f- : Crzdar. Cerald anrj Ceotfre! K. Puttum (lq8i ' .Sukaregorizarion.

) I constrruenr urder and rhe not ion "hedd . in M. Moongar. H. vat( - : der Hulst and T. Ho€ksrra ledst. The Scope ol Leticat Rules.a - ] Dordrecht: Foris. pp. 10?-23

t ] f lc85) ComputaLional ly relevanr propenie\ ol natural languagesY - and their pr3mmars. .\e|9 Genenion Conputin| l: Zlj y)6.

C -. : Reprinred in Walrer J. Savirch. tmmon Bach, Wil t i ;m N4arsh andL . a Cifa Safran-Naveh ted\), Ihe Fornat (onptexi+ ol Natunt: - LanguaS?. Dodtecht D. Reidel. 1987. pp. J87-.437.f : caldar. Cerald. Ceoffrey K. Puttum. Roben Carp€nter, EwaDa a Klein. Thomas E. Hukari and Robrrr D. kvine { ld88) .Careeory

- - srruclures. Comp. LinR. l4t 1 19.

a - - phras€ structure grammar', in J. cro€nendijk, T. Janssen and M.. , a S'okhof (e,l\). Fonul yethoA in h? Study of Languagc.'

] - Amstcrdam: Mathemdrical Centre Trdcrs. pp. Bt-52.9 t I Crlon. Talmy (t980) The binding hierarcby and rhe r '?otogy ota i ? complements' . SL 4:333-77.

I I f Clei tman, Li la R. ( Iob5) Coordinat ing conjunct ions in Engl isb , L8.E t - 4li 2flL93

C i t Go(en. Nigel ( 1984) The evasive neurer in potish , in F. F Knowtes. I t and J. f. Press tedst, Poperc m Slavonic l.nsuisn.s. vot. lt.v | : Brnningham: Uni\ehih of Asron. pp. I -3.C I ? c 'ady. Mlchael { ta65l 'Tire medio-passire roice in modem Engl ish.,e l a word2r:27v2.t i 7 a;;.;;: i;"*pt H. re63) .some uruversars or srammar c.irb€ I :: panicular reference to rhe order of meaningtut elemeors'. in

s i3 Jos€ph H. creenb€rg (ed.l, Universats of Gramnar, Cambridge,MA: MIT Press (2nd edn 1966), pp. ?!113.- | + M^: Mr I r rcss ( lnd edn tqoo! . pp. /J_t 'J .

f f : crimm. Jakob ( t8le) Deu\che CrumnuiLa i - Unnshaw. Jane (1987) Unaccusalives an overvie*. NFLS t7. t :I | - v " " , r , ,dw. Jar r r I ryd /J an overv lew , / v lLJ I / , t :

c | ? Amhersr, MA: GLSA. Universiry of Massachusetts. pp. 244_58.. _l ̂ Unnder.JohnT ( ta70) .Super Equi-Np Detetion', CLS o: 2f- j t7.g i . , Crinder. John T. and paulM. posial{ l97 t).Mis(ing anlecedrnts', L,c 1 ? 2 :2$_3 t2 .'-

) 4 Crosz. Baftara J.. Karen S. Jones and Botrde L. Webbcr (cds)O | : (1986l Readines in Nan,tra! Lan|uage prcccssing, t s Atros, CA:C 1? Morgan Kaufmann.

) J q Gruber. Jeffrey (t9o5) Sludies in l.rical retations', unpublisbedt r I Ph.D. rhesis. MITC4 2 - llg6l t Fun.tiaL\ ot the Le'rcon in tbnur Des.riptive Gnm,t{tn

c-4 2.'J- .l

References

?33!!!!!!3

I3a?atattaaaaaaat-a

321. References320

(TM|377O[XWW), Santa Monica, CA: System DevelopmentCorporation,

Haegeman, L iane (1991) Intoduction to Govenment and Bindingfft eory, Oxford: Blackwell.

Hagege, Claude (1974) 'I-€s pronoms logophoriq'ues', Bu etin de IaSocied de Lingui:tique de Pads 69:30741

- (1976) 'Relative claus€ center-embedding and comprehensi-bi l i ty ' ,417:19&-201.

Haiman, John (ed.) (1985) Iconicity h Syntax, Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Hale, Kenneth (1976) 'The adjoined relative clause in Australia', inRob€( M- W. Dixon (ed.\, Gramnatical Categories in Aus,ralianIanguaSet, C^nberr^. AIAS, pp. 78 105.

- (l 1l On the Posiion of Walbiri in a Tlpolosy ol the Base,Bloomington, IN: lndiana University Linguistics Club.

HaIe, Monis (1973) 'Prolegomena to a iheory of word-formation',LI 4: 3-16.

Ha e, Morris, Joao w. Bresnan and ceorge A. Miller (eds) (1978)Linguistic Theoty and Psychologiai R€dliry, Canbridge, MA:MIT Press.

Halliday, Michael A- K. (196r) 'Categories of the theory of gramm9d' , Wotd 7'7: U142.

- (1967) 'Notes on transitivity and theme in English', ./r 3: 37+1;199-21./: (1968\ JL 4,1'79 215.

- (1976) 'Types of process', in G. R. Kress (ed.), Ha iday: Systemond Funerion in Langu!]ge, l,ondon: Oxford University Press, pp.159 73.

Halvo$en, P€r-Kristian and William A. t-adusaw (1979)'Mootague's"Universal Grammar": an introduction for the linguist'. L & P 3:185 223.

Harel, David (1987) Algorithmics: the Spirit of ComDuting,Wokingham: Addison Wesl€y.

Harman, Gilbert (1963) 'Generative grammars without transform-ation rules: a def€nse of phrase structure', Lg. 39: 59?-616.

Hanis, Zeflig S. (1951) Mehods in Strcturcl Linquistics. Chic.ago:University of Chicago Press.

- (1957) 'Co-occurrence and tmnsformation in linguistic struc-ture', 18. 33: 281340. Reprinted i, H. Hiz (ed.r. Pape^ inSyrrar, Dodrecht: D. Reidel, 1981, pp. 143 210.

Ha*kins, John A. (1983) Word O er Uniyersals, Ne\i York:Academic Press.

