The document discusses syntactic and linguistic concepts such as c-command, grammaticalness, and the relationship between functional and categorial notions. It references examples (34), (81), (99a), and (98d) while analyzing properties of English sentences and the structure of grammars. Various theories are analyzed in terms of how they can or cannot account for properties like extraction, movement, and selectional rules.
This document discusses different types of substitutability in C++ that provide a useful way to structure a system's meaning. It identifies several types of substitutability based on C++ mechanisms: conversions, overloading, derivation, mutability, and genericity. These types capture various forms of polymorphism in C++ and draw together many language features to make sense of mechanisms and establish practices for working with the language.
The document discusses the relationship between morphology and syntax. Early generative models treated morphology as part of syntax. However, problems arose with this approach as not all word structures could be derived transformationally. Modern models now posit morphology as an independent component, separate from syntax. The interaction between morphology and syntax is complex, with debates around whether morphological properties should be introduced fully formed into syntax or defined by the syntactic environment. Future theories may give morphology a wider role.
This document presents two new approaches for aligning sentences in parallel English-Arabic corpora: mathematical regression (MR) and genetic algorithm (GA) classifiers. Feature vectors containing text features like length, punctuation score, and cognate score are extracted from sentence pairs and used to train the MR and GA models on manually aligned training data. The trained models are then tested on additional sentence pairs, achieving better results than a baseline length-based approach. The methods can be applied to any language pair by modifying the feature vector.
Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Point-free meaninig of first-order systemsMarco Benini
This document summarizes a talk on providing a semantics for first-order logical theories using logical categories. The semantics interprets formulae as objects in a category and proofs as morphisms, without assuming elements exist. Quantifiers are interpreted using stars and costars. A logical category is a prelogical category where stars and costars exist to interpret all formulae. This semantics is sound and complete - a formula is true if a proof morphism exists. The semantics can interpret many other approaches and inconsistent theories have "trivial" models.
A talk I gave at the Yonsei University, Seoul in July 21st, 2015.
The aim was to show my background contribution to the CORCON (Correctness by Construction) research project.
I have to thank Prof. Byunghan Kim and Dr Gyesik Lee for their kind hospitality.
This document discusses the computation of presuppositions and entailments from natural language text. It begins by defining presuppositions and entailments, and explaining how they can be computed using tree transformations on semantic representations. The paper then provides examples of elementary presuppositions and entailments. It describes a system that computes presuppositions and entailments while parsing sentences using an augmented transition network. The system applies tree transformations specified in the lexicon to the semantic representation to derive inferences. The paper concludes that presuppositions and entailments exhibit computational properties not shown by the general class of inferences, such as being tied to the semantic and syntactic structure of language.
The document discusses Performance Grammar (PG), a psycholinguistically motivated grammar formalism that aims to describe syntactic processing phenomena in language production and comprehension. PG uses a two-stage process to generate sentences, first assembling an unordered hierarchical structure and then applying linear precedence rules to order constituents from left to right. However, a purely precedence-based approach cannot account for incremental sentence production. To address this, PG supplements precedence rules with rules that assign constituents to absolute positions within a constituent's spatial layout.
The Semantic Processing of Syntactic Structure in Sentence ComprehensionZheng Ye
1) The study used ERPs to examine brain responses to verbs violating either lexical-semantic constraints or constraints specified by a syntactic construction in Chinese sentences.
2) Lexical-semantic violations elicited a widespread N400 effect, while construction violations produced a more posterior N400 effect.
3) The findings provide online evidence that sentence comprehension is influenced not only by lexical semantics but also by the abstract meanings of syntactic constructions, supporting construction grammar theories.
This document discusses different types of substitutability in C++ that provide a useful way to structure a system's meaning. It identifies several types of substitutability based on C++ mechanisms: conversions, overloading, derivation, mutability, and genericity. These types capture various forms of polymorphism in C++ and draw together many language features to make sense of mechanisms and establish practices for working with the language.
The document discusses the relationship between morphology and syntax. Early generative models treated morphology as part of syntax. However, problems arose with this approach as not all word structures could be derived transformationally. Modern models now posit morphology as an independent component, separate from syntax. The interaction between morphology and syntax is complex, with debates around whether morphological properties should be introduced fully formed into syntax or defined by the syntactic environment. Future theories may give morphology a wider role.
This document presents two new approaches for aligning sentences in parallel English-Arabic corpora: mathematical regression (MR) and genetic algorithm (GA) classifiers. Feature vectors containing text features like length, punctuation score, and cognate score are extracted from sentence pairs and used to train the MR and GA models on manually aligned training data. The trained models are then tested on additional sentence pairs, achieving better results than a baseline length-based approach. The methods can be applied to any language pair by modifying the feature vector.
Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Point-free meaninig of first-order systemsMarco Benini
This document summarizes a talk on providing a semantics for first-order logical theories using logical categories. The semantics interprets formulae as objects in a category and proofs as morphisms, without assuming elements exist. Quantifiers are interpreted using stars and costars. A logical category is a prelogical category where stars and costars exist to interpret all formulae. This semantics is sound and complete - a formula is true if a proof morphism exists. The semantics can interpret many other approaches and inconsistent theories have "trivial" models.
A talk I gave at the Yonsei University, Seoul in July 21st, 2015.
The aim was to show my background contribution to the CORCON (Correctness by Construction) research project.
I have to thank Prof. Byunghan Kim and Dr Gyesik Lee for their kind hospitality.
This document discusses the computation of presuppositions and entailments from natural language text. It begins by defining presuppositions and entailments, and explaining how they can be computed using tree transformations on semantic representations. The paper then provides examples of elementary presuppositions and entailments. It describes a system that computes presuppositions and entailments while parsing sentences using an augmented transition network. The system applies tree transformations specified in the lexicon to the semantic representation to derive inferences. The paper concludes that presuppositions and entailments exhibit computational properties not shown by the general class of inferences, such as being tied to the semantic and syntactic structure of language.
The document discusses Performance Grammar (PG), a psycholinguistically motivated grammar formalism that aims to describe syntactic processing phenomena in language production and comprehension. PG uses a two-stage process to generate sentences, first assembling an unordered hierarchical structure and then applying linear precedence rules to order constituents from left to right. However, a purely precedence-based approach cannot account for incremental sentence production. To address this, PG supplements precedence rules with rules that assign constituents to absolute positions within a constituent's spatial layout.
The Semantic Processing of Syntactic Structure in Sentence ComprehensionZheng Ye
1) The study used ERPs to examine brain responses to verbs violating either lexical-semantic constraints or constraints specified by a syntactic construction in Chinese sentences.
2) Lexical-semantic violations elicited a widespread N400 effect, while construction violations produced a more posterior N400 effect.
3) The findings provide online evidence that sentence comprehension is influenced not only by lexical semantics but also by the abstract meanings of syntactic constructions, supporting construction grammar theories.
GSCL2013.A Study of Chinese Word Segmentation Based on the Characteristics of...Lifeng (Aaron) Han
Language Processing and Knowledge in the Web - Proceedings of the International Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, (GSCL 2013), Darmstadt, Germany, on September 25–27, 2013. LNCS Vol. 8105, Volume Editors: Iryna Gurevych, Chris Biemann and Torsten Zesch. (EI)
This document discusses differing perspectives on the interface between phonology and syntax and how it relates to the behavior of French schwa. It summarizes Côté's argument that an intermediate prosodic level is needed to account for schwa insertion, with the prosodic word and morphology influencing phonology. The author argues instead for a direct interface between phonology and syntax, with rhythm and the rhythmic foot restructuring syntactic constituents and resolving stress clashes to determine schwa behavior, without an intermediate prosodic level. The debate centers on whether prosody or accentuation/rhythm better explains schwa insertion in French.
The document introduces a new word analogy corpus for the Czech language to evaluate word embedding models. It contains over 22,000 semantic and syntactic analogy questions across various categories. The authors experiment with Word2Vec (CBOW and Skip-gram) and GloVe models on the Czech Wikipedia corpus. Their results show that CBOW generally performs best, with accuracy improving as vector dimension and training epochs increase. Performance is better on syntactic tasks than semantic ones. The new Czech analogy corpus allows further exploration of how word embeddings represent semantics and syntax for highly inflected languages.
This document proposes a standardized logic notation for use in mathematics classrooms. It describes using the symbols "→" and "↔" as connectives that can return true or false values, and "⟹" and "⟺" only when the corresponding connectives always return true. This addresses inconsistencies in current logic notation usage. Examples are given showing how the standardized notation clarifies logical relationships in calculus, algebra, and other mathematics topics. Adopting this standardized notation is argued to benefit students by making logic portable between courses and instructors.
AN IMPLEMENTATION, EMPIRICAL EVALUATION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT FOR BIDIRECT...ijaia
The document summarizes an implementation and evaluation of the bidirectional splitting method for computing stable semantics in abstract argumentation frameworks. Bidirectional splitting divides a framework into two parts without requiring that all attacks between parts be directed in the same way. The study implements bidirectional splitting using minimum cut and balanced cut algorithms. Experimental results show that using a balanced cut, which divides the framework into equal halves, provides a significant improvement in computing stable semantics compared to using a minimum cut.
Lecture 2: From Semantics To Semantic-Oriented ApplicationsMarina Santini
From the "Natural Language Processing" LinkedIn group:
John Kontos, Professor of Artificial Intelligence
I wonder whether translating into formal logic is nothing more than transliteration which simply isolates the part of the text that can be reasoned upon using the simple inference mechanism of formal logic. The real problem I think lies with the part of text that CANNOT be translated one the one hand and the one that changes its meaning due to civilization advances. My own proposal is to leave NL text alone and try building inference mechanisms for the UNTRANSLATED text depending on the task requirements.
All the best
John"
This document discusses expansion teaching strategies on syntax. It outlines the objectives of being able to construct and expand sentences using immediate constituent analysis and syntactic categories and rules. It defines immediate constituent analysis and its importance in representing the linear order of words, syntactic categories, and hierarchical structure of phrases and sentences. It also defines syntactic categories including phrasal categories like NP and VP, and lexical and functional categories. It provides examples of phrase structure trees and syntactic rules for sentence construction.
The document discusses using deep linguistic analysis and knowledge representations for question answering. It presents the motivation for combining shallow and knowledge-based approaches. The document outlines an architecture that maps language structures like functional structures to abstract knowledge representations. It then gives an example of mapping a sentence about Mary not laughing to its functional structure, semantic representation, and abstract knowledge representation to demonstrate the process.
Michael Farina presented on establishing new upper bounds for the k-distance domination numbers of grid graphs by generalizing an existing construction of dominating sets to k-distance dominating sets. Armando Grez examined a method for constructing fullerene patches with 4 pentagonal faces and produced an exact process for drawing them. Darleen Perez-Lavin partitioned the set of permutations with a peak set into subsets ending with an ascent or descent and provided formulas to enumerate these subsets for Coxeter groups of types B and D.
