Syntactic View Research Articles

Dislokasi Kiri dalam Bahasa Indonesia

Information can be packaged based on the need of the speaker and best described in information structure. The selection of a certain package in using language is not aimless. There is special intention owned by the speaker. Left-dislocation is recognized as one of the way to package the information. Due to its uncommon use, left-dislocation construction is a non-canonical way to arrange the information flow. This paper will attempt to portray left-dislocation in bahasa Indonesia based on syntactic view and a slight analysis based on discourse view. The portrayal will deal with kinds of left-dislocation, the relationship of antecedant -- pronoun and the discourse function of left-dislocation.

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Noun Incorporation: Essentials and Extensions

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Noun Incorporation: Essentials and Extensions

“Once Upon a Time” Philosophy of Science: STS, Science Policy and the Semantic View of Scientific Theories

Is a policy-friendly philosophy of science possible? In order to respond this question, I consider a particular instance of contemporary philosophy of science, the semantic view of scientific theories, by placing it in the broader methodological landscape of the integration of philosophy of science into STS (Science and Technology Studies) as a component of the overall contribution of the latter to science policy. In that context, I defend a multi-disciplinary methodological integration of the special discipline composing STS against a reductionist interdisciplinary unification, arguing that if STS wants to contribute to policy advising by constructing narratives of science practice feasible for science policy both in terms of descriptive completeness and intelligibility, then it must avoid the explanatory reductionism tendencies of special disciplines in interdisciplinary contexts. This would favour, at the same time, a relaxation of esoteric language. On this basis, it seems that the semantic view is one right candidate among other approaches in the philosophy of science for facilitating the integration of the methodologically different contributions to STS toward policy objectives. In fact, besides offering a more realistic and descriptively complete picture of science practice with respect to its predecessor in the philosophy of science, namely the syntactic view, the semantic view is also able to capture some aspects of science practice that elude even sociological approaches to STS, thus inviting different perspective on the same subject matter.

Why and How Platonism?

Probably the best arguments for Platonism are those directed against its rival philosophies of mathematics. Frege's arguments against formalism, Godel's arguments against constructivism and those against the so-called syntactic view of mathematics, and an argument of Hodges against Putnam are expounded, as well as some arguments of the author. A more general criticism of Quine's views follows. The paper ends with some thoughts on mathematics as a sort of Platonism of structures, as conceived by Husserl and essentially endorsed by the author.

Representation: The Problem for Structuralism

What does it mean to embed the phenomena in an abstract structure? Or to represent them by doing so? The semantic view of theories runs into a severe problem if these notions are construed either naively, in a metaphysical way, or too closely on the pattern of the earlier syntactic view. Constructive empiricism and structural realism will then share those difficulties. The problem will be posed as in Reichenbach's The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge, and realist reactions will be examined, but they will be argued to dissolve upon scrutiny.

A cognitive view of the coordination of predicates

Coordination of predicates is not, as claimed by many researchers, pragmatically conditioned; neither can it be described or explained satisfactorily in terms of purely syntactic theories. The present study on conjoined predicates shows that this structure is used referentially and covers varying scopes and types of knowledge representations. Its use is examined in various linguistic systems, ranging from contact languages and a developing second language to native usage. While conjoining of predicates is realized in serial verbs in contact languages to expand the deficient lexicon, its function in initial stages of learner language is the creation of tight knowledge chunks. When the scope is widened with the expansion of the general linguistic system, it is extended to cover larger, novel contents. An accompanying investigation of native English shows a whole gamut of usages with the content varying from a narrow to a broad scope as well as to on-line chunking, which means that conjoined predicates symbolize information that is stored, perceived, or imagined and serves as a stylistic device in a large number of contexts. The development and the native use of this structure are described and explained in terms of Role and Reference Grammar, which takes a semantic and syntactic view on linguistic structures.