Heath, Jeffrey (1975) 'Sone ftrnclional relationships !n gr rBrrnar',

L8. 51: 89-1M.- (1986) 'Synractic and texical aspects of noncoofisurarionatitv in

Nunggubulu {Ausrral ia ) . N t t T 4: 3jS40B.Heny, Frank_(1979) Review of Chomsky, The Logicut Structure of

Linguistic Theorl, Synthise 40 317-52.Hill, Archibald A. (1958) Intrcdurtio\ to Linguistic Structurcs. Ne\ t

York: Harcourt Bmce Jovanovich.Hocketi, Charles F. (1947) .problems of morph€mic analysis,, tg.

?31 321 43._ - Rqprinr€d in Martin Joos (ed.), Re;)inls it1Linguiitics, Vo1. t, Chicago: Universitv of Chicago press, 1957,Do.22942.

3 (1954) 'Two models of grammaticar descrip tion' , Word tlt 210

- (1961) 'cramrnar fo. the hearer., in R. Jakobson (ed.).Prc.eeding! oI stnposid n Apptrcd Malhcnaic\, vot. XllStructure of Language and it: Mathemancat Aspecrs, providence.RI: American Mdrhemaricat SocieLy. pp.220 j ; .

Hopper. Paul J. .and sandra A. Thompson rto80l .Tran\ ir i ! iL! ,ngrammar and discourse,, Lg. 56: 251_99.

Horn, Laurence R. (t989\ A Naturul History af Negation, Chicago:University of Chicagq press.

Horne. Kjbbe) M. tt96ot LanTuole I ,pology: Nin?kenlh and fben., i" i!",r-*" I/€'r. wa<hingron. DC: Ceorserown unrveri y

Horrocks, ceoffrey (198j) Generative Granmar, LondonlIrnsman-

Hffila"., r.ea W. {1973)'On argumenrs from asterisks,, Fl, toi

""":l : G"9*:y ],19 Atrnerindo F. ojeda r eds ) ( | e87 ) s}/]14_r a,,d

fff:ff: "Y""_

20: Disconlinuous constituency. New yorr:

Huddleston.. Rodney D. { tq?2) .The developmenr or a non-procc\5mooer rn American srucrurat tinguisrics.. i i"guo SO, Zll_U.- (r . /o, some rheorel icat issues in the descripl ion otthe Engl ish--verb . aing,i4 40: i3t 8J.dfdson' Richard A. tla7tl' Aryunents fo. a Non-Trunsfonntionat

{,ffig*ffig*;-'''alIf

322 323

t33eeI3t!t33a3aaaDattttaaaaaattt

qac"lc-1

!,:;l:ic-1elcl1tvl€l!r:r:r:r:r:Iir' - l:rrI1rr, l1-r1J\t\-rH

RelerencesReferences

Jackendoff, Rav S (lg'12) Setnannc Interpretation in Generutive

Crc ma/. Car.|'bi,dEe, MA: MIT Press- 1tsll1 i syrat,i Study of Ph/ase Structule' cambtidge' MA:

MIT Press.Jacousen, wifliu- H. (1967) 'switch-reference in Hokan---d"ttuitt"oti',

in D Hymes and W Bittte (eds)' Studtes ia

iiutnn"rt"rn btnootingrlisics, The Hague: Mouton' pP 23 &{3'- -iislsl 'wl'v does *asho lack a passive?" in F Plank (ed )'

nr'gotiuity, roi*d" o Theory of Grannutical Relatioru' London:

Academic Prcss, PP 117-43f"*Uon, p"utin"-una Ceoffrey K' Pullum (eds) (19a2) The Naturc

of Svnmcie Reprcsenatio,. Dordtecht: D Reidel

f"l'oJ.o", notl" (lc7ll Shifters. verbal categories and tbe--n"J""

"".t'. in i JiLob"on, Seleckd wtitings' Vol 2 The

Has e: Mouton PP l3G-47:..r"L". Ouo t rgZf The Ph osophv ol Crannd' l'ndon: Allen

& u"wln.-l iizii ru""nu "f

Enstish Gnmnol,Landon: AIen & Unvin'- itgZl\ l*tyn, Synar. t-ondon: AUen & Uflwin'

- iis6ri r";;i*lv :plp4st A Modem Engtish Gtamnar on

Hl\toncal Pri;.ipt.i. ],ondon: Allen & Unwin

loinron, O*ia g and Paul M Postal (1980) Afc Pai Granmar'

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Prcss'

fon"t,-Llna" K. (1980) A synop<i! of Tagmsmics in FJith .A'-i-i.*".';t

""a:.*i.^ R Wintr'teast' sv"rar and S?tanlcs vot

i2t- C"ii"t epproo"n"s b svntax, New York; Academic Press'

vp.17-96.rii. ru""i" (ed.) (1957) Readings in Linguisics' vol l' chicago:

University of Chicago Press.l""rri et""itO r' (1db3) 'Some formal results about Tree Ad-iunct" -E

i^*": , p*i"aiigs of the Twemv'frst Annual Meet;n8 ol the

il*"iir' p, Coipuiational ljnglisrics Morristown' NJ:

Association for Computational Linguistics'-- ilsilii'". ualoi,;ing grammars: Hoq much context-sensitivilv

i. i""rriJ. p-iia. t*ionable slnrcrural descriptions?' in- David

bo*li* f"uti f^*tun.n and Amold M Z*icky (eds) Na&tol

;;i;;- P','^e' cambridse: cambridse universiry Press'

oD.206-50- "iii;i; int'oa"ction to tree adjoining gramma '' in Alexis

ManasteFRamer led ), Mafuemotks of Language' Amstordam:

John Benjamins. PP. 8?-114l.tli. e-,""i"ii.

'r LenY and M Tat'ahashi (19?5)'Tree adiudct

pJammars', Journal of the Conputer and Svstem S.icrcer 10:136-{3.

Kac. Michael B. (\975) Coreprcsentation ,tf Crummaticat Strucnne.London: Croorn Helm.

-- (1980) 'Corepresentar ional Crammai, in Edirh A. Moravcsikand Jessica R. Wirth feds\. S),ntax and Sel/,antics,Vot. t3: CuffenlApprcache: to Svnta.x, N€w York: Academic press. DD. 97_ij6.

Kac. Michael 8. . Alcxis Mdna\rer Ramcr and Wi id; C Round\(1987) 'Simultaneous-dGtr ibur ive coofdinat ion and contexr_treeness'. Comp. L,ng. 13r 25-30.