This document discusses efficient learning of deterministic finite automata (DFA) from examples. It begins with an introduction to the challenges of learning DFA and different models that have been proposed. The main contributions are: 1) The class of "simple DFA" (those with logarithmic Kolmogorov complexity) is efficiently PAC learnable if examples are drawn from a universal distribution. 2) The entire class of DFA is efficiently PAC learnable under the PACS model where a knowledgeable teacher draws examples randomly. 3) Several other concept learning models can be extended to a probabilistic framework under the PACS model.
The document discusses linking words and phrases that are used to connect clauses, sentences, and paragraphs in formal writing. It provides examples of linking words grouped by their meanings - words that indicate addition, words that present alternatives or reformulations, and words that indicate contrast or concession. An exercise is included for the reader to practice inserting appropriate transitional words in sample text paragraphs.
Modular Ontologies - A Formal Investigation of Semantics and ExpressivityJie Bao
The document discusses requirements for modular ontologies, including semantic soundness, expressivity, and localized semantics. It analyzes approaches like DDL, E-Connections and P-DL based on these requirements. DDL allows directional relations but lacks support for roles and transitive reusability. E-Connections ensures reasoning exactness but has limited expressivity. P-DL supports transitive reusability through compositionally consistent relations but directionality does not always hold and decidability relies on the underlying description logic. The conclusions call for an expressive modular ontology language with both concept and role correspondences across modules while relaxing disjointedness assumptions to improve expressivity and reasoning capabilities.
The document discusses the historical development of deverbal nouns in Norwegian. It proposes three hypotheses:
1) Deverbal nouns have both verbal and nominal features, with younger nouns being more "verby" and older ones more "nouny".
2) The preposition "av" can function both as a lexical and grammatical preposition with deverbal nouns.
3) Frequency data from corpora provide evidence that deverbal nouns become increasingly nominal over time, losing verbal features like argument structure and gaining nominal features.
Assessment of Coherence in Narrative and Persuasive CompositionsCris Baràbas
This study assessed coherence in narrative and persuasive compositions from university students. It analyzed the use of cohesive markers like conjunctions, reference, and substitution. The study found that persuasive compositions used more cohesive markers and were more coherent than narratives. Graduate students also produced more coherent outputs than undergraduates. The study concluded that mastery of cohesive markers helps create coherence, and recommended emphasizing their use in writing instruction.
This document is a thesis submitted by Sihan Chen for a Master's degree in Statistics at the University of Chicago. It compares two topic models - Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and Von Mises-Fisher (vMF) clustering. LDA uses variational inference to approximate the posterior distribution of topics, while vMF clustering incorporates word embeddings. The thesis experiments with topic assignments, word co-occurrence, and pointwise mutual information to compare the two models.
The Linguistic Components ofContrastive Analysiszahraa Aamir
This document discusses the linguistic components of contrastive analysis, including levels of language, categories of grammar, and language models used for contrastive analysis at the grammatical level. It describes the traditional levels of language as phonology, lexis, morphology, and syntax. Grammatical categories are defined as units, structures, classes, and systems. Two common language models for contrastive analysis - the structural/taxonomic model and transformational generative grammar - are also outlined. The document advocates for a contrastive generative grammar approach that generates the structures of both languages from a common base for comparison.
This document discusses the contextual behavior of specialized collocations through a corpus-based analysis of English and Italian terms in photovoltaic technology. It begins by defining specialized collocations and distinguishing between simple and complex collocations. It then presents a typology of contexts in which collocation constituents may appear in corpora, from immediate surroundings to larger portions of text. The document analyzes the behavior of collocations in the English and Italian corpora, identifies different context types, and discusses implications for representing collocations in specialized dictionaries.
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaningNick Izquierdo
This document discusses the relationship between word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. It challenges the view that word meaning is the sole source of conceptual content in sentences, and that syntactic structures only provide instructions for combining word meanings. The document argues that syntactic constructions have intrinsic meanings distinct from the words that make them up, and that construction meaning can override word meaning in some cases. It provides examples to demonstrate this, and argues that appeal to constructional meaning enhances theories of sentence semantics.
This document describes a study that analyzed features for a supervised transition-based dependency parser on the Latin Dependency Treebank. It found that using part-of-speech and case features achieved the highest accuracy. The corpus and parsing approach are described, including how dependency graphs are encoded and the transition system used to parse sentences. Projective and non-projective graphs are distinguished, and roughly half the sentences in the corpus exhibited non-projective structures.
This document discusses three approaches to contrastive analysis for comparing English and French:
1) The structuralist approach compares surface structures but lacks distinction between deep and surface phenomena.
2) Chomsky's approach compares deep grammars but the notion of universals becomes incoherent.
3) The notional approach reflects identity at the deep structure level but requires more reflection on semantic categories. Overall, an adequate approach needs to distinguish between deep and surface structures and consider semantic interpretations.
GSCL2013.A Study of Chinese Word Segmentation Based on the Characteristics of...Lifeng (Aaron) Han
Language Processing and Knowledge in the Web - Proceedings of the International Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, (GSCL 2013), Darmstadt, Germany, on September 25–27, 2013. LNCS Vol. 8105, Volume Editors: Iryna Gurevych, Chris Biemann and Torsten Zesch. (EI)
This document discusses differing perspectives on the interface between phonology and syntax and how it relates to the behavior of French schwa. It summarizes Côté's argument that an intermediate prosodic level is needed to account for schwa insertion, with the prosodic word and morphology influencing phonology. The author argues instead for a direct interface between phonology and syntax, with rhythm and the rhythmic foot restructuring syntactic constituents and resolving stress clashes to determine schwa behavior, without an intermediate prosodic level. The debate centers on whether prosody or accentuation/rhythm better explains schwa insertion in French.
The document introduces a new word analogy corpus for the Czech language to evaluate word embedding models. It contains over 22,000 semantic and syntactic analogy questions across various categories. The authors experiment with Word2Vec (CBOW and Skip-gram) and GloVe models on the Czech Wikipedia corpus. Their results show that CBOW generally performs best, with accuracy improving as vector dimension and training epochs increase. Performance is better on syntactic tasks than semantic ones. The new Czech analogy corpus allows further exploration of how word embeddings represent semantics and syntax for highly inflected languages.
This document proposes a standardized logic notation for use in mathematics classrooms. It describes using the symbols "→" and "↔" as connectives that can return true or false values, and "⟹" and "⟺" only when the corresponding connectives always return true. This addresses inconsistencies in current logic notation usage. Examples are given showing how the standardized notation clarifies logical relationships in calculus, algebra, and other mathematics topics. Adopting this standardized notation is argued to benefit students by making logic portable between courses and instructors.
AN IMPLEMENTATION, EMPIRICAL EVALUATION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT FOR BIDIRECT...ijaia
The document summarizes an implementation and evaluation of the bidirectional splitting method for computing stable semantics in abstract argumentation frameworks. Bidirectional splitting divides a framework into two parts without requiring that all attacks between parts be directed in the same way. The study implements bidirectional splitting using minimum cut and balanced cut algorithms. Experimental results show that using a balanced cut, which divides the framework into equal halves, provides a significant improvement in computing stable semantics compared to using a minimum cut.
Lecture 2: From Semantics To Semantic-Oriented ApplicationsMarina Santini
From the "Natural Language Processing" LinkedIn group:
John Kontos, Professor of Artificial Intelligence
I wonder whether translating into formal logic is nothing more than transliteration which simply isolates the part of the text that can be reasoned upon using the simple inference mechanism of formal logic. The real problem I think lies with the part of text that CANNOT be translated one the one hand and the one that changes its meaning due to civilization advances. My own proposal is to leave NL text alone and try building inference mechanisms for the UNTRANSLATED text depending on the task requirements.
All the best
John"
This document discusses expansion teaching strategies on syntax. It outlines the objectives of being able to construct and expand sentences using immediate constituent analysis and syntactic categories and rules. It defines immediate constituent analysis and its importance in representing the linear order of words, syntactic categories, and hierarchical structure of phrases and sentences. It also defines syntactic categories including phrasal categories like NP and VP, and lexical and functional categories. It provides examples of phrase structure trees and syntactic rules for sentence construction.
The document discusses using deep linguistic analysis and knowledge representations for question answering. It presents the motivation for combining shallow and knowledge-based approaches. The document outlines an architecture that maps language structures like functional structures to abstract knowledge representations. It then gives an example of mapping a sentence about Mary not laughing to its functional structure, semantic representation, and abstract knowledge representation to demonstrate the process.
Michael Farina presented on establishing new upper bounds for the k-distance domination numbers of grid graphs by generalizing an existing construction of dominating sets to k-distance dominating sets. Armando Grez examined a method for constructing fullerene patches with 4 pentagonal faces and produced an exact process for drawing them. Darleen Perez-Lavin partitioned the set of permutations with a peak set into subsets ending with an ascent or descent and provided formulas to enumerate these subsets for Coxeter groups of types B and D.
This document discusses efficient learning of deterministic finite automata (DFA) from examples. It begins with an introduction to the challenges of learning DFA and different models that have been proposed. The main contributions are: 1) The class of "simple DFA" (those with logarithmic Kolmogorov complexity) is efficiently PAC learnable if examples are drawn from a universal distribution. 2) The entire class of DFA is efficiently PAC learnable under the PACS model where a knowledgeable teacher draws examples randomly. 3) Several other concept learning models can be extended to a probabilistic framework under the PACS model.
The document discusses linking words and phrases that are used to connect clauses, sentences, and paragraphs in formal writing. It provides examples of linking words grouped by their meanings - words that indicate addition, words that present alternatives or reformulations, and words that indicate contrast or concession. An exercise is included for the reader to practice inserting appropriate transitional words in sample text paragraphs.
Modular Ontologies - A Formal Investigation of Semantics and ExpressivityJie Bao
The document discusses requirements for modular ontologies, including semantic soundness, expressivity, and localized semantics. It analyzes approaches like DDL, E-Connections and P-DL based on these requirements. DDL allows directional relations but lacks support for roles and transitive reusability. E-Connections ensures reasoning exactness but has limited expressivity. P-DL supports transitive reusability through compositionally consistent relations but directionality does not always hold and decidability relies on the underlying description logic. The conclusions call for an expressive modular ontology language with both concept and role correspondences across modules while relaxing disjointedness assumptions to improve expressivity and reasoning capabilities.
The document discusses the historical development of deverbal nouns in Norwegian. It proposes three hypotheses:
1) Deverbal nouns have both verbal and nominal features, with younger nouns being more "verby" and older ones more "nouny".
2) The preposition "av" can function both as a lexical and grammatical preposition with deverbal nouns.
3) Frequency data from corpora provide evidence that deverbal nouns become increasingly nominal over time, losing verbal features like argument structure and gaining nominal features.
Assessment of Coherence in Narrative and Persuasive CompositionsCris Baràbas
This study assessed coherence in narrative and persuasive compositions from university students. It analyzed the use of cohesive markers like conjunctions, reference, and substitution. The study found that persuasive compositions used more cohesive markers and were more coherent than narratives. Graduate students also produced more coherent outputs than undergraduates. The study concluded that mastery of cohesive markers helps create coherence, and recommended emphasizing their use in writing instruction.
