Corepresentation of Grammatical Structure

Corepresentation of Grammatical Structure

MICHAEL B. KAC
Copyright Date: 1978
Edition: NED - New edition
Pages: 176
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.cttts99p
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Corepresentation of Grammatical Structure
    Book Description:

    Corepresentation of Grammatical Structure was first published in 1978. This monograph in linguistics presents a nontransformational model of generative grammar called corepresentational grammar. A corepresentational description of a language consists of a set of principles on the basis of which information pertaining to abstract relations among elements of a sentence may be extracted directly from surface structure. The resulting theory provides solutions to a variety of problems pertaining to word order, complementation, complex nominals, and coordinate structures.

    eISBN: 978-0-8166-6323-1
    Subjects: Language & Literature

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. 1-4)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. 5-7)
  3. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    (pp. 8-8)
    Michael B. Kac
  4. PROSPECTUS
    (pp. 9-13)
  5. 1 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
    (pp. 14-30)

    Grammatical theory since antiquity has recognized that there are two modes of representation of the grammatical structure of a sentence. The first, which we may call CATEGORIAL, involves a segmentation of the sentence into constituents and the identification of each constituent as a member of one of a finite set of categories such as ‘noun’, ‘verb’, ‘noun phrase’, and so on. A graphic display such as a labelled bracketing or tree (‘P-marker’) may be regarded as specifying the categorial structure of the sentence with which it is associated.¹ Henceforth we will refer to any such structural description as a CATEGORIAL...

  6. 2 ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH SIMPLEX SENTENCES
    (pp. 31-52)

    To begin the detailed presentation of the principles for generating corepresentations, I set a modest descriptive problem – that of stating English-specific rules for the identification of Subjects and Objects in simple verb-medial active sentences. Such a task is easily accomplished via the following two C-rules:

    (1) OBJECT RULE (OR)

    An NP to the right of a nonpassive predicate P is analyzable as OBJ(P).

    (2) SUBJECT RULE (SR)

    An NP to the left of a nonpassive predicate P is analyzable as SUBJ(P).

    Note that the two rules make reference to the relations ‘to the right/ left of’, and not to the...

  7. 3 COMPLEX SENTENCES I: COMPLEMENTATION
    (pp. 53-103)

    We define a COMPLEMENT as a predication which acts as an argument of a predicate. A predication Pr/Piis SUBORDINATE to a predication Pr/Pjiff Pr/Piis included, properly or otherwise, is an argument of Pj(This is a conception of subordination that is somewhat different from the standard one; see below.) We may illustrate with the sentences

    (1) a. Harry knows that Fred likes vodka. According to these analyses,knowin each case has an Object in the form of a predication. In (2a) Pr/likeis analyzed as OBJ(know) and is thus subordinate to Pr/know;we may say that...

  8. 4 COMPLEX SENTENCES II: NOMINAL MODIFICATION
    (pp. 104-127)

    Natural languages commonly make use of constructions of a type traditionally characterized as consisting of two elements: a HEAD and a MODIFIER of the head. We will henceforth refer to such constructions as HEAD-MODIFIER CONSTRUCTIONS or HMCs. In this chapter we will be concerned with HMCs consisting of a head nominal and a modifier in the form of a clause — e. g.,

    (1) a. [Hthe claim] [Mthat Harry believed]

    b. [Hthe claim] [Mthat Harry believed the allegations]

    The NP in (1a) is a relative construction, that in (1b) what we might call a COMPLEMENT NOMINAL. Both...

  9. 5 COMPLEX SENTENCES III: COORDINATE STRUCTURE
    (pp. 128-152)

    An adequate theory of coordination is of special importance in CORG since a crucial metacondition (Uniqueness-b) is dependent on the possibility of being able to determine formally when two elements are coordinate. In addition, coordinate structures, like other complex sentences, may present a domain problem. The solution to the domain problem for coordinate structures will, expectedly, explain the facts motivating the Coordinate Structure Constraint (’CSC’) in transformational theory; the result is analogous to that obtained in the previous chapter with regard to the complex NP phenomenon.¹

    We will assume henceforth that any two elements of a sentence are susceptible to...

  10. 6 Metatheoretical Foundations
    (pp. 153-164)

    In the preceding four chapters, we implemented a method for mapping between categorial and relational representations in simplex and complex sentences. The notions ‘predication manifestation’, ‘predicate domain’, and ‘domain restriction’ played a fundamental role in the development of the method and were claimed to be terms of a metalanguage better suited to the matters at hand than that provided by transformational theory. In particular, it was argued that the strategy of defining predicate domains on surface structures makes possible an explanatory account of a number of phenomena, where such an explanation is unavailable in standard transformational accounts. This in turn...

  11. REFERENCES
    (pp. 165-166)
  12. INDEX
    (pp. 167-168)
  13. Back Matter
    (pp. 169-169)