Kaplan, Ronald M. and Joan W. Bresnan (1982) .Lexicat funcijonalgrammar: a formal sysrem for grammatical representation,, in JoanW. Bresnan ted.t . the UpnGI nepAenalton ol t ; nnaicalRplarbzr. ( ambridge. VA: MIT pre*. pp. l7J-281

Kar?. Jenold J. and Jerrv A. t-odor ( tgbj) . fhe \rrucrurc or asenrantrc the!ry', Lg. 39 n0-210. Reprinred in Jerry A. Fodorand Je.rofd J. Katz (eds). The Structurc of Langusge: Readings inthe,Philosopht of Langua8c, Englewood Cliffs, Nr: prentice_iia ,7964. DD.479 sta.

Kat, . Je;old^J. dnd paut t \4. posrat r lqhir A, r , , tet toted ThpoN olLinguLt ic Des.aptDn.. ( ambridse, MA. VI I p,ess.

Kay. Manin ( loTs) Funcrionat grammar' , ALS 5 I42 58.-* (1985) 'Parsing in Functional UDincation crammar,, in DavidDowty. Lauri Karttunen and Arnotd M. Zwicky (.eds), NarumlLanquage Pa^in| . ( ambridge: Cambridgc Univc,. iL! prers pprrr .- /E Repnnred in Barbara J. Cros,, . Karen S. Jonc, and Bonnre|

,_webber (eds). Readingr n L:atnat I angua!? prc.e\\ing Lo\

Al los. CA: Morgan Kaufmann, Ia8O, pp. I2S_J8.- ( 1934) 'Functional Unification Giimrnar: a tormalism formachine tnnstarion,. in proceedinSs of the Tenth lntemationsl! onJprcnce on Conpt arionat I ingulstic, Cohng 84. Mento park,

v^L^^: A$ocrat ion for Compural ional Linguisr ics. pp 75 breenan. Edward L. ( l9?4) .The tunct ionat pr incipt i : generat iz ing rhenouon ot "subject of . . a/ J l0: 298 :Ov. neprinrea rn eawaia t .^cenan.

-Unlveffal Grummar fifieen trra/r. London. ( roomnetm. t987, DD.361_74_-; , (19?6a) T;wards a universatdef ini l ion ot -subjecr. . . in Charles'" u teo).subkct and fopr 'c. New york: Academrc press. pp-.,-ruz Keprinred in Edward L. Keenan. IJniversat Gramnir:---,ffi]":i"?. bygn: croom Herm. rq87. pp. 8e r20.

r . . . - ,"ur Kemar*aDle sut lecrr jn Malagasy.. jn Charles N. Li'-- "

JLtDJecr and Topic. New york: Academic press. pp. 301_33.

zlRcrnrcrce.

c I

,,q^- p...,\r, ',1 " , ;l ,,1:;,,11j,j;::l i l" : !'l.i';:;,::':;i;, i,irill-.:ir.l,,-r : illr;:ur;ri ;llYii|"':,^'.'.-.,-""),' ; ;.'T;1;;;J;i1i,l,:ll'l:];;itlll:)llt":ll"'r s'unprrnsc.cces € Ii "ii;".".i;,,'",-i,, n mrr:'iJlcot l1'jtilXT:J"';:*1 ; !

- l l . : l l i : " . i1

", i , ' ' '

, ' ,^,? r t , ' l , (r ' | I 'n lherdtr ' ""u " i

,.,.::l'r ;",';':illii ll;"il.ll;iJ,li 'il".',jr;nl'l ' ! I, :11;.', l .;l:, :,1"''ii"li.',,"J;.;;ir.,:,,.i : i" ii:: i"i,, i"''''': :]:;:);;: ;riiii';ir'\ir:*;:.rrl i I-l"l l ' ; : l : l i : ' 'Li1-.,,,,, ",",n!,^r ,n.,,. i-.,1 | I,,: ,1';, :l'l l , -;'l l:: :, l' i ;l t"' 1l:., ;"',f i; ',1;';::1; ;;' ; r

, ' , i i , " :1 1, i"" . , , , , r , ' { , , , , , r , , ( \ r . ' , , r r 'c, -o- \a, thr '" qrh( c -

-.,: llli,i;:'lili, :'li,1ri",ll,,fr;, :;,, ;'..,.'.,'.-"' I I..ffi'i il:'illi+*itil,l*ililli: ;l:; : 11-ti.,:' '., ,.:;:),;'i l;;ll,:i.l:;' l; *'i ' i, ;t" ', ':-.,' ' il;";il; ; ;,'.,;l:ll;;'i;:;::lJjif l::;l,l :ll#t I Iil.; :; ; i;'';;:"';;,1"',''i,;"1'1"''::n, :i':r:::'1'I : I

, "::l'i"riil;,H'i;;l]'lvt,,, rs. r i,,gui,ic r,,'I:' I iss€: Perer dc 'c 'l

l r 'dd r P'cs' '1 dr\ t in: t ion t" t" t t"

""

'^ ' ll r C i l s i : ' l i i l i r i r n . { ' r l ' , i , \ } A i r r ( ' i r \ ' d d ' \ L : J ' ' r ' u t r

_ 4

rt

a

3F933:

:

a)

a?-

aaa????aa,

,

,

References

rnd r1/,rrd . in Thc t-irguisli. Socrcll- t)i Korca (eds). /-4t8d1ti.r tr

ttu \lami r (uhn S(ltdtti I'dpe^ lrcDt .t/CO1 198t. SeoLrl:

I l in ih in. pP. i i 51

l - i , rd i ! \ ' . !n D . rnd ( r ro l J i -a id ig ( l9q)) I ar ikc Pronours duals

3nil rrials in .1 cenrful Iloluccar langL,.rge . a)..dni. Lingui.'tiL:29:

s ' 109 .Lrl ioff. Ccorge (lrr;( l) (; lobal rules. l-8 16: 627-39

1i! ;_j) F. izz! - ! ranrm.rr . rnd lhc Pcrforman.e?competence Ier i r l_n , , l o g \ g r n r ' . a / . . 1 9 : l 7 l 9 1 .

i j9,-n) lwr i$ln 196-l l ibw.,rd generanve semantics. io JanesD. \lcf a\\ let l cd.l. s v nto ud Se natnits, V ol. 1. Notes lion u'I nqListi. L;,1d!rg.oxn.l. Ntw Yofk: Academic Press, PP. 41{rl

{19-;) I - inguisr ic Ci$r- l rs, al-J l3: 236 87.I-arnr'. Sidne\ U. (19()6) ()rrrr. of StrutLJicational Cron"tw.

\ \Ah:nston. DC: ( ;eorgcn)$n [ jniversi tv Press.L.nrs.rcl:er. Ron:Lld \r . ( L()6e) On pronorninaiizalion and the chain

r , l . .omn:. i . i . " D - \ R, i ibc l and S. A. Schanc (€d!) .

