Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Categorial Grammar | Lyons | I 230 Categorical Grammar/Lyons: Categorical grammars go back to Adjukiewicz. Have been further developed by Bar-Hillel, Lambek and other logicians. >J. Bar-Hillel, >Grammar, >Universal grammar, >Generative grammar, >Transformational grammar. Fundamental categories/Grammar: Sentence and nouns. Derived categories: are all lexical units that are not nouns. They are complex in that they simultaneously specify 1. with which other category the element can combine to form a sentence constituent, and 2. how the constituent can be categorically classified. Example: An element like run can connect to a noun to form a sentence. I 233 Categorical Grammar/constituent structure grammar/(creational grammar)/Lyons: constituent grammar: = replacement grammar the two types of grammar are more than slightly equivalent (they generate the same amount of sentences), and they break sentences like Poor John ran away into the same components. I 234 But they are not equivalent in every respect: because The system of substitution rules contains two auxiliary symbols (NP and VP) in addition to the four end symbols denoting the lexical classes (N, V intr, V tr A and Adv). Example Categorical analysis: so it specifies that poor John belongs to the same category as John and ran away to the same as ran, Replacement system: does not establish this relationship. Equivalence: but we can create equivalence between the two systems by using N for NP and V intr for VP in the replacement rules. Dependence/Grammar/Lyons: the two systems differ mainly in that the categorical grammar regards one constituent in each construction as dependent on the other. The categorical sign (see arrow above) makes clear which is the dependent constituent, namely the one with the more complex classification. Replacement rules: represent the dependency of the constituents only partially and indirectly: For example, from a rule of the form N > A + N it can be concluded that A is dependent on N. However, this is not possible in the case of example N > NP + VP. The two systems are not strongly equivalent. A system is preferable if it is more appropriate. I 238 Categorical Grammar/tradition/Lyons: here the term dependency (depndency, almost the same as subordination) is fundamental. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
| Constituents | Lyons | I 212 Constituent structure grammar/constituent structure/concatenation/linearity/layers/Lyons: so far we had regarded sentences as linear chains. >Sentences. New: the constituent structural grammar sees it arranged as constituents (not e.g. "subject"/"predicate" etc.), which leads to layers (reflected in the family tree, tree structure). >Constituent structure grammar. I 213 Immediate constituents/terminology/IC analysis/Lyons: (immediate constituents, IC): Example (poor John) (ran away). Tradition: there is obviously a parallelism here to the traditional conception of "poor John" as "subject" and "ran away" as "predicate". I 214 Layers: consist of direct constituents. Each constituent of a deeper layer is part of a higher one. Family Tree/Tree Structure/Structure Tree/Tree/Linguistics/Lyons: the layers of the constituents can also be specified by trees in addition to parentheses. Nodes: y and z indicate the layers. ((s) Layer x: consists of y and z, y: consists of poor and John etc. Constituent structural grammar/Lyons: there is no mention of "adjective", "predicate", etc. at all. >Phrase structure grammar/Lyons, >Adjectives, >Predicates. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
| Context/Context Dependence | Lyons | I 229 Context-independent constituent structure grammar/linguistics/Lyons: until now, all constituent structure rules had the form A > B ("replace A by B") No matter the context. >Constituent structure grammar. Chomsky: studied the effects of organizing rules within the system, the consequences of introducing optional, alternative subrules and recursive rules. Conditions so far: 1. A and B must not be identical (i.e. A must not be replaced by itself), 2. A must be a simple symbol, B may be complex, which is usually the case. I 239 Context-dependent/Grammar/Lyons: Terminology: Context-dependent: context-sensitive, (c-dependent, c-restricted). Old: until now, all grammars we considered were context-independent. This means that the symbol to the left of the arrow in the output of the rule has been replaced by the symbol chain to the right. example N > N + and + N only condition: that N was in the input of the rule. E.g. alternative chains: (I) X + N + Y (II) W + N + Z then we get once X + N + and + N + Y W + N + and + N + Z Thus context-independent. (This was required!). I 239 Context-sensitive grammar/Chomsky: new: Instead of "Replace A with B": now: e.g. N > N + and + N/in the context X + ...+ Y I 241 Context-independent ones are special cases of dependent ones. New: Context Dependency: Assuming we have new rules: N > N + and + N/in the context X + ...