FRANCIS O'GORMAN (ED.) THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ...

Kordoni

Description

• cours - matière potentielle : rubric
• expression écrite

    O'Gorman  (ed.)    -­‐-­‐1-­‐-­‐   FRANCIS O'GORMAN (ED.) THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO VICTORIAN CULTURE, (Cambridge,, 2010) xvi + 309 pp. The scholarly world has never been so companionable. Over the past decade or so, presses have unleashed a torrent of companions, handbooks, and guides to literary, social, and cultural phenomena.

• inescapable partiality of companionship
• lens of class struggle
• such arguments doesn
• site of ideological contestation for control of the hegemonic understanding of class
• companion to a literary genre
• companion
• attention to the actual forms of experience
• social class
• victorian literature
• range of topics

Sujets

• Rubric
• Humble
• Arnold
• Rubery
• Lightman
• Matthews
• Strachan
• Alborn Township, St. Louis County, Minnesota
• Columbia University

Informations

• Publié par: ziel
• Nombre de lectures: 19
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

Syntactic Theory
Lecture 23.12.2012
PD Dr.Valia Kordoni
Email: [e-mail]
http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/~kordoni/ Dependency Grammar (DG)
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
2 Dependency Grammar
•  Not a coherent grammatical framework: wide range of different kinds
of DG just as there are wide ranges of ”generative syntax”
•  Different core ideas than phrase structure grammar
•  We will base a lot of our discussion on Mel’cuk (1988)
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
3 Overview
(1) Small birds sing loud songs
What you might be more used to seeing:
S
NP VP
sing NP birds Small
loud songs
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
4 Overview
The corresponding dependency tree representations (Hudson2000):
•  Small birds sing loud songs
sing
• 
birds songs
small loud
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
5 Constituency vs. Relations
•  DG is based on relationships between words
A
A B means A governs B or B depends on A …
B
•  PSG is based on groupings, or constituents
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
6 ð
What are these relations?
We’ll explore this in more detail, but as a first pass, we’re talking about
relations like subject, object/complement, (pre-/post-)adjunct, etc.
For example, for the sentence John loves Mary, we have:
•  LOVE → JOHN 3.sg subj
•  LOVE → MARY 3.sg obj
Both JOHN and MARY depend on LOVE, which makes LOVE the
head of the sentence (i.e., there is no word that governs LOVE)
The structure of a sentence, then, consists of the set of pairwise
relations among words.
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
7 In tree form
We can view these dependency relations in tree form:
LOVE
SUBJ OBJ
JOHN MARY
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
8 Adjuncts and Complements
There are two main kinds of dependencies for A → B:
•  Head-Complement: if A (the head) has a slot for B, then B is a
complement (slots are defined below in the valency section)
•  Head-Adjunct: if B has a slot for A (the head), then B is an adjunct
B is dependent on A in either case, but the selector is different
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
9 The nature of dependency relations
The relation A → B has certain formal properties (Mel’cuk 1988):
• antisymmetric: if A → B, then B → A
– If A governs B, B does not govern A
– Consider box lunch (LUNCH → BOX) vs. lunch box (BOX → LUNCH)
… can’t have dependency in both directions
– Eventually, one word is the head of a whole sentence
• antireflexive: if A → B, then B ≠ A
– No word can govern itself.
Syntactic Theory – Lecture
23.12.11
10