\ j ! , ' r i . / l l . / r , rJ5rr Lnglc$o1, ,1 Cl i f fs . \Jr Prcnr icc l la l l ,

- L!981) Fountir Lnt ti (bgtitift Crat:" at. Vol.l: TheotelicaLPfe..qalJter. Sranl(,rd. ( A: St nford Linilersi!) Pre\s.

- ' ( 1983) An o\ r rv ie$ o i cognir i \ e grarnrn. l r ' . in B. Rudzka-Oslv.(cd.) . Trp i . , Ln (or t , l i i t : l - t r . ( rdr i . r . Amslerdam: JohBenjamins. pp. l J8.

pp. r t{f

- 11991\ foundnltL, ts ni ( iE i t t ( ; rumm'L Voi. U:..tpf1;.drto,r. Slaniord. (lA: Strniord Universir! Press.

l .angc.doer. D. Tcrcnc. rnd Paul M. Postal (1984) ah"\dl !r , / I

" ,qr/d8.r- Orl(nd: Blackwcl l .

L:1snik. Howard i l916) Rcmarks rn cor. l . r . rcc' ,Lepslhy. CiuUo C ( l9t :) . i Survey- ol Srructural

e d n . I o n d o n : A n d r i I ) ( u r \ c h .

LA2 :1 72 .Linguisncs , znd

i .esn'euski . S. ( 19:9) ( ;rundzugc cines neLren Syst€ms derG rusdlage o cier Nlathe m arik - I.wdane nta Il athemancae 14 l-{1 .

L.un. B. ih and Ualka Rappaport (1986) The formatio. r f adjcct i ! b l p a r s i r c \ ' . l 1 t r : 6 t t + t .

Leq's. C. L /1e6,-) irrtr:'/r a;ra,r,r.r/. O\f('dr Clarendon Pre3s.Li. Charle! \. led. ) 1 l916r \rli( cr dn.1 lott.. ficw York: -Academrc

Li.Chaf le! \ andSardraA fhomp\on (1976) subjecr and toFici ane\ tvpolos! of laneurlrc-.

, ropic. N!tr york: A;:rdcn,icL'eber. Roche|e (198{r) . Ih.

in Chrrles \ Li (ed.). :j.iblecl rndPrcss. pp.457 89.

org:rlilrlion of the lexico:r'. unpub

References 326

lished Ph.D. thesis. MIT.- (1982) 'Allomorphy' , LA r0:21-s2.Lockwood, David G. (1972) Inioduction to Snaifcatiorcl

Ltrgriitcs, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Luc€, R. D., R. R. Bush and E. Galanter (eds) (1965) Readings in

Mathematical Pstchology, New York: John Wiley.Lyons, John (1968) Introduction to Theorctical Linguie.ics, Calx,-

bridger Cambridge Univenity Press.Mccawley, James D. (1968) 'Concerning the base componenr of a

transformatiunal grammat'. FL 4: 24]-{9.- (1971) 'Tense and time in English', in C. J. Fillmore and D. T.

Langendoen (edt, Sr.d/er ia Lingubtic Ssmanricr, New York:Holt, Rinehart, Winston, pp. 9G113.

- (ed.) (1976) S),nta! and Semontics, vol. 7: Notes from theLingui:tic Unllergrcund, New York: Academic Press-

(1982)'Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure',LI l3t 9r-106.

- (1988) ?re Sr tactic Phenomena of Englbh,2 vols, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Mccloskey, James (1988)'Syntactic theory', in Frederick J.Ne*meyer (ed.), Linguittics: the Cambridge Suney, yol. llLingubtic Theory: Foundations, Cambridge: CambridgeUnivelsiry Press, pp. 1&-59.

Manaster-Ramer, Alexis (ed.) O9A7a) Mathematics of Language,Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

- (.1987b) 'Dutch as a lormal lar,graee' , L & P 10: 22r-46.- (1988) Review of Savitch e, al. The Fomnl Conplexity ol

Naturul Languaqe (198'7) Comp. Ling. l4t 98 103.Manaster-Ramer, Alexis and Michael B. Kac (190) 'The concept of

phrase structure', L & P 13: 325-62.Marcus, Mitchell P. (1980) ,4 Theoty of Syntactic Recognition for

Natwal Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Matthews, Peter H. (1972') Inf.ectonal MorpholoqJ, Cambddgel

Cambddge University Press.- (1974) Morphology, Carnbridge: Cambridge University Press

(2nd edn 199r).(1981) Slnrar, Cambridger Cambridge University Press.

May, Roben (1985) Logical Form: It.s Structwe and Derivation,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mel'duk, Igor A. (1988) Depende cy SJntax: Theory and Pructice,Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Merlan, Francesca (1985) 'Split intransitivity: tunctional oppositions etl-

in intransitive inflection', in Johanna Nichols and Anthotry C.Woodbury (eds), Grcmmar liside and Outsidc th. ClanQ,Cambridge: Cambridge Univ€Fity Press, pp. 324-62.

Montague, Richard (1970) 'English as a lortrlal langurge', in B.Visentini el a/. (eds), Lr'n8utqgi nella socied e nella tecnico,Mil,filEdizioni di Communita, pp. 189124. Reprinted in R. H.Thomason (ed.) (19'74), Fonul Philosophy: Selected Pape6 ofRicha Montague, New Haven: Yale UniveNity Precs, pp. 188-221.

Moravcsik, Edith A. and lessica R. Wirth (edq (19E0) S)rtar ardSemantics, yol. 13: Cu ent Apptooches to ^Syrtar, Ncw Yott;Academic Press.

Morley, G. D. (1985) Ar Innodu.tion to Systemir Gtunno\I-ondon: Macmillan.

Mull€r, Max (1880) k.ru res on the Scierce of Language , 2 volt, &ledn, London: I-ongmans, Grcen.

Muysken, P. (1982) 'Parametrizing the notioa "head" ', tournal of

Nash, D. (1980) 'Topics in Warlpiri grammar', unpubtishcd Ph,D.thesis. MIT-

Newmeyer, F.ederick l. (1986) Lingui:tk Theory in Anerica, hdedn. New York: Academic Press.

- (ed.) (1988) L,ngurr,is: the Cambridge Suney,Vol.l: Ling'/.itttcTheory: Foundations, Cambridge: Cambridge Univenity Prcar.

Nichols, Johanna (1986)'Head-marking and dep€ndent-m.rkingg^rnm ' , Lg. 62i 56-119 .

