Hardbound — Available Buy now. Dependency grammar DG is an approach to the syntax of natural languages with a long and venerable tradition, yet awareness of its potential to serve as a basis for principled analyses of natural language syntax is minimal due to the predominance of phrase structure grammar PSG. This book presents a DG of English with two main goals in mind. The first is to make the principles of dependency syntax accessible to a general audience so that the novice linguist as well as the seasoned syntactician becomes fully aware of what makes DG unique as an approach to the study of natural language syntax.
The second is to present and develop a version of DG that then serves as a principled basis for the investigation of central areas of the syntax of English, such as long-distance dependencies, coordination, ellipsis, valency, etc.
An overarching theme in all this is that DG is simple compared to PSG, yet despite this simplicity, it is quite effective at shedding light on the nature of syntactic phenomena. Some concepts of syntactic theory.
Abney , Stephen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Adger , David. Allerton , David. Anderson , John. Bach , Emmon.
Baker , Carl. Baum , Richard. Berman , Arlene. Billroth , Gustav. Bloomfield , Leonard. Bondzio , Wilhelm. Borsley , Robert D. Bresnan , Joan. Burton-Roberts , Noel. Carnie , Andrew. Chaves , Rui. Chomsky , Noam. Clark , Stephen. Colliander , Peter. Collins , Michael. Corver , Norbert. Covington , Michael. Cowper , Elizabeth. Culicover , Peter.
Eisner , Jason. Eggins , Suzanne. Emonds , Joseph.
Engel , Ulrich. Eroms , Hans-Werner. Fabb , Nigel. Falk , Yehuda. Faraci , Robert. Among many others, the former is exemplified by Hjelmslev and Chomsky in terms of metholodology , the latter by Bloomfield and Dik. The challenge is to find a convergence of these two paradigms to yield a more integrated theory of language R sees hope in the recent broadening of the generative model to account for more languages than English and in the introduction of the notion of "parameter" which "in practice [accounts] for the existence of phenomena that lead to the divergences that typological studies feed on.
Again, in place of these analyses, R advocates an approach which studies the strategies different groups of languages employ to accomplish the same communicative task Chapter 3. The second section contains the following five articles: "Toward a typology of Common Germanic", "The birth of new morphological categories: the case of the article and relative pronoun in Germanic languages'', ''Towards a typology of Pompeian Latin'', ''An example of reanalysis: periphrastic forms in the Romance languages' verb system", and "Sentence Negation in Germanic and Romance languages''.
I found two chapters of special interest in this section. R proposes instead that the V2 position, already a tendency in Indo-European "Wackernagel's Law" , was generalized albeit inconsistently in Germanic. A wealth of data is presented to indicate that type may have influenced the historical development of the negative in these languages, but that a possible common origin for these two branches, language contact, and the complex histories of individual languages in the two families have played roles as well the language contact situation is revealed in an interesting map on comparing both the structure of negative-verb constructions and the lexical items involved.
The final essay of the collection, "The language typology of Wilhelm von Humboldt'', originally a contribution to an issue of Lingua e Stile dedicated to H, seeks to correct the impression created by Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics, among other writings, that H was primarily a Rationalist: ". But as we have seen, behind H's complex linguistic approach. H thus wrote Uber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues not Uber die Gleichheit and repeatedly stressed that the 'spirit of the people' is the real explanatory principle and basis for the difference between languages To demonstrate that H was a Romantic, a product of his times, as much or more than a Rationalist, R points out "Since H agreed with Schlegel that some languages namely the inflectional ones are better than others, his typology, like Schlegel's has a finalistic teleological outlook, a "mustbe" approach to languages, and thus becomes a critical yardstick.
A Dependency Grammar of English
H 's threefold classification of languages is based on the methods different languages use to express unity in a sentence and are the l isolating, 2 incorporating, and 3 agglutinating-inflectional types R' s mastery of the literature on typology, his knowledge of current theoretical debates in general linguistics both in Europe and the United States, and his facility in the fields of Germanic and Romance philology are impressive.
