网范文：“Bi-Polar Theory of Nominal and Clause Structure ” 两个关键维度的意义得到语法编码。这两个维度的意义通常是编码在不同的语法形式。形成引用表达式语法对应最大的概念。这篇语言范文讲述了这一问题。词汇项目和表情功能修饰符到一个极点。如果一个表达式描述了一个关系,一个或多个补充可能与此相关联。通常足以代表共通性和条款的基本结构和功能。这些术语借用理论,但是他们的动机是基于语义与语法功能编码引用。
语法只是结构化和语义内容编号。一个人应该选择一个语义理论解释，英语毕业论文，一个理论的偏离高效编码必须是积极合理的,一个不规则的语法和语义之间的关系可能仅仅是另一种理论。
Abstract
It is taken as axiomatic that grammar encodes meaning. Two key dimensions of meaning that get grammatically encoded are referential meaning and relational meaning. The key claim is that, in English, these two dimensions of meaning are typically encoded in distinct grammatical poles—a referential pole and a relational pole—with a specifier functioning as the locus of the referential pole and a head functioning as the locus of the relational pole. Specifiers and heads combine to form referring expressions corresponding to the syntactic notion of a maximal projection. Lexical Items and expressions functioning as modifiers are preferentially attracted to one pole or the other. If the head of an expression describes a relation, one or more complements may be associated with the head. The four grammatical functions specifier, head, modifier and complement are generally adequate to represent much of the basic structure and function of nominals and clauses. These terms are borrowed from X-Bar Theory, but they are motivated on semantic grounds having to do with their grammatical function to encode referential and relational meaning.
Introduction
It is taken as axiomatic that grammar encodes meaning. This position is consistent with basic principles of Cognitive Linguistics (Langacker, 1987, 1991; Lakoff, 1987; Talmy, 2017; Croft and Cruse, 2017). According to Langacker (1987, p. 12) “grammar is simply the structuring and symbolization of semantic content.” This position is also related to Jackendoff’s Grammatical Constraint (1983, pp. 13-14) “…one should prefer a semantic theory that explains otherwise arbitrary generalizations about the syntax and the lexicon…a theory’s deviations from efficient encoding must be vigorously justified, for what appears to be an irregular relationship between syntax and semantics may turn out merely to be a bad theory of one or the other.” In its strongest form—the form adopted in this , although not by Jackendoff—syntactic and semantic representations are not distinct and the grammatical constraint aligns closely with cognitive linguistics. Again, according to Langacker (1987, p. 12) “…it makes no more sense to posit separate grammatical and semantic components than it does to divide a dictionary into two components, one listing lexical forms and the other listing lexical meanings”.
Although this is focused on the encoding of referential and relational meaning, it is acknowledged that additional dimensions of meaning (e.g. topic/comment, given/new) also compete for expression in full discourse contexts. According to Givon (1984), grammatical variation is largely the result of a compromise between the differing requirements for the encoding of both semantic and discourse pragmatic aspects of meaning. For example, according to Givon, the discourse topic is typically encoded as the subject in English, as is the semantic agent of an action. However, when the discourse topic and agent do not coincide in a given sentence, grammatical variation (e.g., passivization or topicalization) results.
While this work does address the meaningful consequences of grammatical variation resulting from trade-offs in the encoding of referential and relational meaning—as in the difference between the word “red” in “the book is red” and “the red book”—no attempt is made to provide a complete account of grammatical variation. To large extent, the encoding of referential and relational meaning will assume an unmarked or canonical ordering of lexical items. A more complete treatment will have to consider the representation of marked or noncanonical forms of text and the encoding of discourse pragmatic aspects of meaning more generally. The bi-polar theory of the grammatical encoding and integration of referential and relational meaning described in this is called Double R Grammar.
The integration of Langacker’s conceptual schema with Double R Grammar would be facilitated by the addition of the specifier function to his description. The addition of the specifier function makes it possible to provide more constrained and semantically motivated definitions of the traditional head, modifier and complement functions than is otherwise possible. The specifier is the locus for the encoding of referential information. Modifiers (of heads) and heads are the locus for the encoding of information about the relational type of expressions. Complements are the locus for encoding information about the participants in relations. In Langacker’s terms, the specifier supports the encoding of grounding and (optionally) quantifying predications. Heads and modifiers support the encoding of type specifications and, via number marking, quantifying and grounding predications. Quantifying predications are primarily referential and are typically expressed by quantifiers functioning as specifiers, but may also be expressed by quantifiers functioning as modifiers that constrain the relational type of the heads they modify.
In addition to encoding referential information, specifiers profile the heads they specify. Modifiers constrain the referential and relational range of the profiled head. Complements encode referential and relational information about the participants in relations, but that information is not profiled in the larger relational expressions in which they participate. In discussing the grounding predication of clauses, Langacker argues that only the first auxiliary or modal verb provides the grounding predication and that all other auxiliaries form part of the head. Further, the composition of these components proceeds from the main verb outwards. For example, in the expression “he could not have been kissed”, “kissed” first combines with “been” which combines with “have” which combines with “not” which combines with “could”.
A similar position was adopted in an earlier version of Double R Grammar in which the first auxiliary or modal (also called the operator) filled the specifier role, with other auxiliaries functioning as modifiers of the main verb (note that Langacker treats the outer auxiliary as a head which combines with a verbal complement). However, there are reasons for modifying this position. Auxiliaries are members of a closed class verb subtype that look and behave very much like other specifiers (i.e., they are short, frequently occurring, and provide a referential function). Further, from a processing perspective, delaying the composition of complex auxiliaries until the main verb is processed, would strain the capacity of short-term working memory. In the processing of “he could not have been kissed”, if auxiliaries do not compose together until the main verb is encountered, five separate linguistic chunks (e.g., “he”, “could”, “not”, “have”, and “been”) would need to be retained in short-term working memory until the main verb “kissed” is processed. Allowing auxiliaries to compose together in forming a composite specifier “could not have been”, avoids the need to retain separate chunks in short-term working memory.
Summary
It has been argued that the basic structure of nominals and clauses is bi-polar—consisting of a referential pole and a relational pole. The locus of the referential pole is the specifier. The locus of the relational pole is the head. Modifiers may be attracted to one pole or the other. If the head is a relation, one or more complements may be associated with the head. The grammatical functions specifier, head, modifier, and complement are generally adequate to represent much of the basic structure and function of nominals and clauses— especially with respect to the encoding of referential and relational meaning. Lexical items of different parts of speech and various forms of expression may fulfill these grammatical functions making it important to distinguish the grammatical function of a lexical item and expression from its inherent part of speech and expression form. Additional grammatical functions may be needed to represent other dimensions of meanings that get encoded in language and to handle noncanonical forms of expression
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()
，英语论文题目 |