Korean (and Japanese) Morphology from a Syntactic Perspective

This article concentrates on Sells's (1995) arguments against the syntactic view that words are built in the syntax, and it develops a syntactic account that yields a parsimonious account of the properties of “morphological units.” Inflected words in Korean (and Japanese) are derived syntactically from head-initial structures by phrasal movement. Properties of words follow from regular syntactic principles and phonological properties of affixes. Agreement can be triggered under piedpiping. Word structure interacts with scope (Lee 2004, 2005), arguing for the presence of case affixes in the narrow syntax.

The Structure of Scientific Theory Change: Models versus Privileged Formulations*

Two views of scientific theories dominated the philosophy of science during the twentieth century, the syntactic view of the logical empiricists and the semantic view of their successors. I show that neither view is adequate to provide a proper understanding of the connections that exist between theories at different times. I outline a new approach, a hybrid of the two, that provides the right structural connection between earlier and later theories, and that takes due account of the importance of the mathematical models of a theory (the semantic component) and of the various distinct formulations that pick out these models (the syntactic component).

Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax (review)

Reviewed by: Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax ed. by Carol Tenny, James Pustejovsky Kleanthes K. Grohmann Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. Ed. by Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky. (CSLI lecture notes 100.) Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000. Pp. x, 510. $64.95. This volume grew out of a 1997 LSA Linguistic Institute workshop which, as envisioned by the organizers/editors, was intended to bring together research by lexical semanticists, logical semanticists, and syntacticians. The common theme of the gathering builds on the converging view in the field that ‘the grammars of natural languages structure and refer to events in particular ways’ (ix). The first of four thematically organized parts of the book, ‘Morphosemantic composition of event structure’, kicks off with the introductory chapter to this volume by the editors. In ‘A history of events in linguistic theory’ (3–37), Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky offer a solid background and present a neat overview of the issues at hand, (intended to be) comprehensible enough even for nonspecialists. In ‘The quantization puzzle’ (39–96), Hana Filip supports the common assumption that Slavic perfective verb forms are semantically quantized but rejects an analysis of prefixes as perfectivity markers. ‘On lexical verb meaning: Evidence from Salish’ (97–142) by Henry Davis and Hamida Demirdache provides evidence supporting the view that languages may differ at the level of morphosyntax, but not lexical semantic structure, and discusses some consequences for a theory of the lexicon. ‘How phrase structure encodes events’ is the subject of the second part. In ‘Event structure in syntax’ (145–85), Lisa Travis argues for a syntactic side to the substructure of events in terms of an articulated VP-structure. In ‘Event structure and ergativity’ [End Page 671] (187–238), Elizabeth Ritter and Sarah Rosen also defend a syntactic view of event, though on a structurally higher level through an articulated agreement system. Angeliek van Hout, in ‘Event semantics in the lexicon-syntax interface: Verb frame alternations in Dutch and their acquisition’ (239–82), suggests that argument structure alternations are expressions of different event structures, offers a fitting syntactic theory, and provides some thoughts on the acquisition. Part 3 is entitled ‘Event structure and the syntax and semantics of adverbs’. In ‘Core events and adverbial modification’ (285–334), Carol Tenny investigates theoretical and empirical aspects of adverbs that allow further study of the syntax-semantics interface. In ‘Manners and events’ (335–58), Thomas Ernst also considers adverbs. He proposes an analysis of adverbial manner modification in an event-based framework. June Wickboldt, in ‘Some effects of manner adverbials on meaning’ (359–74), points out temporal vs. causal relations, structural diagnostics for these, telicity, and the role of contrastive stress. The final part, ‘On event and state arguments’, contains five papers. Alice ter Meulen looks at ‘How to tell events apart’ and, by concentrating on the subtitle, ‘Light verbs, SE-reflexives and Dutch verbal morphology’ (377–91), addresses how arguments of a verbal predicate affect temporal coreference. Graham Katz, a proponent of ‘Anti Neo-Davidsonianism’, argues ‘Against a Davidsonian semantics for state sentences’ (393–416) with underlying states in the logical form. Liina Pylkkänen, in ‘On stativity and causation’ (417–44), providing evidence from Finnish, argues that stativity is compatible with causative semantics. In ‘Events and the semantics of opposition’ (445–82), James Pustejovsky motivates a richer notion of event structure (based on data that mostly involve contradictions of change), namely ‘event persistence structure’. Barbara Partee concludes the volume with ‘Some remarks on linguistic uses of the notion of “Event”’ (483–95). While it is a shame to read about the caliber of those workshop attendants who couldn’t contribute their papers, the collection here is of very high quality, making the book a wonderful companion on the syntax and semantics of events and beyond. Kleanthes K. Grohmann University of Cologne Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