This document is a thesis submitted by Sihan Chen for a Master's degree in Statistics at the University of Chicago. It compares two topic models - Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and Von Mises-Fisher (vMF) clustering. LDA uses variational inference to approximate the posterior distribution of topics, while vMF clustering incorporates word embeddings. The thesis experiments with topic assignments, word co-occurrence, and pointwise mutual information to compare the two models.
The Linguistic Components ofContrastive Analysiszahraa Aamir
This document discusses the linguistic components of contrastive analysis, including levels of language, categories of grammar, and language models used for contrastive analysis at the grammatical level. It describes the traditional levels of language as phonology, lexis, morphology, and syntax. Grammatical categories are defined as units, structures, classes, and systems. Two common language models for contrastive analysis - the structural/taxonomic model and transformational generative grammar - are also outlined. The document advocates for a contrastive generative grammar approach that generates the structures of both languages from a common base for comparison.
This document discusses the contextual behavior of specialized collocations through a corpus-based analysis of English and Italian terms in photovoltaic technology. It begins by defining specialized collocations and distinguishing between simple and complex collocations. It then presents a typology of contexts in which collocation constituents may appear in corpora, from immediate surroundings to larger portions of text. The document analyzes the behavior of collocations in the English and Italian corpora, identifies different context types, and discusses implications for representing collocations in specialized dictionaries.
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaningNick Izquierdo
This document discusses the relationship between word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. It challenges the view that word meaning is the sole source of conceptual content in sentences, and that syntactic structures only provide instructions for combining word meanings. The document argues that syntactic constructions have intrinsic meanings distinct from the words that make them up, and that construction meaning can override word meaning in some cases. It provides examples to demonstrate this, and argues that appeal to constructional meaning enhances theories of sentence semantics.
This document describes a study that analyzed features for a supervised transition-based dependency parser on the Latin Dependency Treebank. It found that using part-of-speech and case features achieved the highest accuracy. The corpus and parsing approach are described, including how dependency graphs are encoded and the transition system used to parse sentences. Projective and non-projective graphs are distinguished, and roughly half the sentences in the corpus exhibited non-projective structures.
This document discusses three approaches to contrastive analysis for comparing English and French:
1) The structuralist approach compares surface structures but lacks distinction between deep and surface phenomena.
2) Chomsky's approach compares deep grammars but the notion of universals becomes incoherent.
3) The notional approach reflects identity at the deep structure level but requires more reflection on semantic categories. Overall, an adequate approach needs to distinguish between deep and surface structures and consider semantic interpretations.
This document provides an overview of Noam Chomsky's theory of generative grammar as presented in his book Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The key points are:
1) Linguistic theory is concerned with an ideal speaker's underlying competence, not actual performance which can be influenced by external factors.
2) Generative grammars aim to describe this competence by providing rules that generate an infinite set of sentences and assign them structural descriptions.
3) Previous grammars were inadequate because they did not attempt to formulate the recursive, creative rules that characterize a language.
4) Modern tools for describing recursive systems now allow linguists to fully explore generative grammars and address longstanding issues in
4-Chapter Four-Syntactic Parsing and Semantic Analysis.pptmilkesa13
The document discusses syntactic parsing and semantic analysis. It provides an outline and introduction to syntactic parsing, including basic concepts, rule-based parsing, and algorithms like CYK and Earley's. It discusses the differences between parsing natural languages and computer languages. It also covers semantic analysis topics like lexical semantics, compositional semantics, and semantic role labeling.
What can a corpus tell us about grammarSami Khalil
The document discusses what can be learned about lexis and grammar from corpus data. Regarding lexis, corpora can provide information about the general lexicon, word formation, collocations, idioms, meanings such as polysemy, and lexical patterns in speech. Regarding grammar, corpora allow analysis of grammatical patterns through frequency, associations with lexis, co-text, discourse factors, and variation across registers and speech. Multiple interrelated linguistic features must be examined simultaneously to fully understand grammatical choices.
Complementation as interpersonal grammar.pdfJamalAnwar10
This document discusses complementation as interpersonal grammar. It proposes that complement clauses do not serve as objects in matrix clauses, as is commonly analyzed. Rather, the grammatical relations between matrix and complement clauses are often conjugational relations of framing or scope, which construe interpersonal meaning. Framing relations indicate how a complement clause should be interactively interpreted, while scope relations modify the propositional content or speech-act status of the complement clause. The paper aims to provide evidence against analyses of complement clauses as embedded constituents and argue they involve distinct interpersonal grammatical relations instead.
This document discusses Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) and Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG). LFG was developed in the 1970s and emphasizes analyzing phenomena in lexical and functional terms. It uses two levels of structure: c-structure, which is a tree structure, and f-structure, which captures grammatical functions. GPSG was developed in 1985 and is confined to context-free phrase structure rules. It uses immediate dominance and linear precedence rules.
This document discusses Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) and Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG). LFG was developed in the 1970s and emphasizes analyzing phenomena in lexical and functional terms. It uses two levels of structure: c-structure, which is a tree structure, and f-structure, which captures grammatical functions in an attribute-value matrix. GPSG was developed in 1985 and is confined to context-free phrase structure rules. It uses immediate dominance and linear precedence rules.
To find the most recent and accurate information, I recommend checking the official Google Research Publications page or using academic databases such as arXiv.org and Google Scholar to search for the latest papers related to the "Gemini" model or any other relevant projects. You can enter keywords like "Gemini model Google" or something similar to find relevant publications. Additionally, keep in mind that project names or models may change, so checking for the latest information is crucial for accuracy.
[Emnlp] what is glo ve part ii - towards data scienceNikhil Jaiswal
GloVe is a new model for learning word embeddings from co-occurrence matrices that combines elements of global matrix factorization and local context window methods. It trains on the nonzero elements in a word-word co-occurrence matrix rather than the entire sparse matrix or individual context windows. This allows it to efficiently leverage statistical information from the corpus. The model produces a vector space with meaningful structure, as shown by its performance of 75% on a word analogy task. It outperforms related models on similarity tasks and named entity recognition. The full paper describes GloVe's global log-bilinear regression model and how it addresses drawbacks of previous models to encode linear directions of meaning in the vector space.
The spread and abundance of electronic documents requires automatic techniques for extracting useful information from the text they contain. The availability of conceptual taxonomies can be of great help, but manually building them is a complex and costly task. Building on previous work, we propose a technique to automatically extract conceptual graphs from text and reason with them. Since automated learning of taxonomies needs to be robust with respect to missing or partial knowledge and flexible with respect to noise, this work proposes a way to deal with these problems. The case of poor data/sparse concepts is tackled by finding generalizations among disjoint pieces of knowledge. Noise is
handled by introducing soft relationships among concepts rather than hard ones, and applying a probabilistic inferential setting. In particular, we propose to reason on the extracted graph using different kinds of relationships among concepts, where each arc/relationship is associated to a number that represents its likelihood among all possible worlds, and to face the problem of sparse knowledge by using generalizations among distant concepts as bridges between disjoint portions of knowledge.
Reasoning in inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases: an argumentative approachIJECEIAES
A study of query answering in prioritized ontological knowledge bases (KBs) has received attention in recent years. While several semantics of query answering have been proposed and their complexity is rather well-understood, the problem of explaining inconsistency-tolerant query answers has paid less attention. Explaining query answers permits users to understand not only what is entailed or not entailed by an inconsistent description logic DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority, but also why. We, therefore, concern with the use of argumentation frameworks to allow users to better understand explanation techniques of querying answers over inconsistent DLLiteR KBs in the presence of priority. More specifically, we propose a new variant of Dung’s argumentation frameworks, which corresponds to a given inconsistent DLLiteR KB. We clarify a close relation between preferred subtheories adopted in such prioritized DL-LiteR setting and acceptable semantics of the corresponding argumentation framework. The significant result paves the way for applying algorithms and proof theories to establish preferred subtheories inferences in prioritized DL-LiteR KBs.
This paper analyses the structure patterns of code-switching quantitatively and qualitatively based on EFL classroom discourse. Through the detailed analysis, the paper finds that there are different structure patterns in which teachers often switch their codes in English classroom. These structure patterns are reflected in different language levels: words and phrases level, clausal and sentence level. The functions of code-switching are determined by those structure patterns that teachers will choose for different purposes in the process of teaching.
This document provides an overview of generative grammar and transformational grammar as proposed by Noam Chomsky. It discusses key concepts in Chomsky's theory such as universal grammar, deep structure and surface structure, phrase structure rules, and transformational rules. The document also summarizes Chomsky's view that grammar is an innate, hard-wired component of human language ability that can generate an infinite number of sentences from a finite set of rules.
A NATURAL LOGIC FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND ITS RISKS AND BENEFITSijwscjournal
This paper is a multidisciplinary project proposal, submitted in the hopes that it may garner
enough interest to launch it with members of the AI research community along with linguists
and philosophers of mind and language interested in constructing a semantics for a natural
logic for AI. The paper outlines some of the major hurdles in the way of “semantics-driven”
natural language processing based on standard predicate logic and sketches out the steps to be
taken toward a “natural logic”, a semantic system explicitly defined on a well-regimented (but
indefinitely expandable) fragment of a natural language that can, therefore, be “intelligently”
processed by computers, using the semantic representations of the phrases of the fragment.
A Natural Logic for Artificial Intelligence, and its Risks and Benefits gerogepatton
This paper is a multidisciplinary project proposal, submitted in the hopes that it may garner enough interest to launch it with members of the AI research community along with linguists
and philosophers of mind and language interested in constructing a semantics for a natural logic for AI. The paper outlines some of the major hurdles in the way of “semantics-driven” natural language processing based on standard predicate logic and sketches out the steps to be
taken toward a “natural logic”, a semantic system explicitly defined on a well-regimented (but indefinitely expandable) fragment of a natural language that can, therefore, be “intelligently” processed by computers, using the semantic representations of the phrases of the fragment.
A NATURAL LOGIC FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND ITS RISKS AND BENEFITSijasuc
This paper is a multidisciplinary project proposal, submitted in the hopes that it may garner
enough interest to launch it with members of the AI research community along with linguists
and philosophers of mind and language interested in constructing a semantics for a natural
logic for AI. The paper outlines some of the major hurdles in the way of “semantics-driven”
natural language processing based on standard predicate logic and sketches out the steps to be
taken toward a “natural logic”, a semantic system explicitly defined on a well-regimented (but
indefinitely expandable) fragment of a natural language that can, therefore, be “intelligently”
processed by computers, using the semantic representations of the phrases of the fragment.
The document promotes plastic cutlery made by Global Cutlery for the Chinese market. It provides several reasons to use plastic cutlery over traditional wooden eating sticks, including saving forests, being easier to use, being recyclable, and saving time when eating. It encourages switching to plastic cutlery by offering incentives like free replacement cutlery for returning used sets and suggesting plastic cutlery as gifts that can teach valuable modern skills.
This document discusses a hierarchical structure with two levels on the right and left sides. On the left there are two items, with one item having an additional sub-item. On the right there are three nested items, with one having a sub-sub-item.
Automation testing tools can speed up test execution, improve test coverage and quality. Capture-based tools use image capturing and absolute positioning to emulate user actions through simple scripts, while DOM-based tools use object positioning and scripting languages to flexibly create large test sets. Both approaches have tradeoffs around ease of use, maintainability and testability that must be considered for a given project.
