This is extremely important, even if there are deep structures, they are not at all clear in the exact way. To conclude, it is argued that the pattern matching analysis is as powerful and sufficient as description based on deep structure, in that it correctly captures crucial effects that transformational grammarians attribute to deep structures without stating them. To account for the presence of "understood subject" of like, it is necessary to stipulate (you) and this is sufficient.
Third, since the concept of subject is not exclusively phonological, another issue is whether or not phonology-free subjects can have non-zero content. The PMA story thus lies precisely in an additional provision that in certain specifiable cases SVO need not have, or even need not have, a specifiable phonology even if it is not phonology-free. It is possible to replicate the effect of the suppressed subject by adapting it to assumptions in other theoretical frameworks, but first some comments are necessary.
It is ironic to see that even Langacker's analysis itself does not satisfy his content requirement. Since generative and cognitive linguistics are supported by different kinds of people with different interests and motivations, it is not at all surprising that what generative linguists call language and its grammar differs from what cognitive linguists call language and its grammar.
Where is the Source of “Logical” Ambiguity?
- Polarization emerging through composition
- An analysis of Many students read many books
- Scope ambiguity with special reference to S nearly V
- Illustrating pattern matching account
- An analysis of I only killed my wife
- Syncategorematism
- Identifying unsolved problems
- Additional note on S nearly V
- Remarks on the descriptive adequacy
The following diagram illustrates the relationship between compositional sequences and combinatorial possibilities for a fixed distribution of the case. It is easy to see that the following was obtained by converting (30) so that S in 33435 is replaced by who, and many students in 132 are changed by there are. The statement 'I did x with my wife' (where x is a variable for action) is assumed).
This roughly means, “The one who killed my wife was almost me,” or more precisely, “I was almost someone who killed my wife.” This means, “The one who killed my wife was only me,” or more precisely, “I was/am the only person who killed my wife.” However, it is interesting to note that, for lexical reasons, the most difficult reading becomes the one that encodes (44), namely: "What I did to my wife was only to kill her".
I almost killed my wife with my old rusty army knife giving her great pain. But as far as I can tell, even if it makes sense, what it means is "I killed someone (or a woman) who is almost my wife". To illustrate how strange it is that the precision condition in the scope of readiness is always operative, it is necessary to note the contribution of not in the following set of sentences.
This is strange considering that almost everyone is reluctant to limit me for almost killing my wife. My best guess is that there is lexical and pragmatic conditioning on the semantics of almost preferring 39 to 3 in the following C/D table. This decomposition differs from (38) in that my wife is divided into two rather than treated as a single subpattern.
Pattern Matching Analysis in Relation to Mental Spaces
- Connectors
- An analysis of In Len’s painting, the girl with blue eyes has green eyes To substantiate this claim, let me go into pattern matching analysis of relevant
- Effects of mental spaces integrated into pattern composition
- Section summary
Everyone will agree that Fauconnier's theory of mental spaces is an excellent theory that is able to solve, in a sophisticated way, a number of reference problems and related issues, some of which are classic since Frege, p .g., the Sinn-Bedeutung problem in Phosphorus is Vesperus. In particular, I deplore the current conception of mental spaces as something "merely cognitive" that has no apparent connection to surface syntax other than the so-called "space-". My point is that some effects described in terms of mental spaces can automatically follow from model composition, if we support the idea of compositional structure and polarization, defined in
Based on the results above, it can be argued that pattern matching analysis provides the key to integrate Fauconnier's theory of mental spaces and Langacker a, b) cognitive grammar. In some cases it is actually implied that mental spaces are something that subpatterns specify, and connections across spaces could best be characterized as effects of pattern composition (by superposition) in my sense. In a sense, the notion of mental spaces plays, at least in part, certain roles that deep structure played in earlier generative grammars.
But it is unreasonable to me for anyone to suggest that the class of phenomena described in terms of mental spaces is primarily semantic and has nothing to do with syntax. Again, this integration would not be within reach if composite structures (in Langacker's sense) and mental spaces are constructed by a superposition of subpatterns, as explicitly shown in this diagram. If my analyzes and suggestions in this section are correct, it follows that I can maintain the relationship between mental spaces in Fauconnier's (1994) sense and surface syntax because all relational terms potentially have “domains of their own.”
