Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
Constituent Structure - Part 21

Constituent Structure - Part 21 .Cuốn sách này khám phá những khía cạnh thực nghiệm và lý thuyết của cơ cấu thành phần trong cú pháp ngôn ngữ tự nhiên. Nó mô tả các bài kiểm tra truyền thống cho bầu cử và các phương tiện chính thức đại diện cho họ trong cấu trúc ngữ pháp cụm từ, cụm từ ngữ pháp cơ cấu mở rộng, lý thuyết, và thiết lập cấu trúc lý thuyết cụm từ. | 180 CONTROVERSIES 10 a Mary NP Mary b apple NP apples c left S NP Xx left x d ate S NP NP XxXy ate x y The categories of Mary and apple should be self-evident but the categories of the predicates left and ate are less transparent. The category of an intransitive verb S NP indicates that the predicate represents a function that looks to the left indicated by the back slash for an NP and results in a clause S . S NP NP represents a transitive verb that looks to the right for an NP object. Satisfaction of that part of the function outputs another function S NP which represents a verb phrase which like an intransitive verb looks to the left for an NP and results in an S. The material to the right of the categories in 10 represents the semantics of the word. 10a and b represent the entities of Mary and apples respectively. Examples 10c and d are functions the lambdas indicate this these indicate that these forms are incomplete or unsaturated and require missing information x y . Application of left to some NP such as Mary will mean that Mary left. Application of ate to two NPs indicates that the entity characterized by the first NP ate the second. The fact that the meaning of an expression such as Mary left is in fact Left Mary can be shown by means of a proof. Such proofs use rules such as the rules of forward and backward application shown in 11 . 11 a X Y F Y a X f a forward application A b Y a X Y F X f a backward application A It should be noted that although these rules look like phrase structure rules they are not. They are rules of inference that is they are rules that allow one to prove that the meaning of a complete expression can be determined from the categorial combination of the words. They do not create constituent structures although these might be derived from the proofs if necessary. Because of this these proofs are more like the derivations of early generative grammar and very unlike the projection rules of current practice. The rule in 11a says that