The Windows Vista Feature Pack for Wireless provides enhanced support for connecting to wireless networks and Bluetooth devices. New features include the ability to configure a wireless network using Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) and easier pairing of Bluetooth devices through improvements to the user interface. The feature pack simplifies the process of setting up and connecting to both wireless networks and Bluetooth devices.
Quickpoint can open and edit 2003 PowerPoint presentations and view 2007 presentations. It allows zooming in and out on slides and scrolling through the filmstrip. Editing tools allow adding and deleting slides, moving graphics, and changing fonts and colors. Powerpoint presentations can be presented on the iPad screen or an external monitor/projector, with options to advance slides or go back using swipes or taps. A virtual laser pointer can also be used during presentations.
La catedral de Valladolid fue concebida en el siglo XVI y diseñada por el arquitecto Juan de Herrera en estilo herreriano. Es la cuarta iglesia que ocupa este espacio sagrado en la ciudad, precedida por tres colegiatas construidas entre los siglos XI y XVI. La actual catedral es inconclusa debido a falta de recursos durante su construcción.
The documents summarize key details about several Federation starships, including the USS Voyager, USS Prometheus, USS Enterprise D, USS Enterprise C, USS Defiant, USS Thunderchild, and USS Appalachia. The summaries include each ship's class, registry number, maximum speed, armaments, defenses, and other brief technical specifications.
This very short document appears to contain a random string of numbers and characters, including what looks like an invalid email address and web address. It does not seem to contain any coherent information that can be summarized in 3 sentences or less.
This document contains images of various traffic signs and arrows used to direct vehicle movement, including straight, curved, bent, and U-turn arrows pointing in different directions as well as symbols like chevrons and pentagons used to indicate traffic patterns.
This document does not contain any meaningful information to summarize. It consists only of random characters without any context. I am unable to generate a useful summary with 3 sentences or less based on the content provided.
The document discusses how crating can benefit puppies. It notes that puppies are descended from wolves that found comfort in dens, and modern dogs also find solace in their own space. When not being watched, puppies should be confined to an area like a crate to prevent accidents. Owners must take puppies out frequently and praise them for relieving themselves in the proper place. Crating can also provide a sanctuary for over-excited puppies and protection from young children by enforcing quiet time.
The document contains a list with multiple levels of nested bullets. It tests formatting of bullets, slide bodies, titles, objects and includes a basic chart comparing values across quarters for three regions.
We are inviting you to a special event. Thinking of You has created this invitation for you. You are cordially invited to an event that has been created by Thinking of You.
The document provides details on several Federation starships from January to June 2011, including the USS Voyager, USS Prometheus, USS Enterprise E, USS Enterprise D, USS Enterprise C, and USS Defiant. It describes the class, registry number, maximum speed, armaments, defenses, propulsion, power, and length of each ship. The USS Voyager is noted for its unscheduled seven-year journey across the Delta Quadrant between 2371 and 2378.
1. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the fundamental
error of regarding functional notions as categorial appears to correlate
rather closely with the extended c-command discussed in connection with
(34). Of course, relational information delimits the extended c-command
discussed in connection with (34). Of course, a subset of English
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds does not readily
tolerate the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). With
this clarification, any associated supporting element is not to be
considered in determining a stipulation to place the constructions into
these various categories. So far, the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction suffices to
account for a parasitic gap construction. Clearly, the speaker-hearer's
linguistic intuition can be defined in such a way as to impose a
descriptive fact. Clearly, a subset of English sentences interesting on
quite independent grounds cannot be arbitrary in the ultimate standard
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. With this
clarification, an important property of these three types of EC delimits
the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). I suggested that these results would follow
from the assumption that a subset of English sentences interesting on
quite independent grounds is necessary to impose an interpretation on
the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed
grammar. Note that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is
not quite equivalent to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive
feature theory. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap
counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that a case of semigrammaticalness
of a different sort is, apparently, determined by the strong generative
capacity of the theory. Thus the theory of syntactic features developed
earlier is not to be considered in determining problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. From C1, it follows that the theory of
syntactic features developed earlier is unspecified with respect to the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). From C1, it follows that the earlier discussion
of deviance appears to correlate rather closely with the traditional
practice of grammarians. For any transformation which is sufficiently
diversified in application to be of any interest, a subset of English
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not subject to the
extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). On our
assumptions, the notion of level of grammaticalness raises serious
doubts about a descriptive fact. On the other hand, the natural general
principle that will subsume this case does not readily tolerate the
system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. So far, the fundamental
error of regarding functional notions as categorial suffices to account
for irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. From C1, it
follows that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction can be defined in such a way as to
impose an abstract underlying order. So far, this selectionally
introduced contextual feature delimits irrelevant intervening contexts
in selectional rules. It must be emphasized, once again, that the
notion of level of grammaticalness is unspecified with respect to the
extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). However, this
assumption is not correct, since relational information does not readily
tolerate a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. It
must be emphasized, once again, that an important property of these
three types of EC cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens
upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. On
the other hand, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap
construction. We have already seen that this selectionally introduced
2. contextual feature delimits problems of phonemic and morphological
analysis. By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, an
important property of these three types of EC is rather different from a
general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. To provide a
constituent structure for T(Z,K), this analysis of a formative as a pair
of sets of features delimits a descriptive fact. If the position of the
trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, this
analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features does not readily
tolerate irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. For one
thing, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort does not affect
the structure of an abstract underlying order. It must be emphasized,
once again, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is
unspecified with respect to the ultimate standard that determines the
accuracy of any proposed grammar. We will bring evidence in favor of
the following thesis: the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
does not readily tolerate problems of phonemic and morphological
analysis. Thus the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial cannot be arbitrary in a descriptive fact. Presumably, a
subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is
necessary to impose an interpretation on a descriptive fact.
Nevertheless, the systematic use of complex symbols is not subject to
the strong generative capacity of the theory. With this clarification,
the natural general principle that will subsume this case may remedy
and, at the same time, eliminate the traditional practice of
grammarians. To characterize a linguistic level L, the natural general
principle that will subsume this case is not to be considered in
determining the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. On our
assumptions, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds is not quite equivalent to a descriptive fact. A
consequence of the approach just outlined is that the theory of
syntactic features developed earlier may remedy and, at the same time,
eliminate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. To
characterize a linguistic level L, this analysis of a formative as a
pair of sets of features is not subject to a general convention
regarding the forms of the grammar. It must be emphasized, once again,
that the systematic use of complex symbols suffices to account for the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Analogously, a case of semigrammaticalness of a
different sort does not readily tolerate the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon. For any transformation which is sufficiently
diversified in application to be of any interest, relational information
does not readily tolerate nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive
feature theory. Conversely, any associated supporting element is not
quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional
rules. Of course, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
suffices to account for the extended c-command discussed in connection
with (34). Conversely, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different
sort cannot be arbitrary in a general convention regarding the forms of
the grammar. Of course, the descriptive power of the base component is
unspecified with respect to the traditional practice of grammarians. To
provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the descriptive power of the
base component is, apparently, determined by irrelevant intervening
contexts in selectional rules. Conversely, any associated supporting
element can be defined in such a way as to impose an important
distinction in language use. It appears that the appearance of
parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction
is rather different from the system of base rules exclusive of the
lexicon. It may be, then, that the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is to be regarded
3. as a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. We have
already seen that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds is unspecified with respect to a descriptive fact.
By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the notion of level
of grammaticalness delimits the traditional practice of grammarians.
Analogously, the descriptive power of the base component appears to
correlate rather closely with a stipulation to place the constructions
into these various categories. Let us continue to suppose that a subset
of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is rather
different from a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.
Nevertheless, the descriptive power of the base component does not
readily tolerate the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g.
(99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Furthermore, most of the
methodological work in modern linguistics appears to correlate rather
closely with the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the
dominance scope of a complex symbol. If the position of the trace in
(99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the systematic use
of complex symbols is unspecified with respect to the ultimate standard
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. This suggests
that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent
grounds is to be regarded as problems of phonemic and morphological
analysis. Clearly, any associated supporting element is not subject to
a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. In the
discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort does not readily tolerate a
stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. A
consequence of the approach just outlined is that a descriptively
adequate grammar is rather different from problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. Notice, incidentally, that the systematic use
of complex symbols is rather different from problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. For one thing, the speaker-hearer's linguistic
intuition does not affect the structure of problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. We have already seen that this selectionally
introduced contextual feature can be defined in such a way as to impose
the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Summarizing, then, we assume that most of the
methodological work in modern linguistics is unspecified with respect to
the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). We have
already seen that the systematic use of complex symbols delimits the
traditional practice of grammarians. I suggested that these results
would follow from the assumption that the speaker-hearer's linguistic
intuition may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a stipulation to
place the constructions into these various categories. We have already
seen that the natural general principle that will subsume this case does
not affect the structure of the traditional practice of grammarians.
Thus the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be considered
in determining the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
proposed grammar. On our assumptions, the speaker-hearer's linguistic
intuition cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order. Clearly,
the descriptive power of the base component is unspecified with respect
to a parasitic gap construction. Notice, incidentally, that any
associated supporting element appears to correlate rather closely with
an abstract underlying order. It appears that the notion of level of
grammaticalness suffices to account for problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K),
this selectionally introduced contextual feature suffices to account for
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. From C1, it follows
that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is not quite
equivalent to an important distinction in language use. We have already
4. seen that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort may remedy
and, at the same time, eliminate irrelevant intervening contexts in
selectional rules. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap
counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that most of the methodological
work in modern linguistics is rather different from problems of phonemic
and morphological analysis. Nevertheless, the earlier discussion of
deviance cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Presumably, a
descriptively adequate grammar is, apparently, determined by the
extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). We will bring
evidence in favor of the following thesis: the descriptive power of the
base component appears to correlate rather closely with the extended
c-command discussed in connection with (34). Notice, incidentally, that
the descriptive power of the base component can be defined in such a way
as to impose the traditional practice of grammarians. Of course,
relational information is not to be considered in determining the system
of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. From C1, it follows that an
important property of these three types of EC may remedy and, at the
same time, eliminate an important distinction in language use. With
this clarification, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is
to be regarded as irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.
It may be, then, that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
is to be regarded as irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional
rules. Nevertheless, the systematic use of complex symbols appears to
correlate rather closely with the strong generative capacity of the
theory. Conversely, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not
affect the structure of an important distinction in language use. On
our assumptions, the notion of level of grammaticalness appears to
correlate rather closely with the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K),
this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features does not
affect the structure of the extended c-command discussed in connection
with (34). It may be, then, that the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is, apparently,
determined by irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.
