x
هدف البحث
بحث في العناوين
بحث في المحتوى
بحث في اسماء الكتب
بحث في اسماء المؤلفين
اختر القسم
موافق
Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
APPENDIX 2 - BRACKETING
المؤلف:
R. M. W. DIXON
المصدر:
Semantics AN INTERDISCIPLINARY READER IN PHILOSOPHY, LINGUISTICS AND PSYCHOLOGY
الجزء والصفحة:
468-25
2024-08-20
68
We have so far talked only of the semantic descriptions of words. It is worthwhile asking whether the semantic description of a phrase is to be regarded merely as the sum of the semantic descriptions of its constituents,1 or whether some of the syntactic bracketing of the phrase should be retained in the semantic description. For example, bracketing could tell us whether a certain feature in the semantic description of a VP was supplied by a verb, or by a locational adjunct; in the absence of bracketing we would not be able to tell the syntactic origin of a particular feature.
It appears that some syntactic bracketing must be retained in the semantic descriptions of phrases. The following example demonstrates this need.
We mentioned that each verb of position includes in its semantic description one of the features ‘motion’ or ‘rest’, and can only select appropriate locational qualifiers; locational qualifiers can be verb markers and/or nouns and adjectives in allative/ ablative or locative inflection. Verbs in other sets do not include ‘ motion’ or ‘ rest’ in their semantic descriptions, and can only select unmarked locative (‘at’) qualifiers. Exceptions are verbs of ‘ seeing’ which can occur freely with either allative or locative qualification: ‘look towards’, ‘look at’, etc.; in fact these are the only verbs that can take either motion or rest qualification.
Verb markers and nouns and adjectives in allative or locative (but not in ablative) inflection can be verbalized. Such a verbalized form has exactly the same possibilities of aspectual modification, inflection, etc. as the other verbs in the VP (in fact a VP in Dyirbal can consist of any number of verbs - that have simultaneous reference - provided they all agree in surface transitivity and in final inflection).
Thus we have VP:
However, we cannot have:
(5) * buɽan yaludayi gayuŋga
That is, although buɽan can occur with ‘to’ or ‘at’ qualification, it cannot take both together; however, buɽan and a verbalized ‘ to’ qualifier can take ‘ at’ qualification.
It seems desirable to show that there is a semantic difference between (1) and (2), and between and between (4) and (5) - a difference that is intuitively felt by speakers of Dyirbal but which is difficult to bring out in English translation - and at the same time to account semantically for the non-acceptability of (5). Now the features in any semantic system are mutally exclusive; the semantic description of a word can contain only one feature from any system. The non-acceptability of (5) can be accounted for in terms of this constraint, if we say that within a VP the semantic information coming from verbs and verbalized forms is bracketed off from that coming from qualifiers. The constraint is now that more than one feature from a given system cannot occur within the same brackets in a semantic description. Thus for (4) the semantic information coming from buɽan and yaludayimban is bracketed off from that coming from gayuŋga; features ‘ motion ’ - from yalu - and ‘ rest ’ - from the locative inflection on gayu ‘ cradle ’ - do not appear within the same brackets; (4) is thus an acceptable VP. In the case of (5), however, the semantic description of buɽan is bracketed off from that of yaludayi gayuŋga; in this case the incompatible features ‘ motion ’ and ‘ rest ’ appear within the same brackets, and the VP is thus unacceptable.
The example has shown that some syntactic bracketing must be carried over into semantic descriptions,2 if we are to be able to make correct predictions concerning acceptability. Probably not all syntactic bracketing has to be retained; each type of bracketing would have to be considered individually, and its semantic relevance assessed.
1 For the discussion here we are effectively restricting attention to nuclear words, which have componential semantic descriptions. The semantic description of a non-nuclear word is likely itself to involve a phrase marker (as in recent unpublished work of McCawley).
2 In some cases the semantic description of a non-nuclear verb may involve the same features as the semantic description of a VP containing a nuclear verb together with some locational qualification. For example, waban ‘look up’ and buɽan [yalu] gala. The difference here is that the semantic description of waban involves no bracketing, whereas for the VP the semantic features coming from buɽan are bracketed off from the one coming from gala. (Note that if it were thought desirable semantically to distinguish waban from buɽan [yalu] galamban - where the locational qualifier is verbalized and there is thus no bracketing in the semantic description of the VP - then this would indicate the need for further bracketing, separating off the features coming from a full verb, and those coming from a verbalized locational adjunct.)