=UDK=``+0Titan12iso-P `+120025A-P `+2Kosmos10-P `+3Kosmos10B-P `+4Kosmos12B-P `+5Kosmos14-P `+6kosmos10i-P `+7cmr11-P `+8cmi11-P `+9SymbolC10-P `m700,0,0,0,495 `d`t70 `i0 `rd200r `rr1005r`41. INTRODUCTION. `rd180r `rr400r`2There`rr27rseem`rr27rto`rr27rbe`rr27rtwo`rr27rmain`rr27rconcerns`rr27rand`rr27rgoals`rr27rbehind`rr27rthe`rr27rwork`rr27ron`rr26rnatural language`rr27rusing`rr27rcomputers,`rr27rconverging`rr27rat`rr27rmany`rr27rpoints.`rr45rOne`rr27rgoal,`rr27rthat`rr27rof`rr27rmore natural`rr20rcommunication`rr20rwith`rr19rcomputers,`rr19rhas`rr19rits`rr19rroots`rr19rin`rr19rthe`rr19rconcern`rr19rfor`rr19rapplication of the fruits of computational research,`rr19ramplified`rr19rby`rr19rthe`rr19rrecent`rr19rrace`rr19rto`rr19rbuild`rr19ra`rr19rnew generation`rr29rof`rr29rcomputers,`rr29rin`rr29rorder`rr29rto`rr28rmake`rr28rthem`rr28reven`rr28rmore`rr28ruser-oriented`rr28rand more useful for our purposes.`rr37rThe other`rr19rgoal`rr19ris`rr19rtheoretical`rr19rinvestigation`rr19rof`rr19rhuman language,`rr25rand`rr25rsome`rr25rresearchers`rr25rhope`rr25rthat`rr25rthe`rr25rcomputer`rr24rmight`rr24rbe`rr24ra`rr24rvery`rr24ruseful tool in this task; this hope is expressed by Winograd (1983: 13) thus `rd50r `0'The`rr37rcomputer`rr37rshares`rr37rwith`rr37rthe`rr37rhuman`rr38rmind`rr38rthe`rr38rabiblity`rr38rto`rr38rmanipulate symbols and carry out complex processes that include making decisions on the`rr38rbasis`rr38rof`rr38rstored`rr38rknowledge.`rr63rUnlike`rr37rthe`rr37rhuman`rr37rmind,`rr37rthe`rr37rcomputer workings`rr45rare`rr45rcompletely`rr45ropen`rr45rto`rr45rinspection`rr45rand`rr45rstudy,`rr45rand`rr45rwe`rr45rcan experiment`rr69rby`rr69rbuilding`rr69rprograms`rr69rand`rr69rknowledge`rr69rbases`rr68rto`rr68rour specifications.`rr59rTheoretical`rr33rconcept`rr33rof`rr33rprogram`rr33rand`rr33rdata`rr33rcan`rr34rform`rr34rthe basis`rr35rfor`rr35rbuilding`rr35rprecise`rr34rcomputational`rr34rmodels`rr34rof`rr34rmental`rr34rprocessing. We`rr27rcan`rr27rtry`rr27rto`rr27rexplain`rr27rthe`rr27rregularities`rr27ramong`rr27rlinguistic`rr28rstructures`rr28ras`rr28ra consequence of the computations underlying them.' `rd100r `rr400r`2After`rr22rover`rr22rthirty`rr21ryears`rr21rof`rr21rcomputational`rr21rexperience`rr21rwith`rr21rnatural`rr21rlanguage,`rr21rthere are`rr25rgood`rr25rreasons`rr25rfor`rr25rlooking`rr25rat`rr25rwork`rr26ron`rr26rautomatic`rr26rNLP`rr26rin`rr26rits`rr26rown`rr26rright,`rr26ras`rr26ran intellectual`rr28rtradition.`rr46rAt`rr28rthe`rr28rsame`rr28rtime,`rr28rhowever,`rr28rit`rr27rhas`rr27rbecome`rr27rplain`rr27rthat`rr27rthe approach`rr48rwhereby`rr48rcomputational`rr49rparsing`rr49ris`rr49ran`rr49rapplication`rr49rof`rr49r(preferebly well-founded!)