Nichofs, Johanna and Anthony C. Woodbury (eds) (1985), GrcnnarInside and Outsi.le the Cla6e, Cambddge: Cambridgc Univcnity

Nid-a. Eugene A. tt94n\ Motphology. th? Descdptiv. Anafysh ofvvofdr. Ann Arbor: Universirv of Michiean press.

- (1948) 'A system for the identificatio; of morphemes', ,8. 24:47447.

- (19fit A Synops! ol trgki, S)r.aj. The Hague: Mouton.Noonan. Michael {!995) .complemenrarion., in Tirnotby sboFn

kd). L.oh4uaSe Tvpolo4y and Lin1uistrc De$cnpirtr, Vol: 2,^

qmbndge: CarnbridSe Universiry press. pp. 42_140.()€hrle tuchard T.. Frn;on gact ana Oetjre wtecler (ed;) (lgtg)rateSo.ul Crummars and Natu'"t t angnage Sti.,/es,

_ uordrecht: D. Reidet.ulson.Iicbael L. ( l98l ) .Barai clause junctures: toward.Iimc-ticEal

".w,r u, rnrer-clause reladons.. unpubtished pb.D. thrd,

333IIea-

!I

33a33taattataaaat.attt

e1

s-lt- l5 -l€l!l:l:rIT;r:rii:r:rr_l:-J:__r:I:J:J;r

327 ncfcnocc!

c-lC-.

References j2, I i

Ausualan Narional Unirer. i tv. C IO o s t e n . J c a n n e r a n { l e 7 7 | S u b i ( ( t . r n d " g e n l h o o d i n t n g l i s b . C L S t :

r l : 4 5 9 7 1 . - ,Palmer. f -rank R. ( lgbbj Mood o !1 l t4odLl i ry. Canbnd}e: C I

Cambridge Un'ters,ry Pres C a- \1981t t hc Engl 'h l . r 'b. 2nd edn. l ,ondon: Longman. I IPanee. Barbara H.. Alrce ter \4eulen and Robert F Wal l (1940)

: !Uah.rut i l Metho^ i t r LI48, l1i . \ . Dor, l lechl: Kluser ' I I

ParLen. lerr ! and Graeme Rnchre (1087). A. iormal model . f C i

Slsremic Crammar. in C. Kempen kd\. Natwal Language ; !oene liott Re'lynl ldvancc\ in AL Ptycholoev and Li|,iuisict' t IAmslerdam. Klu$er. PP 27q 09 e f

P a y n e . J o h n R . t l o 8 5 a r ' N e g a l i o n . I n l r m o L h ) S h o p e n ( e d ) . . I'Lantu.tg" TIpolo1y dnd Svni,nc Dertiption Yot t.Cn Utiag., : I

canbndge Uni\ersir ! Pres. pp. ls- 242. € I

.,'.',':iil.Tlii'JiJ ];"#, :T'i;,"iff T:i#,yi,ti : i2. Cambndge: Cambddge Uni lersiry Pre$. pp. J-41. L I

Perc€ral . W. Keith ( lo7bl On the histor iLal source of immediate C :con.t f luenr anal) . i ' . in Jamer D Mccrt \ ley (ed ). Sln/d and ^ IS,nanhs, vol. -: ,.otet Ircn the Lngu$i. Underytuund. Ne\!l L Iyorh Academic pre\\ . pp 22q2. C :

Pereira, Fernando C. \ . and David H. D. Warren ( l r l80) Def ini te ; IClause Crammars tor language analysi \ : a sune) of lhe formal ismand acomparison qirh Augmenred Tlan. irron \ ihrork' . Arntrctal C iI r ' tc lhlencp l ] :7l l - -8. ReprinleJ rn Barba'a J Cros/. Karen S a !Jonc! and Bonnre i . webb;r (edsr' nPddt,8, in \arwa! Laneuace : IPrurar irE. to\ Al lo\ . CA: Vorgan Kaufmann. 1c86. pp l0l 24. V I

Pcr lmutter. Davrd V t lel l t Dccp and Sulace Stni tut . (on:t tainL\ e: -

, r Synra. Neu Yorl : Hol l . Rinehan. win' lon . I- 1ifal

'tmpersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis', : IELr4 lsr 8e

{ . Moravcsi . dndJe(<ica 7 I(1980)'Relational Grarnmar', in Edith ?R. wi;h (eds), Syntar and Semantics, Yol. 13: Current \ |Approarhe' to Synlax.Neq Yorl ' :Academic Press. pp l05 22q. t I

,.lli:ji l "".*' \ersu\ imPeAonar con'tructions rtt'

t a- red.r { lq8jbr l r rdtes in Relanoul Granmd,. Vol l . Chicago:

: IUni ler. i r ) o{ chicdgo Pre.s. 5 -

- l lq84) fhe ine,d<quacy ol \ome mnno\rrdral lheorir \ of palsrve . ra Iln David V Perlrnurtcrand C. Ro5en \eds).}u.r f ' in Relat iona '

AC t a n n d t . v o l 2 . C h i c a e o : U n i ! e r s i r t o t ( h i \ ' a g o P r e s s . p p s 3 7

: i

taa

3

33

3333a33?a?aa?aaaaaaa?aa,

,

w RefereDc€s

Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal (1984) 'The 1-advance-ment exclusiveness law', in David M. Perlhutter and C. Rosen(eds) , Shtdies in Relatinml Grummat , Yol. 2, Chicago: Unive'siryof Chicago Press, pp. 81-125.

Pedmutter, David M. ard C. Ros€n (eds) (1984) Studies in RetationalGrammar 2, C\icago: UnFeNity of Chicagn Press.

Penault, C. Raymond (1984) 'On ilie mathematical properties oflinguistic theories', Comp. arr& 10: 165-76. Rep.inted in BarbaraJ. crosz, Karen S. Jones and BonDie L. Webtr€r (eds), Readings inNaaral Language Processrr8, I4s Altos, CA; Morgatr Kaufrnann,1986, pp. 5 16.

Pete6, P. Stanley ard Roben W. Ritchie (1971) ,On restricting thebase component of tratrsformatiotr.al g'alJ'fisrs', lnlonution andConnor fi. 483-501.

Peten, P- Stanley and Robert W- Ritchie (1973) ,Otr th€ gcnerativepower of transformational g^mmafi,, Infomation kiences 6t 49_83.

Po ard, Carl J. (19U) Ceneralized phrase S'u.ttre Gramimr\Head Gruhrian, and Naiual Z.argudSer, unpublished ph.D.thesis, Stanford Univeniry.