현대 독일어 제2형 분사의 형용사 전환에 대한 제약

This paper addresses the issue of constraints on the conversion of the participle II in German, proposing a constraint-based lexical semantic approach. I argue against the widely accepted syntactic view which is based on the dichotomous distinction of intransitive verbs, which has been advanced by the Unaccusative Hypothesis [Perlmutter (1978)]. Several arguments are also given against the semantic view which is based on some aspectual notions such as ''telicity'', ''transformativity'' or ''terminativity''. The crucial constraints on the conversion of the participle II in German, it is argued, is instead two lexical semantic entailments, movement with a definite change of location and affectedness. These and other lexical semantic entailments in the sense of Dowty (1991) are encoded into the multiple inheritance type hierarchy of qfpsoa. The proposal made in this paper is based on the multiple inheritance hierarchy which is envisaged in a recent framework of head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. (Chungnam National University)

Reinflating the semantic approach

The semantic, or model‐theoretic, approach to theories has recently come under criticism on two fronts: (i) it is claimed that it cannot account for the wide diversity of models employed in scientific practice—a claim which has led some to propose a “deflationary” account of models; (ii) it is further contended that the sense of “model” used by the approach differs from that given in model theory. Our aim in the present work is to articulate a possible response to these claims, drawing on recent developments within the semantic approach itself. Thus, the first is answered by utilizing the notion of a “partial structure”, first introduced in this context by da Costa and French in 1990. The second claim is undermined by consideration of van Fraassen's understanding of “model” which corresponds well with that evinced by modem mathematicians. This latter discussion, in particular, has an impact on the continuing debate regarding the relative merits of the semantic and syntactic views and the developments presented here can be taken to provide further support to the former.

Bound morphemes, coordination and bracketing paradox

Elements necessary for a proper interpretation of a sentence can sometimes be missing from the ‘surface’ representation involving coordination (ellipsis, gapping, etc.). Though different methods have been proposed to recover missing elements, it is not clear how such recovery can be accomplished when they correspond to bound morphemes. Assuming lexicalism, this paper shows how such missing elements are recovered semantically without employing empty place holders, abstract functional categories or invisible movement. Bound verbal morphemes in Japanese introduced here give rise to morpho-semantico bracketing paradoxes which prove to be problematic for a syntactic view of morphology.

Suppression of valid inferences: syntactic views, mental models, and relative salience

Byrne (1989) has demonstrated that although subjects can make deductively valid inferences of the modus ponens and modus tollens forms, these valid inferences can be suppressed by presenting an appropriate additional premise “If R then Q” with the original conditional “If P then Q”. This suppression effect challenges the assumption of all syntactic theories of conditional reasoning that formal rules of inference such as modus ponens is part of mental logic. This paper argues that both the syntactic and the mental model accounts of the suppression effect are inadequate because they fail to give a principled account of the critical interpretive component involved in reasoning. In contrast, the relative salience model proposed in this study emphasized the centrality of the interpretative processes with the critical component being the relative salience of premises as judged by subjects on the basis of their prior knowledge activated in particular problem situations. Using 120 undergraduates and 120 policemen as subjects, predictions from the model were tested and confirmed in a suppression paradigm and evidence of convergent validity for the construct of salience were obtained. The results cannot be reconciled with either the syntactic view or the mental model view that have dominated theories of conditional reasoning.

A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences

A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences

The syntax of two Dutch structuralists in its historical context

Summary The syntactic views of two Dutch structural linguists, A. W. de Groot (1892–1963) and P. C. Paardekooper (b.1920) are considered in their historical context. It appears to be possible to connect de Groot’s work with that of the Prague School; the notion of opposition, as developed in the Prague School with respect to phonological phenomena, is applied by de Groot to syntax. Paardekooper’s oeuvre, by contrast, appears to be connected with that of the American structuralists rather than that of their European colleagues, although his bibliographical references suggest otherwise. The notion of ‘distribution’ for instance is fundamental in his work.