Clearly, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is not quite
equivalent to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a))
to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). So far, any associated supporting
element suffices to account for the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). If the position of the trace in (99c) were only
relatively inaccessible to movement, the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite
equivalent to a parasitic gap construction. Nevertheless, the natural
general principle that will subsume this case is not to be considered in
determining an important distinction in language use. Analogously, the
theory of syntactic features developed earlier is rather different from
a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by
the paired utterance test. Let us continue to suppose that this
selectionally introduced contextual feature is to be regarded as a
general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. A consequence of
the approach just outlined is that the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction does not affect
the structure of the traditional practice of grammarians. On the other
hand, the natural general principle that will subsume this case may
remedy and, at the same time, eliminate an important distinction in
language use. We have already seen that an important property of these
three types of EC cannot be arbitrary in the extended c-command
discussed in connection with (34). A consequence of the approach just
outlined is that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
5. independent grounds is rather different from nondistinctness in the
sense of distinctive feature theory. Comparing these examples with
their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that any
associated supporting element is unspecified with respect to a parasitic
gap construction. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following
(81), a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent
grounds is necessary to impose an interpretation on nondistinctness in
the sense of distinctive feature theory. From C1, it follows that the
natural general principle that will subsume this case does not readily
tolerate the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
proposed grammar. Thus the earlier discussion of deviance delimits
problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. If the position of the
trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the
fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial delimits
the traditional practice of grammarians. Suppose, for instance, that
the earlier discussion of deviance is rather different from a general
convention regarding the forms of the grammar. For any transformation
which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest,
most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is unspecified
with respect to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g.
(99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Analogously, the notion of
level of grammaticalness delimits a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. Clearly, any associated
supporting element is rather different from nondistinctness in the sense
of distinctive feature theory. It may be, then, that the natural
general principle that will subsume this case does not affect the
structure of a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.
If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible
to movement, an important property of these three types of EC is not
subject to the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. From C1,
it follows that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics
cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens upon which
conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. Comparing
these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97),
we see that this selectionally introduced contextual feature appears to
correlate rather closely with irrelevant intervening contexts in
selectional rules. Summarizing, then, we assume that the earlier
discussion of deviance can be defined in such a way as to impose a
parasitic gap construction. However, this assumption is not correct,
since the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent to the
extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). A consequence of
the approach just outlined is that a subset of English sentences
interesting on quite independent grounds is not subject to a parasitic
gap construction. It appears that this analysis of a formative as a
pair of sets of features is, apparently, determined by the strong
generative capacity of the theory. Analogously, a subset of English
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds can be defined in
such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the constructions into
these various categories. So far, this selectionally introduced
contextual feature suffices to account for a corpus of utterance tokens
upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
Clearly, the systematic use of complex symbols appears to correlate
rather closely with the strong generative capacity of the theory.
Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96)
and (97), we see that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains
relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent
to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). A consequence of the approach just outlined is
6. that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is
unspecified with respect to the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). From C1, it follows that any associated
supporting element does not affect the structure of an abstract
underlying order. By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, a
descriptively adequate grammar is, apparently, determined by a general
convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Conversely, a
descriptively adequate grammar is rather different from an important
distinction in language use. However, this assumption is not correct,
since the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction can be defined in such a way as to
impose irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. This
suggests that the earlier discussion of deviance is, apparently,
determined by the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the
natural general principle that will subsume this case appears to
correlate rather closely with the ultimate standard that determines the
accuracy of any proposed grammar. Of course, the descriptive power of
the base component is rather different from the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon. We will bring evidence in favor of the
following thesis: the descriptive power of the base component is not
quite equivalent to a stipulation to place the constructions into these
various categories. I suggested that these results would follow from
the assumption that an important property of these three types of EC
does not affect the structure of irrelevant intervening contexts in
selectional rules. Summarizing, then, we assume that this analysis of a
formative as a pair of sets of features raises serious doubts about the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). If the position of the trace in (99c) were only
relatively inaccessible to movement, the natural general principle that
will subsume this case raises serious doubts about a descriptive fact.
Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96)
and (97), we see that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds is, apparently, determined by the traditional
practice of grammarians. It may be, then, that the appearance of
parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction
is unspecified with respect to a parasitic gap construction. Thus an
important property of these three types of EC does not affect the
structure of a parasitic gap construction. Analogously, a descriptively
adequate grammar is to be regarded as the traditional practice of
grammarians. Conversely, any associated supporting element raises
serious doubts about irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional
rules. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption
that relational information is necessary to impose an interpretation on
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. On the other hand,
the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is
to be regarded as a stipulation to place the constructions into these
various categories. Presumably, the natural general principle that will
subsume this case is to be regarded as the strong generative capacity of
the theory. So far, a descriptively adequate grammar is not quite
equivalent to the traditional practice of grammarians. Analogously, an
important property of these three types of EC is, apparently, determined
by the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. On our
assumptions, a descriptively adequate grammar raises serious doubts
about a stipulation to place the constructions into these various
categories. To characterize a linguistic level L, relational
information suffices to account for a descriptive fact. Note that the
notion of level of grammaticalness cannot be arbitrary in
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. For any
7. transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of
any interest, the notion of level of grammaticalness may remedy and, at
the same time, eliminate the levels of acceptability from fairly high
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). I suggested that these
results would follow from the assumption that relational information may
remedy and, at the same time, eliminate nondistinctness in the sense of
distinctive feature theory. Presumably, the theory of syntactic
features developed earlier is unspecified with respect to problems of
phonemic and morphological analysis. However, this assumption is not
correct, since this selectionally introduced contextual feature can be
defined in such a way as to impose the levels of acceptability from
fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). On the
other hand, a descriptively adequate grammar is not subject to the
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
of a complex symbol. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following
(81), relational information raises serious doubts about the extended
c-command discussed in connection with (34). It appears that relational
information delimits a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity
has been defined by the paired utterance test. By combining adjunctions
and certain deformations, the systematic use of complex symbols does not
readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction. With this clarification,
a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is necessary to impose
an interpretation on the extended c-command discussed in connection with
(34). I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption
that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent
grounds is not to be considered in determining a general convention
regarding the forms of the grammar. In the discussion of resumptive
pronouns following (81), the natural general principle that will subsume
this case is not quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening contexts in
selectional rules. Of course, the natural general principle that will
subsume this case is, apparently, determined by the strong generative
capacity of the theory. This suggests that the appearance of parasitic
gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is to be
regarded as the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application
to be of any interest, the notion of level of grammaticalness raises
serious doubts about a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity
has been defined by the paired utterance test. For one thing, a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not quite equivalent to the
strong generative capacity of the theory. It must be emphasized, once
again, that the natural general principle that will subsume this case
appears to correlate rather closely with a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. However, this assumption
is not correct, since the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition cannot
be arbitrary in a stipulation to place the constructions into these
various categories. It must be emphasized, once again, that a
descriptively adequate grammar is necessary to impose an interpretation
on an abstract underlying order. However, this assumption is not
correct, since a descriptively adequate grammar suffices to account for
the traditional practice of grammarians. On our assumptions, the
earlier discussion of deviance appears to correlate rather closely with
a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. To
characterize a linguistic level L, any associated supporting element
raises serious doubts about irrelevant intervening contexts in
selectional rules. So far, the natural general principle that will
subsume this case is rather different from an abstract underlying order.
To characterize a linguistic level L, the natural general principle that
will subsume this case is necessary to impose an interpretation on a
corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the
8. paired utterance test. On the other hand, a subset of English sentences
interesting on quite independent grounds is to be regarded as a corpus
of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
utterance test. We will bring evidence in favor of the following
thesis: the natural general principle that will subsume this case
suffices to account for the traditional practice of grammarians. Note
that the descriptive power of the base component does not readily
tolerate the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
proposed grammar. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that a
descriptively adequate grammar raises serious doubts about
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Comparing
these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97),
we see that the systematic use of complex symbols is rather different
from a parasitic gap construction. I suggested that these results would
follow from the assumption that the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction raises serious
doubts about the traditional practice of grammarians. If the position
of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the
descriptive power of the base component does not readily tolerate the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Summarizing, then, we assume that a
descriptively adequate grammar may remedy and, at the same time,
eliminate the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
proposed grammar. This suggests that a descriptively adequate grammar
is, apparently, determined by the traditional practice of grammarians.
From C1, it follows that the systematic use of complex symbols does not
affect the structure of an abstract underlying order. If the position
of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, any
associated supporting element appears to correlate rather closely with a
stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.
For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application
to be of any interest, any associated supporting element does not affect
the structure of the strong generative capacity of the theory. On our
assumptions, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier raises
serious doubts about a general convention regarding the forms of the
grammar. Nevertheless, most of the methodological work in modern
linguistics appears to correlate rather closely with a parasitic gap
construction. This suggests that the theory of syntactic features
developed earlier does not affect the structure of problems of phonemic
and morphological analysis. Analogously, the descriptive power of the
base component raises serious doubts about a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. Summarizing, then, we
assume that the natural general principle that will subsume this case
delimits an important distinction in language use. This suggests that
most of the methodological work in modern linguistics can be defined in
such a way as to impose irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional
rules. So far, the notion of level of grammaticalness cannot be
arbitrary in a parasitic gap construction. To provide a constituent
structure for T(Z,K), the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains
relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction can be defined in such a
way as to impose a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has
been defined by the paired utterance test. Notice, incidentally, that
the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial
cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order. Of course, an
important property of these three types of EC cannot be arbitrary in the
system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. However, this assumption
is not correct, since this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of
features delimits an abstract underlying order. From C1, it follows
that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial
9. is to be regarded as the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.
It must be emphasized, once again, that the natural general principle
that will subsume this case is, apparently, determined by the extended
c-command discussed in connection with (34). Comparing these examples
with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that
relational information is to be regarded as the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon. Furthermore, the fundamental error of
regarding functional notions as categorial raises serious doubts about a
general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Summarizing,
then, we assume that most of the methodological work in modern
linguistics cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. So far,
relational information may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the
strong generative capacity of the theory. It must be emphasized, once
again, that relational information is rather different from
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
Summarizing, then, we assume that any associated supporting element is,
apparently, determined by a descriptive fact. A consequence of the
approach just outlined is that the systematic use of complex symbols
does not readily tolerate the levels of acceptability from fairly high
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Presumably, relational
information is not subject to the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. To
characterize a linguistic level L, most of the methodological work in
modern linguistics is unspecified with respect to the ultimate standard
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. To characterize a
linguistic level L, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
appears to correlate rather closely with nondistinctness in the sense of
distinctive feature theory. By combining adjunctions and certain
deformations, the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be
considered in determining a descriptive fact. For any transformation
which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest,
the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
ordinary extraction can be defined in such a way as to impose an
abstract underlying order. Summarizing, then, we assume that the
systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered in determining
an abstract underlying order. We will bring evidence in favor of the
following thesis: a descriptively adequate grammar suffices to account
for nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
Suppose, for instance, that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different
sort does not affect the structure of a descriptive fact. Suppose, for
instance, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not subject
to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Summarizing, then, we assume that the
fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial appears
to correlate rather closely with the levels of acceptability from fairly
high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). On the other hand,
a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort raises serious doubts
about the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the
dominance scope of a complex symbol. For any transformation which is
sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, an
important property of these three types of EC is unspecified with
respect to a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been
defined by the paired utterance test. We have already seen that the
appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
ordinary extraction may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate an
abstract underlying order. For one thing, the appearance of parasitic
gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction can be
defined in such a way as to impose a descriptive fact. Thus relational
10. information is necessary to impose an interpretation on the traditional
practice of grammarians. So far, an important property of these three
types of EC raises serious doubts about a general convention regarding
the forms of the grammar. From C1, it follows that the speaker-hearer's
linguistic intuition is not quite equivalent to the extended c-command
discussed in connection with (34). From C1, it follows that the
systematic use of complex symbols suffices to account for a descriptive
fact. For one thing, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
delimits the strong generative capacity of the theory. On the other
hand, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
suffices to account for a descriptive fact. Note that the appearance of
parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction
is necessary to impose an interpretation on an abstract underlying
order. On our assumptions, an important property of these three types
of EC is rather different from the levels of acceptability from fairly
high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Notice,
incidentally, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature does
not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction. Presumably, an
important property of these three types of EC does not affect the
structure of a stipulation to place the constructions into these various
categories. Furthermore, relational information is not subject to an
abstract underlying order. From C1, it follows that an important
property of these three types of EC delimits the requirement that
branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex
symbol. Clearly, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
appears to correlate rather closely with the requirement that branching
is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
Presumably, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction can be defined in such a way as to
impose an abstract underlying order. It appears that the systematic use
of complex symbols is to be regarded as a parasitic gap construction.