+ Y Everyday language: "N is only to be replaced (optional or obligatory) if it is appears in the input chain... I 240 in such a way that X immediately follows on the left and Y immediately on the right. Then this rule would apply to (I) but not to (II). >Everyday language. Context-dependet rules: different types: (we limit ourselves to the options introduced so far: optional/obligatory, recursive/non-recursive, coordinated/subordinated): Variants: X and Y can represent one or more symbols. Assuming that the class of context-dependent grammars we are dealing with here is defined by the fact that in a rule of the type A > B/in the context X + ... + Y X and Y can (each individually) refer to any finite number of concatenated symbols, but that A must be a singular symbol. B must neither be identical to A nor zero. >Recursion. Then the following rules would be well-formed: a) P > Q/in the context E + F + ... + G b) P > Q + R/in the context E + ... + G + H + K + L c) P > R + S + T/in the context G +... + H etc. I 241 Context-independent grammar/Lyons: can be seen as a subclass of the (newly introduced) context-dependent grammars ((s) as special cases). Def Context-Independent/Lyons: if a rule has contextual variables X and Y with an unlimited value (i.e. they can be positive or zero), then the rule is context independent. Otherwise context-dependent. I 242 context-dependet: e.g. f) P > Q/in the context 0 (zero) + ... + 0 P may only be replaced by Q if there is no other sign to the left and right of P in the input chain. This normally only applies to the character . g) P > Q/in the context 0 (zero) + ... + R + S P may only be replaced by Q if the input chain is P + R + S. h) P > Q/in the context T + ... + 0 P may only be replaced by Q if it is at the last position in the input chain: T + P. General form with variables: X + A + Y > X + B + Y Then a context-free rule of the form A > B is a special case of a context-dependent rule in which there are no restrictions for the values of X and Y. Context-dependent and context-independent rules can be placed in the same formal framework. I 245 Congruence/Subject-verb-congruence/context-independent/Lyons: Example (1a) The dog bites the man (1b) The dog bites the men I 246 (1c) The dogs bite the man (1d) The dogs bite the men (2a) The chimpanzee eats the banana etc. Context-independent Grammar/Lyons: e.g. (1) ∑ > NP sing + VP sing or NP plur + VP plur. (2) VP sing > V sing + NP (3) VP plur > V plur + NP (4) NP > NP sing or NP plur (5) NP sing > T + N sing (6) NP plur > T + N plur (7) N sing > N + 0 (Null) (8) N plur > N + s (9) V sing > V + s (10) V plur > V + 0 Here, more than one symbol is replaced at a time. Lexical substitutions/Lyons: here we assume that their rules are outside grammar. >Lexicon, >Grammar. I 247 Number/context-independent grammar/Lyons: is defined here by rule (1) as the category of the sentence for the subject-verb congruence. However, it is also introduced in the object nominal expression by rule (4). Singular/Plural: so the alternative is something that is completely independent and different from the same alternative in the object position. The grammar does not make everything visible here, not even that the choice in subject and object position is independent, and that the verb, if the subject is once determined as singular or plural, is determined according to congruence. >Correctness. I 249 Context Dependence/Rules/Economy/Lyons: the rule growth to cover all other congruence ratios would be small. On the other hand, it would be significant in context-independent grammar. Here, context-dependent grammars are more economical. Correctness/lyons: both types of grammars formalize the congruence ratios correctly. I 250 Def Weak Adequacy/Grammar/Lyons: a grammar is weakly adequate when it generates the desired class of sentences. Def strongly adequate/Lyons: it is strongly adequate when it also assigns the correct structural description to each sentence. >Adequacy/Lyons. Correctness/Theory/Lyons: our definition of strong/weak adequacy implies in no way an interpretation of "correct". It does not even make an assumption as to whether there are any norms of "correctness". >Terminology/Lyons. However, we determine that it is possible, at least in certain cases, to say that one description is more correct than another. We just do not claim that we can decide what is "absolutely correct". Context-dependent/context-independent/grammar/adequacy/equivalence/Lyons: the two grammars are probably weak, but not strongly equivalent. The context-dependent is more appropriate. Comparability/equivalence/Lyons: since the two systems are weakly equivalent, they are at least comparable. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