Thus, what results in the phenomena of mental spaces is rather the composition of the pattern, and more precisely the polarization through composition. On this basis, I suggest that it is not necessary to define mental spaces apart from many other independently motivated constructs for syntax. Put somewhat differently, mental spaces are no longer purely conceptual constructs that are constructed independently of surface syntax.
The phenomenon of mental spaces arises naturally if the syntactic structures of surface forms are sets of subpatterns that must be unified in the proposed way.
Pattern Matching Account of Syntactic Amalgams
- What is syntactic amalgam?
- Methodological remarks on amalgams
- Parse models
- Amalgams composed and decomposed
- Discontinuous polarization
- Another potential link to mental spaces theory
John invited, you will never guess how many people you can imagine, what kind of party it should be obvious, where with god knows what purpose in mind, despite you can guess what pressure. Despite the pressures, John invited many people to his party at his home with a purpose. Like Lakoff, I take syntactic amalgams as a real challenge to grammatical theory, acknowledging that the following two issues must be considered.
I don't know what others feel, but I believe that life is exciting because sometimes you can find something beyond your imagination. John invited you'll never guess how many people can think of you what kind of party at it must be obvious where with God only knows what purpose in mind, despite you can guess what pressure. For a better understanding, compare this analysis with the following analysis of a simpler form of John inviting quite a few people to his party.
The pattern-matching analysis presented above suggests that if there is anything wrong with syntactic amalgams, it is a peculiarity of the relationship F = (you'll never) guess how A Ni S V Oi invited AdA to his party at G = S a lot of people to O. In other words , to his party is a segment of both F and G in that it is shared by two clauses (84)F and G. To explain the presence of this you can imagine what kind of party, one only needs to show a way to unify F and G, defined below, where O1 = you'll never guess how many people and M2 = S V1 O1 which is a suppressed matrix such that S = John, V1 = invented.
What this analysis essentially claims is that party is part of F and you can imagine what kind of a is part of G. This analysis also claims that there must be D9 to match, you can imagine what kind of a and thereby make it serve as a composite Party Determinant in F. Accepting unusual segmentations as you can imagine what kind of a is undoubtedly one of the most controversial points of this analysis, but it is a very important in my account of amalgams.
In other words: the relationship of O2 to party is that of role to value, or more generally: that of class to institution. Then, to take into account God only knows what purpose is in mind, there is the next pair to be superimposed. Finally, despite the pressure you can guess, we must take into account the next couple to unite.
Concluding Remarks
Following similar steps, the following pair can be superimposed to account for where it should be obvious. This case is unusual because O3 is not named in F, but how unusual it is depends on one's assumptions. Here, as usual, God only knows what in G serves as a compound determination of purpose in F.
It is not clear whether one should access meaning in this process of discovery. Significantly, the output of [Elman's simple recurrent] networks fits very closely with Harris' predictions [(1982)]. Harris is one of the last surviving practitioners of pre-Chomskyan structuralism. Chomsky argued that the structuralist program of deriving general principles from empirical data would never succeed.
As part of his revolution, he advocated a research program based on deduction from general principles to empirical data. Further support for this conjecture is provided by the persistent problems faced by linguists attempting to derive empirical data from basic principles. So rather than hide in an escape hatch of conceptualism, I would choose to assume that there is a correlation such that, abstracted from surface syntax, the more selectively units are interdependent with other units, the less autonomous they are.
It should be expressly noted that all "generative" linguists are "Chomskian" linguists, which suggests that there are Chomskian linguists who are not generative linguists. For example, McCawley was one of the best generative linguists since the Chomskian revolution, but he was not a Chomskian. Incidentally, whether or not "minimalists" who follow Chomsky are generative linguists is questioned by Pullum (1996).
I suspect that they deny the existence of anything that their theory cannot successfully explain.