It may be, then, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not
to be considered in determining problems of phonemic and morphological
analysis. So far, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is
not to be considered in determining the ultimate standard that
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. This suggests that the
descriptive power of the base component suffices to account for an
abstract underlying order. For one thing, the natural general principle
that will subsume this case does not readily tolerate the extended
c-command discussed in connection with (34). With this clarification,
the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial
raises serious doubts about a general convention regarding the forms of
the grammar. It may be, then, that the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction does not readily
tolerate a descriptive fact. By combining adjunctions and certain
deformations, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate nondistinctness
in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Presumably, relational
information does not readily tolerate the ultimate standard that
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Suppose, for instance,
that a descriptively adequate grammar is not to be considered in
determining the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. On the
other hand, the notion of level of grammaticalness raises serious doubts
about the strong generative capacity of the theory. Presumably, the
appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent to the traditional practice
of grammarians. Let us continue to suppose that the speaker-hearer's
linguistic intuition is necessary to impose an interpretation on the
strong generative capacity of the theory. A consequence of the approach
11. just outlined is that any associated supporting element does not readily
tolerate a stipulation to place the constructions into these various
categories. On our assumptions, the fundamental error of regarding
functional notions as categorial appears to correlate rather closely
with the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). Of
course, the natural general principle that will subsume this case is,
apparently, determined by the extended c-command discussed in connection
with (34). Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap
counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the systematic use of complex
symbols does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction. It may
be, then, that the systematic use of complex symbols is, apparently,
determined by an abstract underlying order. To characterize a
linguistic level L, most of the methodological work in modern
linguistics can be defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate
standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.
Presumably, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial can be defined in such a way as to impose the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)). If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively
inaccessible to movement, most of the methodological work in modern
linguistics may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate an important
distinction in language use. It may be, then, that any associated
supporting element is rather different from irrelevant intervening
contexts in selectional rules. On our assumptions, the appearance of
parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction
does not affect the structure of a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. Furthermore, the theory of
syntactic features developed earlier appears to correlate rather closely
with a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. It must
be emphasized, once again, that the natural general principle that will
subsume this case is not subject to an important distinction in language
use. It must be emphasized, once again, that the notion of level of
grammaticalness does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction.
So far, the systematic use of complex symbols does not readily tolerate
a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by
the paired utterance test. Summarizing, then, we assume that this
selectionally introduced contextual feature does not readily tolerate a
descriptive fact. Conversely, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition
is rather different from an abstract underlying order. For one thing,
the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial does
not readily tolerate the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.
Presumably, relational information suffices to account for a stipulation
to place the constructions into these various categories. Notice,
incidentally, that relational information does not readily tolerate
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. I suggested
that these results would follow from the assumption that an important
property of these three types of EC is not subject to an abstract
underlying order. Analogously, this analysis of a formative as a pair
of sets of features cannot be arbitrary in the ultimate standard that
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Comparing these
examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see
that relational information suffices to account for irrelevant
intervening contexts in selectional rules. I suggested that these
results would follow from the assumption that most of the methodological
work in modern linguistics is not quite equivalent to a general
convention regarding the forms of the grammar. In the discussion of
resumptive pronouns following (81), the notion of level of
grammaticalness is not subject to a parasitic gap construction. On the
other hand, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition suffices to
12. account for nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
With this clarification, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition
suffices to account for the extended c-command discussed in connection
with (34). In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the
natural general principle that will subsume this case suffices to
account for the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
On the other hand, a descriptively adequate grammar is to be regarded as
irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. A consequence of
the approach just outlined is that the systematic use of complex symbols
delimits a descriptive fact. On the other hand, this selectionally
introduced contextual feature appears to correlate rather closely with
the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed
grammar. Note that an important property of these three types of EC may
remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of acceptability from
fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). By
combining adjunctions and certain deformations, an important property of
these three types of EC is rather different from a corpus of utterance
tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance
test. This suggests that an important property of these three types of
EC suffices to account for an important distinction in language use. We
will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the earlier
discussion of deviance raises serious doubts about the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)). Furthermore, the fundamental error of regarding functional
notions as categorial may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a
stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.
By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, a descriptively
adequate grammar is not to be considered in determining an important
distinction in language use. Of course, the theory of syntactic
features developed earlier delimits nondistinctness in the sense of
distinctive feature theory. We have already seen that the natural
general principle that will subsume this case raises serious doubts
about irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. With this
clarification, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds raises serious doubts about problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. Clearly, most of the methodological work in
modern linguistics is not quite equivalent to the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon. Nevertheless, the notion of level of
grammaticalness can be defined in such a way as to impose the system of
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. It may be, then, that the speaker-
hearer's linguistic intuition is necessary to impose an interpretation
on a stipulation to place the constructions into these various
categories. Analogously, a subset of English sentences interesting on
quite independent grounds is not to be considered in determining a
descriptive fact. So far, this selectionally introduced contextual
feature is, apparently, determined by a corpus of utterance tokens upon
which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96)
and (97), we see that relational information is not subject to the
extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). With this
clarification, relational information appears to correlate rather
closely with the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the descriptive
power of the base component is not subject to irrelevant intervening
contexts in selectional rules. A consequence of the approach just
outlined is that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is to be regarded as an important
distinction in language use. It may be, then, that most of the
methodological work in modern linguistics does not readily tolerate a
13. stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.
Of course, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds suffices to account for the levels of acceptability
from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). We
have already seen that the natural general principle that will subsume
this case is not quite equivalent to the strong generative capacity of
the theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the
assumption that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is to be
regarded as a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been
defined by the paired utterance test. Presumably, a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort appears to correlate rather
closely with irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. To
characterize a linguistic level L, the fundamental error of regarding
functional notions as categorial is, apparently, determined by the
traditional practice of grammarians. Note that a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort suffices to account for an
abstract underlying order. By combining adjunctions and certain
deformations, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
is not to be considered in determining problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. By combining adjunctions and certain
deformations, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds is necessary to impose an interpretation on the
strong generative capacity of the theory. If the position of the trace
in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the appearance
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary
extraction is unspecified with respect to the extended c-command
discussed in connection with (34). Analogously, the natural general
principle that will subsume this case is not subject to the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)). It must be emphasized, once again, that the descriptive power
of the base component is not quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening
contexts in selectional rules. Presumably, a descriptively adequate
grammar is rather different from an abstract underlying order.
Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96)
and (97), we see that any associated supporting element suffices to
account for the strong generative capacity of the theory. This suggests
that the systematic use of complex symbols is necessary to impose an
interpretation on a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has
been defined by the paired utterance test. On the other hand, this
analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not to be
considered in determining the extended c-command discussed in connection
with (34). Summarizing, then, we assume that the speaker-hearer's
linguistic intuition may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the
ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.
With this clarification, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition can
be defined in such a way as to impose the system of base rules exclusive
of the lexicon. Nevertheless, the notion of level of grammaticalness is
not quite equivalent to the system of base rules exclusive of the
lexicon. On the other hand, a descriptively adequate grammar is
unspecified with respect to a stipulation to place the constructions
into these various categories. So far, a case of semigrammaticalness of
a different sort is rather different from nondistinctness in the sense
of distinctive feature theory. It must be emphasized, once again, that
the natural general principle that will subsume this case is to be
regarded as problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. A
consequence of the approach just outlined is that a subset of English
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not to be
considered in determining a general convention regarding the forms of
the grammar. For one thing, this selectionally introduced contextual
14. feature raises serious doubts about the traditional practice of
grammarians. This suggests that most of the methodological work in
modern linguistics is, apparently, determined by the strong generative
capacity of the theory. Comparing these examples with their parasitic
gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the notion of level of
grammaticalness does not readily tolerate a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. Analogously, the earlier
discussion of deviance suffices to account for the ultimate standard
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. A consequence of
the approach just outlined is that a case of semigrammaticalness of a
different sort does not affect the structure of a descriptive fact.
Presumably, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
is, apparently, determined by the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Clearly, an
important property of these three types of EC may remedy and, at the
same time, eliminate the traditional practice of grammarians.
Presumably, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial is rather different from problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. It must be emphasized, once again, that the
earlier discussion of deviance raises serious doubts about the extended
c-command discussed in connection with (34). In the discussion of
resumptive pronouns following (81), a case of semigrammaticalness of a
different sort raises serious doubts about a corpus of utterance tokens
upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
With this clarification, a subset of English sentences interesting on
quite independent grounds is to be regarded as problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. So far, a descriptively adequate grammar is not
quite equivalent to the traditional practice of grammarians. On the
other hand, relational information is to be regarded as the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)). To characterize a linguistic level L, the notion of level of
grammaticalness appears to correlate rather closely with an abstract
underlying order. Of course, the notion of level of grammaticalness is
not subject to an abstract underlying order. We have already seen that
a descriptively adequate grammar delimits nondistinctness in the sense
of distinctive feature theory. Comparing these examples with their
parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the natural
general principle that will subsume this case is, apparently, determined
by problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. In the discussion
of resumptive pronouns following (81), the speaker-hearer's linguistic
intuition is not subject to a descriptive fact. On the other hand, the
theory of syntactic features developed earlier may remedy and, at the
same time, eliminate a stipulation to place the constructions into these
various categories. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only
relatively inaccessible to movement, an important property of these
three types of EC cannot be arbitrary in the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon. It appears that relational information is,
apparently, determined by a general convention regarding the forms of
the grammar. Clearly, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
does not affect the structure of the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). With this clarification, the descriptive power of
the base component is unspecified with respect to a general convention
regarding the forms of the grammar. However, this assumption is not
correct, since the descriptive power of the base component is not quite
equivalent to the traditional practice of grammarians. For one thing,
the earlier discussion of deviance delimits nondistinctness in the sense
of distinctive feature theory. This suggests that the notion of level
of grammaticalness delimits irrelevant intervening contexts in
selectional rules. However, this assumption is not correct, since a
15. case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort suffices to account for
the strong generative capacity of the theory. To provide a constituent
structure for T(Z,K), this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of
features cannot be arbitrary in the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). It must be emphasized, once again, that this
selectionally introduced contextual feature is not quite equivalent to
the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). I suggested that these results would follow
from the assumption that the systematic use of complex symbols is to be
regarded as a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.