Pollard, Carl J. and Ivatr A. Sag (1987) Infomatian-Based S! tt,and Semanncs. VoL I: Fwdatnentals, Stadord, CA: CSLI.

Polock, Jean-Yves (1989) 'Verb movement, unive.sal giammar, andthe sFucture of IP', L120: 365 424.

Postal, Paut M. (1964a) 'Limitations of pbrase sftuc'tule graf|mars',in Jerry A. Fodor and Jenold J. K;s (eds), The Strucrrre of?n-gua.se: Readinss in th" phitosophy ol langua8e. EnglewoodC1iff\. NJ: Prenrice-Halt. 1964, pp. li7-5t.

- ^( l.t64b\ Constitue Snuc.urc: A Study of Cotnemporury Modets

of- Sv actic Delcripnon- UAL 30: I lpan II). ,nd edn t%?,Bloomhgion. lN: Indiatra Universin press.

- (1969) 'Anaphoric istands', CZS 5: 205-39.-__(1971) Crcss-Ot'et phenomena, New york: Hoit, Rinehart,

-. (1982) 'Some arc pair grammar descriprions.. in paulineracobson aBd Ceoftrey K. pujlum {eds), The Naturc of SynuctieKeprcsenra.[on-Dotdrecht: D. Reidel. DD. .}4l_425.

PuIm. Geoffrey K. { l98t) t anguages wiit ouject tefore subjecl: acommeor and a catalogue', Linpui:ncs lgt t41_55.-^^(1982) Free word order and-phrase struaure rules., Iy'ELS t2:2U)-20

- (1983) 'How many possibte humar languages a rc therc2, , LI 74i-. -t

I'r'E'

330

g:--3c-?e-3c-)c-3e.3c-r 3ci3c-i 3c-i 3e -.i -c.i !ell€t.

:j:ei3c i?

:i3:ii;j3:1 3272e-i.

fr?

331 Refer€ncesReferenc€s

47-67.- (198aa) 'S].ntactic and semantic patsability', in Prcceedia$ of

the Tenth Inlenatio al Conference on Computoaiotal LiaSuisti.s:Coling 81, Mel.lo Park, CA: Association for ComPutationalLitrguistics, pp. 1 12-22-

- O9E4b) 'On two recent attempts to show that English is not a

CFL', Comp. Ling. lot 1824....._ (19E6a) 'Footloos€ and context-free', NLLT 4t 4{D-14.

Reprinted in Geoffrey K. Pt llnrr., The Great Eskimo VoeabuJaryHoat an.l other lfteverent E sots on the Study of laagwge,Chicago: University of chicaSo Press, 1991,pp 131-8.

- O986b) 'OD the relations of IDc-command and Sovemment',

West Coast Confercnce on Formnl Liaguisties 5:192'26.- (1987) 'Nobody goes around at IJA meetingi offering odds',

NLLT 5. 3o9. Reprinted in Geoffrey K Plllum, The GrcdlEskimo vocabulory Hoat and Othar In.verent Essays on dt studyof langtla|e, ChicaSo: Unive6ity of Chicago Press, 191, pP.13946.

- (198'8) 'Citation etiquette beyond Thunderdome' , NLLT 6t 519-88. Reprinted in Ge!ffley K. Pulum, The Gr.at E kirnoVocabulary Hoot and Other lftzvetent Essafs on tht Sitdl ofIanguage,C):u. go. U \ersity of Chicago Pr€ss, 191, PP. 147-58.

- (1989) 'Fornal linguistics meels the Boojum', NL LT 7 | 131'4!.Iteprinted h Geoffrcy K. Plrl\n, The Grco! Eskimo vocabularyHoat aa.t othet Inevete\t Essays on th. Study ol I'aaguat 'Chicago: Univetsity of ChicaSo Prcss, 191, pp 47-55

- (1991\ The Grea, Eskirno Vocabulary HotLt and OlEr lftcve..^tEssays otr ttrc Studt of lattgua8e, Cbicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Pu um, Geoffrey K. and Gerald Oazdar (1982)'Natutal langurgesand context-froe languages', L & P 4: 471-5M ReFinted iDWalter J. Savitch, Emmon Bach, Willisn Marsb and 6ila Safi'.n-Naveh (eds), The Fonnal Completity of Natr/'ral I'anguogc,Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 138-82.

Pullum, Gcofftey K. and Deirdre wilson (l9Z) 'Autonomorrs sytrtarand the analFis of auxiliaries', L8. 53: 741-88.

Quang Phuc Dong lpseudonym of James D. Mccawlcy] (191) 'Eo8-

lish sentences without overl gtammatical subjecf, in A. M.Zwicky, P. H. Salus, R. l. Binnick and A- L. Vanek (eds), StdratOu! in L.lr Fi.Id: D4ornatory F.$soys Presented to lati.t D.Mccapr?y, Edmonton and ChaePaig!: Linguistic Res€atch, Inc.,pp.3-10.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidoey Greenbaum, Geoffrey Irecb ar|d JenSrarNik (1972) A Gramtnar of Contemporary English, Hafl('vr,Essex: lrngman,

Quirk, Raodolpb. Sidney Greenbaum. Geoffrey l,eech and JanSvanvit (1985) A Comprchetlsive Gnmnat of tha ErytishLongutqe, Harlovt, Essex: lrngmarr.

Radford, Andrew ( 1988\ Tnniformciional Grur rrur: a Fir$t Coutse,Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Reed, Alon2o and Brainerd KeUogS (l8Z) Highzr Lessons inEnglrr,t, New York.

Reich, Peter A. (1969) .The nnit€ness of natural language,, a8. 45:831-43- Reprinted in F. W. Hou*holder (ed.), S/, u"ric neiry t:Sl7ucn/l.olist, Harmondsrorth, Middlqser: peryuin, 1472,pp.258 '72.

Reinha(, Tanya (1974) 'Synrar and coreference' , NELS S: y2_lOS.Rosenbanm, Peter S. (1%?) The crumnar ol Et ttish predi.ate

Complement Constuctions, Cambridge, MA: MII _press.

Rosenschein, S. J. and Stuan M. Shieber (19&2) ,Transtating Englishinlo logical form', in proceed.ings of ,he Twentierh Annual Me;tin8of the Association Ior Computotionz! Zin3uarics, TorontoiUnive.sity of Toronto, pp. l-8.

Ross.,John. Roben (t966).A propos€d rule of tlee-pruning,.lr:t!1ryAtical LinSuirtics and Auomotie Trawlarion Repon }io.NSF-17 to thc Narional Scierce Foundatioa, Harvard finiversityCompuiation laboralory.