`rr21rlinguistic`rr21rtheory`rr21rcan`rr21rbe`rr21rmuch`rr21rmore`rr21rrewarding,`rr21rboth`rr21rin`rr21rits`rr20rresulting descriptive power and theoretical significance (cf. Wilks and Sparck Jones, 1985). `rd50r `rr400rThe`rr35r'revolution'`rr35rin`rr35rlinguistics,`rr35rof`rr35rwhich`rr35rChomsky`rr35r(1957, 1965) is generally considered`rr19rto`rr19rhave`rr19rbeen the initiator, has brought a different approach to language -`rr26rgenerative`rr26rapproach.`rr45rSome`rr26rlinguists`rr26r(cf.`rr45rNewmeyer,`rr26r1980)`rr26rfeel`rr26rthat`rr26rwe`rr26rhave learned`rr20rmore`rr20rabout`rr20rlanguage`rr20rwithin`rr20rthe`rr20rlast`rr20rthirty`rr20ryears`rr20rthan`rr19rin`rr19rall`rr19rthe`rr19rages`rr19rtaken together,`rr23rwhich`rr23rmight`rr23rindeed`rr23rwell`rr23rbe`rr24rthe`rr24rcase.`rr42rAt`rr24rthe`rr24rsame`rr24rtime,`rr24rthe`rr24r'Standard Theory'`rr24rhad`rr24rmany`rr24rflaws`rr24rin`rr24rit`rr24rand`rr24rhad`rr24rto`rr24rbe`rr24rfirst`rr24r'extended'`rr24rand`rr24rthen`rr24r'revised'`rr24rin order`rr29rto`rr29raccount`rr29rfor`rr29rthe`rr29rlinguistic`rr29rfacts`rr29rthat`rr29rit`rr29rwas`rr29rfound`rr29rnot`rr30rto`rr30raccount`rr30rfor adequately.`rr48rIn`rr30raddition,`rr29rmany`rr29rresearchers`rr29rabandoned`rr29rthe`rr29rtypically`rr29r'Chomskyan' model`rr19raltogether`rr19rand`rr19rstarted`rr19rlooking`rr19rfor`rr20ra`rr20rfresh`rr20rone`rr20r-`rr20rLexical`rr20rFunctional`rr20rGrammar (Bresnan`rr23r(1978,`rr22r1982),`rr22rGeneral`rr22rPhrase`rr22rStructure`rr22rGrammar`rr22r(Gazdar,`rr22r1982,`rr22r1983`rr22rand Gazdar`rr30ret`rr30ral,`rr30r1985)`rr30ror`rr30rCategorial`rr31rGrammar`rr31r(Steedman,`rr31r1985)`rr31rmay`rr31rbe`rr31rseen`rr31ras examples of this trend. `rd50r `rr400rYet`rr23rthere`rr23ris`rr23ran`rr23reven`rr22rmore`rr22rserious`rr22rflaw`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr22rChomsky's`rr22rparadigm`rr22rwhich`rr22rmay call`rr19rfor`rr20ra`rr20rmajor`rr20rrevision`rr20rof`rr20rour`rr20rapproach`rr20rto`rr20rnatural`rr20rlanguage:`rr20rin`rr20ra`rr20rvast`rr20rmajority`rr20rof cases,`rr22rits`rr22rfindings`rr21rare`rr21rmainly`rr21rbased`rr21ron`rr21rthe`rr21ranalyses`rr21rof`rr21rjust`rr21rone`rr21rlanguage,`rr21rnamely English.`rr38rIn`rr19rmany`rr19rrespects,`rr20rEnglish,`rr20reven`rr20rthough`rr20rit`rr20rmay`rr20rbe`rr20ran`rr20rinteresting`rr20rlanguage from`rr22rthe`rr22rlinguistic`rr22rpoint`rr22rof`rr22rview,`rr22rhas`rr22rmany`rr22rfacets`rr22rin`rr22rits`rr22rgrammatical`rr22rorganisation strictly parochial in nature (idiosyncracy in language`rr37ris`rr37rnot`rr37rsuch`rr37ra`rr37rstrange phenomenon`rr28rafter`rr28rall),`rr28rand`rr28robliterates`rr28rmany`rr28rof`rr28rthe`rr28rproblems`rr28rthat`rr27rare`rr27rfound`rr27rin many`rr38rother`rr38rlanguages.`rr57rOne`rr38rof`rr38rsuch`rr38rfeatures`rr38rof`rr38rEnglish`rr38ris`rr39rrelatively`rr39rtight formal/structural`rr28rorganization,`rr28rwhich`rr28rcan`rr27rbe`rr27rseen`rr27ras`rr27ra`rr27rreason`rr27rfor`rr27rthe`rr27rfact`rr27rthat quite`rr39ra`rr39rlarge`rr39rsubset`rr39rof`rr39rits`rr39rsyntax`rr39rcan`rr39rbe`rr39rdescribed`rr39rusing`rr39rthe`rr40rImmediate Constituent approach. `rd50r `rr400rAnother`rr37rweakness`rr37rof`rr37r'standard`rr37rmodels'`rr37rof`rr37rlanguage`rr37rdescription`rr37rwas their unbalanced`rr23rdistribution`rr23rof`rr23rthe`rr23rdescriptive`rr23rburden,`rr23rmost`rr24rof`rr24rwhich`rr24rwas`rr24rcarried`rr24rout`a0,200 `rr1235r`03 `rd150r `2by`rr22rsyntax.