| Phrase Structure Grammar | Lyons | I 215 Constituent structural grammar/history/Lyons: three stages: 1. Bloomfield: introduced the term. Thesis: The analysis is appropriate if it takes the meanings into account. 2. Wells and Harris: Distribution, distributional criteria. >Distribution. 3. Chomsky: Investigation of the nature of the rules that generate sentences. >N. Chomsky, >L. Bloomfield, >Z.S. Harris. Ambiguity/Grammar/Lyons: Example a) beautiful (girls dress) or b) (beautiful girl's) dress: requires brackets (and therefore layers). Constituent: is made clear by brackets. On the other hand: 2. E.g. they can fish: there is no difference in the brackets, instead "fish" can be interpreted as a verb (they can fish) or a noun (they fill fish into cans). I 216 3. E.g. some more convincing evidence: Possible views: a) some evidence, which is more convincing: - some (more convincing) evidence b) some more evidence, which is convincing: - (some more) (convincing evidence). N.B.: here, however, there is a difference in the distributional classification of the elements beyond the difference in brackets. E.g. some less convincing evidence is no longer ambiguous. Nor, for example, some more good convincing evidence. Distribution: e.g. more belongs to at least two distributional classes: a) It combines like less with adjectives to adjective complexes (but its distribution is more limited than that of less, because here more is in complementary distribution with the suffix -er. Similar to e.g. nicer versus more nice), b) In contrast to less, it combines with a preceding some to a "closer definition" (modification) of nouns and nominal groups (cf. some more evidence to some less evidence). Ambiguity/Grammar/Lyons: can therefore 1. be a consequence of the constituent structure or 2. the distributional classification of the final or intermediate constituents. This applies to many languages. Solution: Naming the nodes (or bracket structures) of the family tree. E.g. ∑{ NP ( A [poor] + N[John]) + VP(V [ran] + Adv [away] ) } Brackets: there is no ranking between the two types of brackets used here. The different brackets are for readability only. I 217 Modification/Tradition/Lyons: in traditional theory "poor John" would be classified as a nominal complex because he "assumes the function of a noun" in sentences. Distribution: this can be interpreted in such a way that expressions of the form adjective + noun have the same distribution in the sentences generated by the grammar as nouns. The corresponding node is characterized by "NP". Ambiguity/Grammar/Lyons: can be removed: instead of A + N1 + N2 we write brackets: (A+ N1) + N2 or A + (N1 + N2). For example fresh (fruit market) or (fresh fruit) market and new fruit market, but not (new fruit) market. For simplicity's sake, we assume that neither fresh fruit market nor new fruit market have more than one interpretation. Semantics: from their point of view we will say that they are clear. Grammar: Question, can they still be grammatically ambiguous? I 218 For example, is the constituent structure fresh (fruit market) and in the other case (new fruit) market grammatically permissible? Cf. >Acceptability. Problem: an explicit grammar must be able to answer this. It is a matter of subclassification with two limiting uncertainty factors and the question of "decreasing yield" - grammar must not become too complicated. Rules should not only apply to the creation of a few sentences. Constituents/Grammar/Lyons: Constituent grammar allows sentences to be understood as composed of layers of constituents. The main reason for this: more economical and intuitively more appropriate description. (as by "subject"/"predicate"). In addition, ambiguities can be eliminated (by brackets corresponding to the layers). I 218 Constituent Structure Grammar/Constituent Structure/Lyons: 1) It is about finding out where to put the brackets. 2) It is about constructing a system of rules that clearly assign correct constituent structures to these sentences. First of all: we will only look at the following systems, which were examined by Chomsky: Concatenating replacement systems/Chomsky/Grammar/Lyons: I 219 We call these Simple constituent structure grammars/phrase structure grammar/Chomsky: Replacement systems/Chomsky/Lyons: E.g. (1) ∑ > NP + Vp (2) VP > V + Adv (3) Np > A + N >Rules/Lyons, >Ambiguity/Lyons, >Unambiguity. I 226 Discontinuous constituents/Grammar/Lyons: Problem: Constituents of a construction do not have to stand next to each other. Example: Interrupted constituents: e.g. to call ...up a) John called up Bill b) John called Bill up c) John called him up Wrong: John called up him. Discontinuous constituents/grammar/Lyons: Problem: Constituents of a construction do not have to stand next to each other. Example Interrupted constituents: e.g. to call ...up Structure: called up is not only a common constituents of a) - c), but these three also have the same constituent structure. Solution: distinction optional/obligatory: the rule operates optionally in the case of a) and b), and in the case of c) obligatory ((s) i.e. in a) and b) the word position can be changed, but not in c)). Problem: this assumes that we can specify the conditions under which the rule is optional or obligatory. Word order: e.g. free word order: Latin. For example: Catullous Clodiam amabat, allows all permutations, because the accusative is marked by the ending. Solution: we need additional permutation rules. I 227 Problem: if the word order were really completely free, the permutation rules would be simple, but the order of certain words is subject to restrictions, which complicates the question. I 237 Distribution/constituent grammar/Lyons: the distributional basis for the replacement rules is clear here: Each rule of the form A > B + C is based on the distributional identity of A and B + C. The A disappears, except as the name of a higher node. I 238 Replacement Rules/Lyons: in a grammar with replacement rules, the terms "endocentric" and "exocentric" are not introduced at all! >Terminology/Lyons. Constituent Structural Grammar/Lyons: NP and VP could just as easily be called X and Y. The relationship between nominal complexes, nouns and pronouns ((s) categories) is not expressed by the nomenclature as in the "classificatory" approach, but by the fact that they are derived from a common node. I 238 Categorical Grammar/Tradition/Lyons: here the term dependency (dependency similar to subordination) is fundamental. >Categorial grammar. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
| Rules | Lyons | I 157 Rules/Grammar/Transformational Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: Chomsky seems to reject this. In his opinion: ChomskyVsGrammatical rules: Thesis: The grammatical structure of the language is determined ((s) not according to the above rules) and is "intuitively" (unconsciously) mastered by the native speaker. (ChomskyVsRules due to the consequence of "uncertainty of grammar"/ChomskyVsUncertainty of grammar). Lyons: the differences in opinion here are exaggerated. Not all grammar is uncertain. I 219 Phrase structure grammar/Constituent grammar/Rules/Chomsky/Lyons: Each rule brackets the constituents that form the construction defined by it and also describes them. >Constituent grammar, >Phrase structure grammar. Layers: (of the structure) are determined by the order in which the rules are applied. Def Initial symbol/Terminology/Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: Example ∑ for sentence ((s) stands farthest left or above a branch). Grammar: produces a chain of symbols by applying the rules. >Lexicon. Def End Symbol/Grammar/Lyons: specifies the class of elements of the lexicon e.g. adjective. Def End chain/terminal string/grammar/terminology/Lyons: consists of end symbols. I 220 Sentence/Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: occurs when we replace the end symbols from the end chain with an element of the lexical class they describe. Its constituent structure is fully determined by the replacement rules that create the end chain. >Terminology/Lyons. I 220 Replacement rules/Grammar/Alternative rules/Extension/Chomsky/Lyons: to distinguish transitive and intransitive verbs, we introduce: (1) ∑ > NP + Vp (2a) VP > V intr + Adv 2b) VP > V tr + Adv (3) Np > A + N. I 221 If we introduce the option between (2a) and (2b), we must change the word classification in the lexicon: V intr = [{ran, etc.} V ir = {love, kill, etc.}. >Word classes. Grammar/problem: it is still unsatisfactory: 1. It still produces illegal sentences such as Poor John kill old women ((s) no special form for 3rd person singular). Solution: we must consider the congruence between the "subject" and the verb. >Congruence/Lyons. 3 (we leave that out here). 2. as it stands now, we can only produce sentences with five words like "Old men love young women" or sentences with four words like "Poor John ran away". The following sentences are not possible: e.g. John ran away, e.g. Men love young women, e.g. Old men love women, e.g. Old men love young women passionately. Optional Rule/Extension/Grammar/Replacement Rules/Lyons: For example: we extend rules (3) by making two rules out of one: (3) NP > N (4) N > A + N We say that (3) is obligatory, but (4) optional. New: then we also get: e.g. John ran away, e.g. Men love young women, e.g. Old men love women etc. All these sentences are subtypes of the sentence type. ∑(NP + VP). This means that their structures are identical at a certain level of analysis. Family Tree/Structure Tree: Example (I) John ran away (II) Poor John ran away (III) Men love women (IV) Old men love women (V) Men love young women, (VI) Old men love young women I 223 Rules/Replacement Rules/Order/Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: the priority of a certain order of rules over another can significantly change the result of the grammar. optional: e.g. (1) ∑ > NP + VP (2a) VP > V intr + Adv 2b) VP > V tr + Adv (3) Np > A + N. (4) N > T + N (5) N > Adj + N Rules (4) and (5) are optional. New: therefore the grammar now generates men, the men, good men, and the good men. Order: if (5) should come before (4), there would be e.g. good the men. Order: also that of (3) is essential: if it were in front (2b), it would have to be repeated afterwards to guarantee the