Although R 's theoretical choices are evident and his criticisms of generative grammar in Chapters 4 and lO are pointed, he is not polemical, and constantly strives for synthesis and communication among those who practice different brands of linguistics. Both derive from a pretheoretical choice, often made on the basis of personal inclination and, ultimately, ideological convictions, usually unconsciously accepted and hence not expressed explicitly-but nevertheless still operating.
The volume will be of interest, then, to those who wish to set a framework broad enough to encompass and relate the variety of kinds of linguistic research that is going on today. It will be crucial to those involved in typological research who need to sharpen their understanding of the methods and goals of their research.
- Free Radicals, Lipoproteins, and Membrane Lipids.
- The Liver. Porta Malorum (the Gateway to Disease).
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!
- Causes of Exclusion!
- Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method!
Kontroversen, alte und neue. Textlinguistik contra Stilistik? Wortschatz und Worterbuch.
Grammatische oder pragmatische Organisation von Rede? Akten des VII. Internationalen Gennanisten-Kongresses Gottingen Band 3. This is the third of an volume series of papers presented during the 7th International Congress of Germanists held in Gottingen from Aug. Entitled "Controversies, old and new," the participants, all Germanists trained in both literature and linguistics, addressed primarily literary topics. Nonetheless, several sessions dealt with more linguistically oriented topics, including the 45 articles on the three topics included in this volume: 1 Textlinguistics or Stylistics?
Books by Igor A. Mel'cuk (Author of Dependency Syntax)
Volumes 4 and 6 address language norms and dialects, and women's language and literature, respectively. Publishing the papers from a conference on a specialized topic, such as this one in Gottingen, has its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, the volume includes contributions by many major researchers in the field. On the other hand, some contributions do not always represent new ideas or research, but instead report on research which may have appeared elsewhere in print. For the most part, however, the quality of papers presented in this volume is very good and the issues addressed are truly of a controversial nature.
Since it is not possible to discuss each paper in detail, some brief comments on the general themes addressed in the presentations will have to suffice. The session on "Textlinguistics or Stylistics? The first seven papers by G. Michel, H-W Eroms, H. Aust, B. Sandig, G. Lerchner, K. Weissenberger, and A.
Does It Really Matter? Separating the Effects of Musical Training on Syntax Acquisition
Obermayer all consider the theoretical dichotomy between textlinguistics and stylistics or rhetorics and treat a variety of topics, e. Their data is taken from several non-literary text types, including marriage announcements found in newspapers and weather reports Sandig and historical descriptions of cities Eroms. Goheen looks at allegorical structure in Gottfried' s middle high German courtly epic Tristan und Isolde; F.
Simmler char-. Rupp's interpretation of Paul Celan's poem Heimkehr demonstrates the limitations of a textlinguistic analysis sans interpretation; and W. Weiss demonstrates the interface of stylistics and textlinguistics in the prose of Robert Musil. In a clear departure from the other papers, E. Schulz and E. Hess-Liittich investigate the use of the spoken language as a group marker by young people.
Not surprisingly, most of the papers begin with a discussion of the relationship between sytlistics and textlinguistics. Style or stylistics, the older discipline, is seen as a subjective evaluation of esthetics, which considers primarily stylistic devices. A stylistic analysis seeks to provide depth, and remains, by nature, fuzzy. Textlinguistics, on the other hand, is descriptive, more objective, more certain of its task, and has a distinct methodology, which is based on taxonomic and algorithmic procedures.
The strategies for text creation, e. Despite the controversy reflected in the session title Textlinguistik contra Stilistik? In fact, textlinguistics may even have something to offer stylistic studies! Goheen on allegory and Weiss on Musil's use of metaphor. The major shortcoming of traditional literary stylistics according to G.
Michel is its failure to adequately differentiate between the key issues of normative rule vs. Current linguistic theories and methods, e. Eroms finds it much easier to distinguish a stylistic analysis from a textlinguistic analysis, whereas Aust notes that a text is much easier to grasp than style. According to Aust the basic difference between textlinguistics and stylistics is not what the two disciplines investigate, but rather the questions each poses.
Furthermore, a stylistic analysis is more interested in the relationshhip of individual phases within a speech activity, while a textlinguistic analysis is interested in the genesis of texts and the identification of constitutive elements.