-^ {1.T7) C"n",,"ino on variables in syntax', ph.D. thesis, MIT.

Published a! /n l r Syrra'rl, Norwood, NJ: Ablcx, 19g6.- ( Ii),59) cuess who . CLS St ZS2-&.- (1t0) 'Gapping and the order of constituents', h M. Bierwi0ch

and K. Heidolph_-(eds\- progress in Lhdr.isrrLr, The Hague:Mouton, pp. 249-59.

- (1972a) 'Double-in E' , LI 3t 6t-86.

-,(.lT:bl The calegory squisb: eDdsration Hauptwort.. CtS 8:- (1973a)'Slifiing', in M. Oro3s, M. Halle and M_ p. Schur"rn_

berger (eds). Tfu Fonul Anafysis of Norurzl laaguag.s, TheHague: Mouton, DD. 13H9.-. ( t973b) t-be P;;lhouse principle and the order ot consriruents.,ln,L, (orurn. T. C. Smirh-Srart atrd A. Weis€r ( e&), you Tokc unISn Node and I Tahe ttu tate Node: pape6 hom theLomp^adive Syntax Fesryal. Chicago: Chicago Linguisd; Society,pp.397422.

E*.a

References 332

att39ttt?t-

a3-

aeaaaaaa.aaaaaaaaaa.a

e14

tl?tElcIt-r€l:r:I!l

ii:r:r:,r:-r:-I_-_ r:__t'--.l2_r=t

;i

References

Lanqua,e Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1, Cambridge:Cambridg€ University Press, Pp. 3-.6l.

Schleget . August Wilhefln wn (l8lA) ObsenatiorLt sw Ia langue et Ialtu4ruure prownQales, Parisr Lib.airie F€cque-latine-allemaDde.

sebba, Mark (I9n) The Syntat of Senlal yetbs, Amsterdam: JohnB€njamins.

Seely, Jonathan (1977) 'An ergative historiography', l*rto.io-

sruphica Linguistica 4t l9lJO6Sells. Peter (1985) Lectures on Contemporary Syntaclc Theories,

Stanford. CA: CSLI.Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) (1976\ Syntax and Semantics, vol. 6: The

Grummar of Causative Corrr.x.nbtr, New York: Academic Press.- (ed.) (1988) Pd:'Jiv" and Voke, Amsted^m: John Benjamins.Shieb€r. Stuart M. (1985) 'Evidence against the contert-freeness of

natural language',4 & P8:333-43. Reprinted in WalterJ. Savitch,Emmon Bach, wiltiam Marsh and Gila Sahan-Naveh (eds), flleFormal Complexitt of Natural Language, Dordrecht: D. Reidel,1987. pp. 120-34. Also reprinted in J. Kulas, J. H. Fetz€r and T. L.Rankin (€ds) PhitosophJ, language and Artifci'l Intellisence,Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988. pp. 79-92.

- (1986) , n Innoduction b Unilication-Ba:ed Apprcaches toGrrrnmrl. Stanford, CA: CSLL

Shi;b€r, Stuart M.. Hans Uszkoreit, F. C. N. Pereira, J. J. Robinsonand M. Tyson (1983)'The formalism and implementation ofPATRII', in Research on Interucti'e Acquisition arul Use ofKnowledge. Menlo P^tk, CA: Adficial Intelligenc€ Center, SRIIntemational.

Shopen. Timothy (ed.) (1985) Language Typology and SJntacticDerc.iptior, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Siewienka. Anna (1984, The Passive: a Compantive Linguktic,{ralys|J. lrndon: Croom Helm.

- (1991, Functi;nal G/dm mdl, London: Routledge.Silverstein, Michael (1976) 'Hierarchy of featur€s and €rgativity', in

Roben M. W. Dixon (ed.\, Grammatical Caregories in AustftliatlldnStraSes, Canbena: AIAS, pp. l12-71.

Sp€ncer, Andrew (191) Morphiiogicaf Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.Stark. Bruce R- (1972) 'Th€ Btoomfietdian rnodet', Lingxd 30: 385-

ALStarosta, Stanley (1988) fhe Care fot Lexicase: an Outtine of

Leticase Grcmmatical Theo,,y. London and New York: Pinter-Stowel l . T 'm. ' lhv A. (198t) a)r igins of phrase \(ruc(ure. unpub-

lrshed Ph.D. rhesis. MlT.

Sadock, Jenold M. (1970) 'Whimperatives', in J M. Sadock and AL. Vanek (eds), Studies Presented to Robe E. Lees bJ his.t,ud€n6, Edmonton: Linguistic Research, pP 223-39.

- (19?l) 'Queclarativ es' , CL'7.223-31.- (1985) 'Autolencal syntax: a theory of noun incorporation and

similar phenom€na', NLLT 3t 319441).- (1991\ Autotexical Syrrd.r, Chicago: University of Chirago Press.Sampson, Geoffrey (1975)'The single mother condition', Ja 11:

1 1 r .Sanders, Geratd A. (1972) Equano,ul Grammar, The }{ague:

Mouton.- (1974) 'On the notions "optional" and "obli8alory" in linguis-

tic.', Minnesotn Wo*ing Paped in Lin9uistics and Philosophv oILanguage 2t 145 36.

- (198'0) 'Equational rules and rule tunctions in syntar', in EdithA- Moravcsik and Jessica R. Wirth (eds\, Syntot and Senunics.Vol. 131 Cuient Apprcaches ro Stntar' N€w York: AcademicPre$s, pp. 231-66.

Sapir, Ed\vard (1917) R€view of'Het passieve karakter van het

verbum transitirum of van het verbum actionis in talen van Noord_

Amerika', by C. C Uhlenbeck, IIAL lt 82-4'- (1921) languoge,New Yo*: Harcoun Brac€.

Saumjan, Sebaslian K. (1977, ApplicanoruI Gftmnur: a SemantX

Theory of natural Lan4utge, Chic goi University of ChicagoPress.

Saussure. Ferdinand de (1916\ Cours dz linguietique q'nlrul.' ed C'

Bally, A. S€chehaye and A. Riedlinger. Ilusaon€: Payot. English

translation by W. Baskin, Cource in Genenl Lin&rittt?r' New

York: Mccraw-Hill, 1966.Savitch, Walt€r J., Emmon Bach, William Manh and Gila Safran_

Nav€h (eds) (1987) The Fomal Completitv of Na.ural langutge'Dordrecht: D. Reidet.