Naissance et développement de la notion de phrase composée dans les grammaires espagnoles (1771-1851)

ABSTRACT : The theoretical postulates underlying traditional syntactic analyses hindered the birth and development of the concept of « complex sentence (with co-ordinate or subordinate clauses) ». The set clause- conjunction-clause is seen as a) two sentences ; b) one unit « sentence », of a semantic character, containing two clauses ; c) an « oraciôn compuesta », a category of recent creation, in which it is always possible to perceive a relation of subordination or dependency between the component parts. With the exception of J. Calderôn, who specifically treats coordinating conjunctions from a syntactic view point, no author has dealt with coordination

Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning

Two views have dominated theories of deductive reasoning. One is the view that people reason using syntactic, domain-independent rules of logic, and the other is the view that people use domain-specific knowledge. In contrast with both of these views, we present evidence that people often reason using a type of knowledge structure termed pragmatic reasoning schemas. In two experiments, syntactically equivalent forms of conditional rules produced different patterns of performance in Wason's selection task, depending on the type of pragmatic schema evoked. The differences could not be explained by either dominant view. We further tested the syntactic view by manipulating the type of logic training subjects received. If people typically do not use abstract rules analogous to those of standard logic, then training on abstract principles of standard logic alone would have little effect on selection performance, because the subjects would not know how to map such rules onto concrete instances. Training results obtained in both a laboratory and a classroom setting confirmed our hypothesis: Training was effective only when abstract principles were coupled with examples of selection problems, which served to elucidate the mapping between abstract principles and concrete instances. In contrast, a third experiment demonstrated that brief abstract training on a pragmatic reasoning schema had a substantial impact on subjects' reasoning about problems that were interpretable in terms of the schema. The dominance of pragmatic schemas over purely syntactic rules was discussed with respect to the relative utility of both types of rules for solving real-world problems.

Representation of temporal information

The use of the temporal logic formalism for representing information is reviewed. Two languages are introduced corresponding to two different ways of viewing information: as an assertion about properties of objects (syntactic view), or as a set of objects (semantic view). We define the semantics of the languages in terms of a model that generalizes the concept of Pawlak's information system.

Pragmatic factors in children's phrasal coordination

ABSTRACTThis study of children's conjunction reduction contrasted the syntactic view of forward and backward deletion of base structure elements with the idea that pragmatic factors of situational redundancy and perceptual grouping account for conjunction reduction. Ninety-four children described an action sequence (putting differently coloured beads into a cup) so that a listener positioned behind a screen could repeat them. Half the children communicated as the action was being carried out (SIMULTANEOUS condition), mitigating against perceptual grouping of beads in the cup. Half communicated after the action was completed (POST condition), permitting perceptual grouping. Backward deletion was more frequent in the post than in the simultaneous condition. Also, the overall high frequency of forward deletion reflected encoding of novelty and omission of repetitive elements. These results suggest syntax is pragmatically motivated.

A syntactic view of semantic networks

So-called “semantic networks” are notations which make explicit much of the implicit syntax of say, English. The mapping from an English sentence to a portion of the network, often claimed to be “understanding” of the sentence, is a mapping of one notation (the English language) to another (the “semantic network”). This viewpoint in no way belittles the achievements that such a mapping, in general terms, may represent nor does it detract from the potential value of the “semantic network” notation. What it does do is, first highlight the customary arbitrariness with which the term “syntax” and “semantics”, and hence “understanding” are applied, and leads to a more systematic application of these concepts. Second, it raises the question of why one notation (grammar, syntax) is more useful than another, and again suggests an answer. Thus we can formulate rather differently the goals of a “semantic network” notation in contrast to the usual goal: the explication of the “semantic” content of language constructs. A goal that tends to lack either realism or substance, as “semantics” stubbornly resists attempts at an absolute, formal circumscription that is both conceptually adequate and logically consistent.