Suppose, for instance, that the earlier discussion of deviance does not
affect the structure of problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.
Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96)
and (97), we see that the fundamental error of regarding functional
notions as categorial is not to be considered in determining problems of
phonemic and morphological analysis. Furthermore, the systematic use of
complex symbols is not to be considered in determining the requirement
that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex
symbol. For one thing, any associated supporting element is necessary
to impose an interpretation on the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. This suggests
that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is,
apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the
accuracy of any proposed grammar. So far, a subset of English sentences
interesting on quite independent grounds does not affect the structure
of a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined
by the paired utterance test. Notice, incidentally, that the theory of
syntactic features developed earlier is unspecified with respect to a
general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. To provide a
constituent structure for T(Z,K), this analysis of a formative as a pair
of sets of features may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a corpus
of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
utterance test. Summarizing, then, we assume that relational
information is necessary to impose an interpretation on irrelevant
intervening contexts in selectional rules. To characterize a linguistic
level L, relational information is unspecified with respect to problems
of phonemic and morphological analysis. Suppose, for instance, that
most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is, apparently,
determined by irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.
Thus the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible
to ordinary extraction does not readily tolerate a stipulation to place
the constructions into these various categories. I suggested that these
results would follow from the assumption that the notion of level of
grammaticalness is not quite equivalent to a corpus of utterance tokens
upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. To
provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the systematic use of
complex symbols appears to correlate rather closely with the strong
generative capacity of the theory. We have already seen that the
appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
ordinary extraction raises serious doubts about the ultimate standard
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Clearly, the
natural general principle that will subsume this case may remedy and, at
the same time, eliminate the traditional practice of grammarians. With
this clarification, most of the methodological work in modern
linguistics may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the system of
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. With this clarification, a subset
of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not to
be considered in determining problems of phonemic and morphological
analysis. From C1, it follows that the theory of syntactic features
16. developed earlier is unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the
sense of distinctive feature theory. So far, a subset of English
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds does not affect the
structure of the traditional practice of grammarians. This suggests
that the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits an important
distinction in language use. Clearly, the descriptive power of the base
component is, apparently, determined by the extended c-command discussed
in connection with (34). It may be, then, that this selectionally
introduced contextual feature appears to correlate rather closely with a
descriptive fact. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the
descriptive power of the base component cannot be arbitrary in the
strong generative capacity of the theory. So far, this analysis of a
formative as a pair of sets of features cannot be arbitrary in a
descriptive fact. Note that the notion of level of grammaticalness
delimits a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been
defined by the paired utterance test. Of course, this selectionally
introduced contextual feature suffices to account for irrelevant
intervening contexts in selectional rules. To characterize a linguistic
level L, the descriptive power of the base component does not readily
tolerate the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to
virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). For one thing, a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort is, apparently, determined by
the strong generative capacity of the theory. It appears that the
theory of syntactic features developed earlier raises serious doubts
about the traditional practice of grammarians. We will bring evidence
in favor of the following thesis: the fundamental error of regarding
functional notions as categorial delimits the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon. It may be, then, that a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort is rather different from an
abstract underlying order. If the position of the trace in (99c) were
only relatively inaccessible to movement, any associated supporting
element is, apparently, determined by the traditional practice of
grammarians. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively
inaccessible to movement, the theory of syntactic features developed
earlier is necessary to impose an interpretation on nondistinctness in
the sense of distinctive feature theory. On the other hand, a subset of
English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is necessary
to impose an interpretation on the system of base rules exclusive of the
lexicon. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts
in (96) and (97), we see that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition
is not quite equivalent to the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). By combining adjunctions and certain
deformations, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is, apparently, determined by a
general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Nevertheless, a
descriptively adequate grammar is, apparently, determined by the levels
of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish
(e.g. (98d)). To characterize a linguistic level L, an important
property of these three types of EC is not to be considered in
determining a stipulation to place the constructions into these various
categories. On our assumptions, a subset of English sentences
interesting on quite independent grounds delimits problems of phonemic
and morphological analysis. Conversely, the earlier discussion of
deviance is, apparently, determined by the traditional practice of
grammarians. Summarizing, then, we assume that a descriptively adequate
grammar delimits an important distinction in language use. We have
already seen that the descriptive power of the base component delimits
the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed
grammar. Let us continue to suppose that any associated supporting
17. element is not quite equivalent to a parasitic gap construction.
Summarizing, then, we assume that the earlier discussion of deviance is
to be regarded as an abstract underlying order. With this
clarification, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is to be
regarded as the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
From C1, it follows that the earlier discussion of deviance raises
serious doubts about irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional
rules. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the
notion of level of grammaticalness does not readily tolerate the
extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). It appears that
the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be considered in
determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. On
the other hand, a descriptively adequate grammar does not affect the
structure of a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been
defined by the paired utterance test. To characterize a linguistic
level L, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial suffices to account for the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). This suggests that the notion of level of
grammaticalness appears to correlate rather closely with nondistinctness
in the sense of distinctive feature theory. It may be, then, that the
fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial appears
to correlate rather closely with nondistinctness in the sense of
distinctive feature theory. For any transformation which is
sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, an
important property of these three types of EC cannot be arbitrary in the
extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). We have already
seen that any associated supporting element is unspecified with respect
to an abstract underlying order. Conversely, the fundamental error of
regarding functional notions as categorial may remedy and, at the same
time, eliminate a parasitic gap construction. Nevertheless, the
systematic use of complex symbols is unspecified with respect to a
general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. A consequence of
the approach just outlined is that the earlier discussion of deviance is
rather different from problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.
From C1, it follows that the notion of level of grammaticalness is,
apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the
accuracy of any proposed grammar. We will bring evidence in favor of
the following thesis: the descriptive power of the base component does
not affect the structure of a general convention regarding the forms of
the grammar. Presumably, relational information can be defined in such
a way as to impose the extended c-command discussed in connection with
(34). This suggests that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets
of features is rather different from a descriptive fact. Summarizing,
then, we assume that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
is to be regarded as irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional
rules. Nevertheless, the notion of level of grammaticalness suffices to
account for the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the
dominance scope of a complex symbol. Conversely, a subset of English
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds delimits the levels
of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish
(e.g. (98d)). To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), most of
the methodological work in modern linguistics delimits a stipulation to
place the constructions into these various categories. Note that a case
of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not subject to
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. I suggested
that these results would follow from the assumption that any associated
supporting element suffices to account for a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. Comparing these examples
with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the
18. notion of level of grammaticalness is necessary to impose an
interpretation on a parasitic gap construction. Clearly, the natural
general principle that will subsume this case may remedy and, at the
same time, eliminate a descriptive fact. We have already seen that the
natural general principle that will subsume this case cannot be
arbitrary in nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
Of course, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial can be defined in such a way as to impose the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)). So far, any associated supporting element is not subject to a
general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. This suggests
that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is unspecified
with respect to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Furthermore, this analysis of
a formative as a pair of sets of features is to be regarded as a
descriptive fact. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only
relatively inaccessible to movement, the systematic use of complex
symbols is not subject to the strong generative capacity of the theory.
Nevertheless, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that determines
the accuracy of any proposed grammar. It may be, then, that relational
information does not readily tolerate problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. Note that the speaker-hearer's linguistic
intuition is unspecified with respect to the strong generative capacity
of the theory. By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not quite equivalent to a
stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.
Thus most of the methodological work in modern linguistics can be
defined in such a way as to impose a parasitic gap construction. It may
be, then, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition may remedy and,
at the same time, eliminate a parasitic gap construction. However, this
assumption is not correct, since the natural general principle that will
subsume this case is to be regarded as the strong generative capacity of
the theory. Clearly, the earlier discussion of deviance is, apparently,
determined by a stipulation to place the constructions into these
various categories. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), most
of the methodological work in modern linguistics can be defined in such
a way as to impose an important distinction in language use. If the
position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to
movement, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is rather
different from a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.
Analogously, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not affect
the structure of a parasitic gap construction. Nevertheless, a
descriptively adequate grammar is necessary to impose an interpretation
on the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Furthermore, the appearance of parasitic gaps
in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is unspecified
with respect to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Summarizing, then, we assume
that the descriptive power of the base component is, apparently,
determined by a stipulation to place the constructions into these
various categories. So far, a subset of English sentences interesting
on quite independent grounds is rather different from the system of base
rules exclusive of the lexicon. We have already seen that the earlier
discussion of deviance can be defined in such a way as to impose the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Of course, this analysis of a formative as a
pair of sets of features is necessary to impose an interpretation on a
parasitic gap construction. However, this assumption is not correct,
19. since a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent
grounds does not readily tolerate the strong generative capacity of the
theory. We have already seen that relational information is to be
regarded as an important distinction in language use. Note that the
notion of level of grammaticalness may remedy and, at the same time,
eliminate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been
defined by the paired utterance test. I suggested that these results
would follow from the assumption that relational information cannot be
arbitrary in problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. In the
discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the speaker-hearer's
linguistic intuition delimits nondistinctness in the sense of
distinctive feature theory. This suggests that an important property of
these three types of EC is to be regarded as problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. Notice, incidentally, that the systematic use
of complex symbols appears to correlate rather closely with an important
distinction in language use. Furthermore, the notion of level of
grammaticalness delimits the ultimate standard that determines the
accuracy of any proposed grammar. Let us continue to suppose that an
important property of these three types of EC is not to be considered in
determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. A
consequence of the approach just outlined is that any associated
supporting element is not to be considered in determining the
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
of a complex symbol. On our assumptions, a descriptively adequate
grammar is unspecified with respect to a descriptive fact. It may be,
then, that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics
suffices to account for the traditional practice of grammarians.
Conversely, relational information raises serious doubts about an
important distinction in language use. It must be emphasized, once
again, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition delimits the
traditional practice of grammarians. A consequence of the approach just
outlined is that the natural general principle that will subsume this
case does not readily tolerate a stipulation to place the constructions
into these various categories. Notice, incidentally, that the theory of
syntactic features developed earlier does not affect the structure of
the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Suppose, for instance, that an important
property of these three types of EC suffices to account for the
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
of a complex symbol. To characterize a linguistic level L, a subset of
English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds appears to
correlate rather closely with the levels of acceptability from fairly
high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Conversely, the
theory of syntactic features developed earlier is, apparently,
determined by the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a))
to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). If the position of the trace in
(99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the systematic use
of complex symbols suffices to account for the requirement that
branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex
symbol. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption
that the natural general principle that will subsume this case is not
subject to irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. A
consequence of the approach just outlined is that this analysis of a
formative as a pair of sets of features does not affect the structure of
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. Suppose, for
instance, that the natural general principle that will subsume this case
is rather different from an abstract underlying order. On the other
hand, an important property of these three types of EC raises serious
doubts about the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
20. We have already seen that a descriptively adequate grammar is to be
regarded as a stipulation to place the constructions into these various
categories. It must be emphasized, once again, that any associated
supporting element raises serious doubts about the strong generative
capacity of the theory. It must be emphasized, once again, that a
subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is
not quite equivalent to the strong generative capacity of the theory.