extension for the complex resulting from VP > V tr + NP. The sequence can therefore prevent inadmissible sentences and reduce the scope of the rule corpus. Order: Assumed, (6) N > N + and + N If (6) operates before (5), we get for example (old men) and women and men and (old women) If (6) operates after (5), we get for example old (men and women). I 224 Semantically, it is the same, despite the different brackets. Def Recursive Rules/recursive/Recursion/Lyons: allow infinitely repeated application (only in infinite cases they are called recursive). Example (6b) N > N + and + N + and + N (6c) N > N + and + N + and + N + and + N (6d) … E.g. This is how you can tell stories: e.g. He came in and he sat down and he said that ...and he... Recursion/Grammar/Lyons: a "realistic" model of grammar I 225 will be designed in such a way that there are more examples of recursive structures with two constituents than with three, more with three than with four, etc. ((s) the simplest forms should be the most likely ones). >Constituent Structure Grammar. Probability/Grammar/Correctness/Lyons: the probability of an occurrence must not be confused with its correctness. Coordination/Recursive rules/Grammar/Lyons: Problem: Coordination using a recursive rule: ambiguity by different possible brackets e.g. Tom and Dick and Harry, (Tom and Dick) and Harry, Tom and (Dick and Harry). Dilemma: a) Intuition: recursive rules do not indicate what the intuitively perceived structural description is. b) and yet recursive rules are necessary. I 227 Formation rules/phrase structure rules/constituent structure grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: Spelling/Terminology: PSG - phrase structure grammar. PS rules - Phrase structure rules. a) Formation rules = phrase structure rules b) Transformation rules: specify how the end chains are transformed into real sentences. I 249 Context Dependence/Rules/Economy/Lyons: the rule growth to cover all other congruence ratios would be small. >Context/Lyons. On the other hand, it would be significant in context-independent grammar. Here, context-dependent grammars are more economical. Correctness/Lyons: both types of grammars formalize the congruence ratios correctly. >Correctness/Lyons. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
| Structures | Chomsky | Lyons I 259 Chomsky: (N. Chomsky 1957(1)): Thesis: The notion of the constituent structure (formational structure) corresponds to a limited section of the language and the rest of the language can be derived from the fact that a fairly simple class of transformations is repeatedly applied to the chains given by the constituent structure grammar. If we were to expand the grammar of constituent structures in such a way that they directly describe the entire language, we would give up simplicity. >Simplicity. Syntax/Chomsky: should be split into two parts: 1. basic component: constituent structure component (phrase-structure component, base component, phrase structure component, phrase structure rules (PS rules) (s) constituents). 2. transformational component with additional rules. Transformational rules/Chomsky: the entire transformational rules should be understood as additional rules. >Deep structure, >Surface structure, >Grammar, >Transformation grammar, >Generative grammar. 1. N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Berlin, New York 1957 |
Chomsky I Noam Chomsky "Linguistics and Philosophy", in: Language and Philosophy, (Ed) Sidney Hook New York 1969 pp. 51-94 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Chomsky II Noam Chomsky "Some empirical assumptions in modern philosophy of language" in: Philosophy, Science, and Method, Essays in Honor of E. Nagel (Eds. S. Morgenbesser, P. Suppes and M- White) New York 1969, pp. 260-285 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Chomsky IV N. Chomsky Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge/MA 1965 German Edition: Aspekte der Syntaxtheorie Frankfurt 1978 Chomsky V N. Chomsky Language and Mind Cambridge 2006 Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constituents | Chomsky, N. | Lyons I 259 Chomsky: (Syntactic Structures): Thesis: the idea of the constituent structure (formation structure) corresponds to a limited section of the language and the rest of the language can be derived by repeatedly applying a rather simple class of transformations to the chains given by the constituent structure grammar. If we were to extend the constituent structure grammar to describe the whole language directly, we would give up simplicity. Syntax/Chomsky: should be divided into two parts: 1. Basic component: constituent structure component (phrase-structur component, base component, phrase structure component, phrase structure rules (PS rules) ((s) constituents). 2. Transformation component (tranfsormational component) with additional rules. Transformation Rules/Chomsky: all transformation rules should be understood as additional rules. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
| |||