`rr40rGenerative`rr22rSemantics,`rr22rthe`rr22rLexicalist`rr22rHypothesis,`rr22rand`rr22rthen`rr22rLFG`rr22rand`rr21rthe most`rr28rrecent`rr28rapproaches`rr28rhave`rr28rtried`rr28rto`rr28rremedy`rr28rthis`rr28rsituation,`rr28reither`rr28ras`rr28rthe`rr29rfirst theory,`rr22rby`rr22r'turning'`rr22rthe`rr22rmodel,`rr22rto`rr22rhave`rr22rsemantics`rr21requal`rr21rto`rr21rDeep`rr21rStructure,`rr21ror,`rr21rlike the`rr21rsecond`rr21rone,`rr21rto`rr21rrelegate`rr21rsome`rr21rmore`rr22rresponsibility`rr22rto`rr22rthe`rr22rlexicon`rr22r(especially`rr22rin the`rr34respect`rr34rof`rr34rword`rr34rformation),`rr34ror`rr34rgiving`rr34rboth`rr34rto`rr34rthe`rr33rlexicon`rr33rand`rr33rto`rr33rstrong (interpretive) semantics a fair share of responsibility (cf. Cann, 1985; Dowty, 1982). `rd50r `rr400rI shall discuss some notions that have to be taken into account in the parsing of natural`rr25rlanguages,`rr25respecially`rr25rin`rr26rrespect`rr26rto`rr26rto`rr26r'inflectional'`rr26rlanguages,`rr26ralthough`rr26rit seems`rr22rthat,`rr22rin`rr22rthe`rr22rapproach`rr21rthat`rr21rwill`rr21rbe`rr21rtaken,`rr21ra`rr21runified`rr21rtreatment`rr21rcan`rr21rbe`rr21rapplied to`rr23rboth`rr23rinflectional`rr23rand`rr23rconfigurational`rr23rlanguages.`rr42rFor`rr24rthe`rr24rsake`rr24rof`rr24rclarification:`rr24rI shall`rr25rassume`rr25rthe`rr25rterm`rr25r'inflectional'`rr25rfor`rr25rlanguages`rr25rlike`rr24rPolish,`rr24rand`rr24r'configuratonal' for languages like English as these terms seem to reflect the`rr19rcharactaristic`rr19rways`rr19rin which`rr22rthe`rr22rrespective`rr21rlanguages`rr21rorganize`rr21rtheir`rr21rgrammars,`rr21ras`rr21rwe`rr21rshall`rr21rsee`rr21rin`rr21rlatter sections. `rd100r `rr1055r`42. INFLECTION. `rd110r `rr400r`2Polish`rr28rhas`rr28ra`rr28r'fusional'`rr28rtype`rr28rof`rr28rinflection,`rr28ri.e.,`rr28rthe`rr28rword-to-morpheme`rr29rratio`rr29ris one-to-many`rr30rand`rr30rthe`rr29rmorphemes`rr29rare`rr29rfused`rr29rinto`rr29ra`rr29rsingle`rr29runanalysable`rr29rmorph; therefore`rr27rthe`rr27rHockett's`rr28rWord`rr28rand`rr28rParadigm`rr28rmodel`rr28rcharacterises`rr28rits`rr28rmorphology most adequately. `rd50r `rr400rThe`rr29rrole`rr29rof`rr29rinflection`rr29ris`rr28rto`rr28rcumulate`rr28rgrammatical`rr28rfunctions`rr28r(Jakobczyk:`rr28r385); thus`rr23rin`rr23rPolish`rr21r`8czyta-l`rr23r`2('[he]`rr23rread'),`rr22r`8'l'`rr24r`2indicates`rr24rtense,`rr24rperson,`rr24rnumber,`rr24rand`rr24rgender. Inflectional categories are regular and systematic sets, given a priori. `rd50r `rr400rIn`rr20rEnglish,`rr20ra`rr20rverbal`rr19rinflection`rr19rhas`rr19rto`rr19rcover`rr19rone`rr19rfunction,`rr19rnamely`rr19rtense.