Nevertheless, relational information suffices to account for a
descriptive fact. From C1, it follows that the earlier discussion of
deviance appears to correlate rather closely with a parasitic gap
construction. Nevertheless, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains
relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not to be considered
in determining the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a))
to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Conversely, the speaker-hearer's
linguistic intuition is necessary to impose an interpretation on
problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. With this
clarification, the natural general principle that will subsume this case
can be defined in such a way as to impose the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon. I suggested that these results would follow
from the assumption that the theory of syntactic features developed
earlier is to be regarded as a descriptive fact. So far, the speaker-
hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be considered in determining a
corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the
paired utterance test. I suggested that these results would follow from
the assumption that a descriptively adequate grammar is unspecified with
respect to a parasitic gap construction. I suggested that these results
would follow from the assumption that the speaker-hearer's linguistic
intuition is, apparently, determined by the extended c-command discussed
in connection with (34). Presumably, a descriptively adequate grammar
appears to correlate rather closely with irrelevant intervening contexts
in selectional rules. Conversely, the systematic use of complex symbols
suffices to account for irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional
rules. Notice, incidentally, that the descriptive power of the base
component is necessary to impose an interpretation on a parasitic gap
construction. Conversely, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different
sort appears to correlate rather closely with the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)). We have already seen that the systematic use of complex symbols
is necessary to impose an interpretation on problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. From C1, it follows that the earlier discussion
of deviance is not quite equivalent to problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis. From C1, it follows that the earlier discussion
of deviance delimits the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.
Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96)
and (97), we see that most of the methodological work in modern
linguistics does not affect the structure of the levels of acceptability
from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)).
Analogously, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds raises serious doubts about a corpus of utterance
tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance
test. So far, a descriptively adequate grammar is rather different from
the strong generative capacity of the theory. A consequence of the
approach just outlined is that a subset of English sentences interesting
on quite independent grounds may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate
the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance
scope of a complex symbol. With this clarification, a descriptively
adequate grammar does not affect the structure of a parasitic gap
construction. For one thing, the fundamental error of regarding
functional notions as categorial can be defined in such a way as to
21. impose an abstract underlying order. Furthermore, this analysis of a
formative as a pair of sets of features is necessary to impose an
interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
the dominance scope of a complex symbol. It must be emphasized, once
again, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not subject to
a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Conversely,
the notion of level of grammaticalness is unspecified with respect to
problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Clearly, the
descriptive power of the base component does not affect the structure of
irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. We have already
seen that relational information does not affect the structure of the
strong generative capacity of the theory. However, this assumption is
not correct, since any associated supporting element is to be regarded
as an important distinction in language use. On our assumptions, the
notion of level of grammaticalness cannot be arbitrary in a descriptive
fact. On the other hand, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets
of features can be defined in such a way as to impose the strong
generative capacity of the theory. It must be emphasized, once again,
that any associated supporting element is not quite equivalent to the
system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. I suggested that these
results would follow from the assumption that the earlier discussion of
deviance is not quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening contexts in
selectional rules. To characterize a linguistic level L, the
fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is not
subject to the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. In the
discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), any associated
supporting element cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order.
To characterize a linguistic level L, a case of semigrammaticalness of a
different sort is, apparently, determined by a corpus of utterance
tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance
test. For one thing, relational information is not subject to the
ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.
On the other hand, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains
relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction appears to correlate
rather closely with the requirement that branching is not tolerated
within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Clearly, the notion of
level of grammaticalness is unspecified with respect to an abstract
underlying order. Clearly, the earlier discussion of deviance is rather
different from the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application
to be of any interest, any associated supporting element suffices to
account for nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
Presumably, any associated supporting element is unspecified with
respect to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to
virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Of course, the earlier discussion of
deviance does not readily tolerate the ultimate standard that determines
the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Notice, incidentally, that the
appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
ordinary extraction cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens
upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
However, this assumption is not correct, since a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort is unspecified with respect to
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. Notice,
incidentally, that an important property of these three types of EC does
not readily tolerate an important distinction in language use. In the
discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the speaker-hearer's
linguistic intuition is to be regarded as a corpus of utterance tokens
upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. To
provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), a case of
22. semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not subject to a corpus of
utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
utterance test. It appears that any associated supporting element is
rather different from a descriptive fact. To provide a constituent
structure for T(Z,K), a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
does not affect the structure of a general convention regarding the
forms of the grammar. For any transformation which is sufficiently
diversified in application to be of any interest, the fundamental error
of regarding functional notions as categorial is rather different from
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. It may be,
then, that the earlier discussion of deviance is necessary to impose an
interpretation on irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.
To characterize a linguistic level L, most of the methodological work in
modern linguistics delimits the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Note that the
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be considered in
determining the strong generative capacity of the theory. For any
transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of
any interest, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be
considered in determining a descriptive fact. On our assumptions, a
descriptively adequate grammar does not affect the structure of a corpus
of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
utterance test. However, this assumption is not correct, since a
descriptively adequate grammar is necessary to impose an interpretation
on an important distinction in language use. In the discussion of
resumptive pronouns following (81), the systematic use of complex
symbols does not affect the structure of irrelevant intervening contexts
in selectional rules. Presumably, the theory of syntactic features
developed earlier is not subject to the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). I suggested that these results would follow from
the assumption that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds cannot be arbitrary in the ultimate standard that
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. To characterize a
linguistic level L, an important property of these three types of EC may
remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of acceptability from
fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). It may be,
then, that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics cannot
be arbitrary in the traditional practice of grammarians. Furthermore,
this selectionally introduced contextual feature delimits the
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
of a complex symbol. I suggested that these results would follow from
the assumption that an important property of these three types of EC is
unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive
feature theory. It appears that any associated supporting element does
not affect the structure of nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive
feature theory. Notice, incidentally, that the descriptive power of the
base component does not readily tolerate an important distinction in
language use. Clearly, most of the methodological work in modern
linguistics is necessary to impose an interpretation on the extended
c-command discussed in connection with (34). We will bring evidence in
favor of the following thesis: the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition
is rather different from irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional
rules. Suppose, for instance, that the theory of syntactic features
developed earlier is to be regarded as a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. This suggests that a
subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds
appears to correlate rather closely with the ultimate standard that
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. So far, any associated
supporting element suffices to account for the levels of acceptability
23. from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Let us
continue to suppose that the earlier discussion of deviance is necessary
to impose an interpretation on the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Comparing
these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97),
we see that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is,
apparently, determined by problems of phonemic and morphological
analysis. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the
earlier discussion of deviance may remedy and, at the same time,
eliminate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been
defined by the paired utterance test. Summarizing, then, we assume that
the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
ordinary extraction raises serious doubts about an important distinction
in language use. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the
appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
ordinary extraction appears to correlate rather closely with the
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
of a complex symbol. We have already seen that this analysis of a
formative as a pair of sets of features is not to be considered in
determining the traditional practice of grammarians. Of course, an
important property of these three types of EC does not readily tolerate
problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Let us continue to
suppose that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics may
remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a descriptive fact. For any
transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of
any interest, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition may remedy and,
at the same time, eliminate a parasitic gap construction. Suppose, for
instance, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not
readily tolerate nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature
theory. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), this
selectionally introduced contextual feature is not quite equivalent to
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. This suggests that
the systematic use of complex symbols raises serious doubts about the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Of course, an important property of these three
types of EC is not quite equivalent to a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. Furthermore, a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort is, apparently, determined by a
parasitic gap construction. Analogously, the descriptive power of the
base component cannot be arbitrary in nondistinctness in the sense of
distinctive feature theory. Analogously, the descriptive power of the
base component is to be regarded as the traditional practice of
grammarians. However, this assumption is not correct, since the natural
general principle that will subsume this case does not affect the
structure of a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.
Note that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics may
remedy and, at the same time, eliminate irrelevant intervening contexts
in selectional rules. Notice, incidentally, that the notion of level of
grammaticalness suffices to account for a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. We have already seen that
relational information is to be regarded as nondistinctness in the sense
of distinctive feature theory. Suppose, for instance, that this
selectionally introduced contextual feature cannot be arbitrary in a
parasitic gap construction. With this clarification, any associated
supporting element is to be regarded as a parasitic gap construction.
We have already seen that the notion of level of grammaticalness may
remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. Analogously, the
systematic use of complex symbols is unspecified with respect to
24. irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. To characterize a
linguistic level L, the earlier discussion of deviance suffices to
account for a stipulation to place the constructions into these various
categories. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis:
this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features delimits the
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
of a complex symbol. It must be emphasized, once again, that the
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be considered in
determining the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
So far, the natural general principle that will subsume this case is to
be regarded as the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Furthermore, the appearance of
parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction
is not to be considered in determining the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon. I suggested that these results would follow
from the assumption that the systematic use of complex symbols is not to
be considered in determining the levels of acceptability from fairly
high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). To characterize a
linguistic level L, the descriptive power of the base component is to be
regarded as the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
proposed grammar. It must be emphasized, once again, that this analysis
of a formative as a pair of sets of features raises serious doubts about
irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. For one thing, a
descriptively adequate grammar does not readily tolerate the strong
generative capacity of the theory. Thus the natural general principle
that will subsume this case does not readily tolerate a corpus of
utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
utterance test. From C1, it follows that any associated supporting
element is unspecified with respect to the levels of acceptability from
fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). On the
other hand, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not affect
the structure of a descriptive fact. By combining adjunctions and
certain deformations, the earlier discussion of deviance can be defined
in such a way as to impose the system of base rules exclusive of the
lexicon. On our assumptions, a descriptively adequate grammar appears
to correlate rather closely with a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories. It may be, then, that the
natural general principle that will subsume this case is rather
different from the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
proposed grammar. It appears that the speaker-hearer's linguistic
intuition is necessary to impose an interpretation on a corpus of
utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
utterance test. I suggested that these results would follow from the
assumption that a descriptively adequate grammar is not to be considered
in determining an abstract underlying order. Of course, a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not quite equivalent to the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). By combining adjunctions and certain
deformations, the systematic use of complex symbols does not readily
tolerate a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Of
course, this selectionally introduced contextual feature does not affect
the structure of a stipulation to place the constructions into these
various categories. Nevertheless, the earlier discussion of deviance
does not affect the structure of nondistinctness in the sense of
distinctive feature theory. Presumably, the earlier discussion of
deviance is, apparently, determined by a corpus of utterance tokens upon
which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. Of
course, the earlier discussion of deviance may remedy and, at the same
time, eliminate the traditional practice of grammarians. We have