Scalise, Sergio (1984) Genetotive MorpholoLy, Dordrecht: Fods

Schacht€r, Paul (1976) 'The subiect in Philippine languages: toPrc'

actor, actor-lopic, or none of the above?', in Charles N. Li (ed ),Subject and Topic,New York: Academic Press' Pp 49l-518'

- (19m) 'Daughter-Dependency Grammar', in Edith A.

Moravcsik and Jessica R Wirth (eds), Slntd.! and Senantics, Vol'

13. Cuftent Apprcaches ro S)rld't, New York: A€ademic P'ess' Pp'261+9.

- (1981)'Lovely to look at', L,4 8: 431 48.- (1985) 'Parts-of-speech systems'. in Timothy Shopen (ed-),

!.-J

RefereDce6

( , - €

L-cc- ."- 135334 Rderences

Sullival|, Wiliarb J. ( l9E0) .Synrax and Iingrxslc s€manrrcs rn srralifi_ca.ronat thcory., in Edirb A. Moravsik ;dJessi* n. winiiii.l,

?ff13r'.ffiJ;li; :if;ren Apprcacha. sv,,*. N.JSweet, Henry (1898) A N.w EnElLrh Grumhur, Lo|kat and*

Hiflofual, pan 2: Synkr. Oxford:'Clarendon press.r alalds€o, Knul Tarald (1990) .The theorerical inrerpretarion of a

:i._""-"_t- ..f.0.

:iqy ions. . in prcccedin|s of rhe Thnd GLow_conlcrcnce. Anntli delta Scuota Notmak Supe;iorc di pbo.'?Sihli"'" (teset Etlnens d? svnm.xe shrtunte, pai|s:

Thomp6on, Sandra A. and Roben E. t ngade ( 1985) ,Adverbiat

"1"*:.. r: Timothy Shopetr (ed.\, Lan1uaee rw"t"ii',"i

"J:{n i; : ::!{r:' vor 2. ca m bridse : i".La!I ir"il"i,y

Tomi6,. Of8a M. {ed.) (t989) Markeaness n Svn,:hrony andDiachrcn! , Ber|Uni Mouton de cruvrerTrark. R. L. (lDll A TextbooL;/ Svnra,y {Cognirive Scienc€,,

Res€arch_Repon, no. 20.a). Briehlo;: University oi Susseri - - *

vaD Valin, Roben D. ( t985) .Cas€ markioS and th. structure of thel,akbota clause'. itr- Johanna Nichoh and ,frthony C. Woodburv

trt#:frff:JfrK {,^,:i:9,{" c,aase. cambridgei

li3"i!i,'Fi:'i,","1:f ^),#li, j)f f,fr #;21,,?,.Ahsterdam: Jolh Beniamins.Van.Valin, Robert D. an.t Willian A. Fotey (1980).Role andr€ference grarnmar,-in Ediih A. Moravcsik and fessica n. wini

. !il; "i:fi"::-1 i#Jffi ;,1i1: #,,fi?51, App'oache' b",lfl::;.ff1:.ll*t'

Phitosophv in Lingubrils. Lhaca: come'u':y,-.

l: tl (re9|1j\ 4n Hisro csr synta.x of the Ensrish_- Language, 4 vots, Lgiden I E. J. Brilt.wackemagel. Jakob ( l8c2) .trb€r ein Ges€17 d€r indogermanischen..,Wonsteflung , /ndog?nnanisch? Fotschun|en || 33i-436.Welfs. Rulon S. ( lq4?, .Jmmediate

const iru€nrs.. L8. 23:81' ,117.lepriDteljn Martin Joos ted.l, Reading

,,,Lhrcasoi-universiry or chicrgo press. ,*i.iol?fffr|' u"' t

"i,Ti].il'llT,f,"ll?l3t Af ican Lansuasi i,,uc&'?s. Berkerev:Whorf, Benjamin LEe (1956\ LanSua&e, Thoughr and Reati.r:

e-L.e-c-c-

Selected WdtinSs of Bcniomin Lee Whoi, ed. J. B. Cer.oll.Cambridte, MA: MIT Pless.

Wiingaarden, A. vad (196t) 'Report oo the algorithmic languageN,GOL&', Nu .ri.tchc Mathcrnatik 14i 79-218.

Wiliafls, Edwin S. (195) 'SmaI clauses in English', in J. KimballGn.), Sy at ond Sarantbr, Vol. 4, Ncw York: Academic Press,pp. U9-73.

- (198) 'Acro6s-thc-boad lule application', t/ 9: 3l-43.- 0981) 'On ttc notions "lexically rcIated" and '.head of a

vroft" ' , LI l2t Ur74.Woods, W. A. (190) 'Transition network grammars for natural

language urlFis', Communi.ations of the Associatiotl forComputiq Mk)titcry l3i 591-606. Reprinted in Barban J. crosz,Karen S, JoDcs and Bonnie L. Webber (eds), Readings in NaturalIanguagc Prccating, l-os Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufrnann, 1986,pp.71-E1.

Wundt, Wilhcfo (19n) Vblkerystchologic: eine L|ntercu.hung derEntvti.klungttesetae von Spnche, Mythus und Sitte, Vol. U: DjeSpnche, Zweit t Teil, Lg.pzig: W. Engelnann.

Yngve, \4ctor H. (1960)'A model and a'l hypothesis for lanSuagesfi)CJrnc' I heccdings of the Aturican Philosophicat Societ tml4444.

Young, R. and W. Morgan (lg8o) fhe Novajo Ldnguage,Albuquerque: University of Ne* Merico press.

Zff, P. 0960) Sanan t Analysb,Itha.a, tIY: Cometl UniversiryPress.

Ziv, Yael and Gloria Shcintuch (199) .Indirect objecrs - rccon-sidered', CLS 15: 39G-403.

Zwicky, Amold M. (1985),Haadt', tL t2:.2494.- (f987) 'CodstrudioDs in oooostratal slmter', CLS 23: 3E+{01.Zwicky, Ahold M. and Jerrold M. Sadock (1q5) .AmbiSuity relts

and how !o fail them', in J. p. Kimbau (ed.), Syrar and SemantXs,Vol. 4, Ncw York: Acadernic press, pp. l-36.

rsBN 0-115-08628-0

lilllillllll[|ililillllrll9 780r+'1 5 086 2 88tr

a dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics

Documents

e i rt

rclativ e cialt e

descriptive terms

important terms

considerable coverage

lhousaods of terms whicb

ei tgiel

mathematical linguistics