`rr38rThus`rr19rwe can say that an English verb consists of two constituents: `rd50r `0STEM + TENSE affix `rd50r `2the`rr23ronly`rr23rinflectional`rr23rending`rr23rexpressing`rr24rsimultaneously:`rr24rtense,`rr24rperson`rr24rand`rr24rnumber in English being -s (Jakobczyk, op. cit.). `rd50r `rr400rA Polish one, however, consists of more constituents: `rd50r `0STEM + TENSE + ASPECT + PERSON + NUMBER + GENDER `rd50r `2These`rr32rconstituents`rr32rare,`rr32rto`rr32rbe`rr32rmore`rr32rprecise,`rr32rfunctions`rr32rto`rr32rbe`rr32rexpressed`rr32reither inflectionally or by other means, eg. a prefix denoting aspect. `rd50r `rr400rAlthough`rr28rthe`rr28rdetails`rr28rof`rr29rinflection`rr29rare`rr29rnot`rr29ressential`rr29rhere,`rr29rthe`rr29robjective`rr29rbeing rather`rr27rthe`rr27rfinding`rr27rof`rr26rmore`rr26rgeneral`rr26rprinciples,`rr26rsome`rr26rsurface`rr26rdifferences`rr26rbetween English and`rr19rPolish`rr19rin`rr19rterms`rr19rof`rr19rinflection`rr19rmight`rr19rbe`rr19rin`rr19rorder`rr19rto`rr19rgive`rr19rthe`rr19rflavor`rr19rof`rr19rthe task of practical implementation of the notion of inflection: `rd50r -`rr28rgender`rr28rdistinction`rr28rin`rr28rthe`rr28rPolish`rr28rpast`rr28rtense`rr28ris`rr28rmarked`rr28rinflectionally,`rr28reg.`rr26r`8czytal `0[masc],`rr16r`8czytala`rr25r`0[fem]`rr18r`2('he/she read'); `rd50r -`rr26roccurrence`rr26rof`rr26rthe`rr26rinflectional`rr26rfuture`rr26rtense`rr26rin`rr26rPolish,`rr26rnot`rr26rin`rr26rEnglish,`rr26reg.`rr25r`8bedzie czytal`rr18r`2('he will read'); `rd50r -`rr25rthe`rr25rconjugations`rr25rof`rr25rthe`rr25rverb`rr25rBE`rr25rare`rr25rthe`rr25rmost`rr24rsimilar,`rr24ralthough`rr24rin`rr24rthe`rr24rcase`rr24rof English`rr43rconjugation`rr43rsome`rr43rfunctions`rr43rare`rr44rperformed`rr44rby`rr44rpronouns,`rr44rnot`rr44ronly inflectionally;`a0,200 `rr1235r`04 `rd150r `2-`rr19rthe`rr19rcategory`rr19rwhich`rr19ris obligatory in Polish is aspect, but not marked inflectionally, eg.`rr16r`8chodzil`rr18r`2('[he] went'),`rr16r`8chadzal`rr18r`2('[he] used to go') (cf. App. 1, pp. 1-19 to 1-21); `rd50r -`rr29rthe`rr29rcategories`rr29rof`rr30rperson,`rr30rnumber`rr30rand`rr30rgender`rr30rare`rr30rexpressed`rr30rinflectionally`rr30rin Polish (cf. App.1, file PLEX4a,PLEX4b). `rd100r `rr565r`43. WORD, LEXEME, MORPHOSYNTACTIC CATEGORY. `rd120r `rr400r`2Words`rr20rmay`rr20rbe`rr20rconsidered`rr20rto`rr20rbe,`rr20rbesides`rr20rsentences,`rr20rthe`rr20rmost`rr19rimportant`rr19runits`rr19rin language.`rr39rBut`rr20rit`rr20rseems`rr20rthat,`rr20rjust`rr20ras`rr20rin`rr20rthe`rr20rcase`rr20rof`rr20rthe`rr20rsentence,`rr21rwhich`rr21rcannot`rr21rbe given`rr19ra`rr19rsatisfactory`rr19rone-sentence`rr19rdefinition,`rr19rbut`rr19rrather`rr19rit`rr19rmust`rr19rbe`rr19rdefined in terms of`rr19ra`rr20rdevice`rr20r(grammar)`rr20rgenerating`rr20rsentences`rr20rin`rr20ra`rr20rparticular`rr20rlanguage,`rr20rthe`rr20rnotion`rr20rof the`rr28rword`rr27rcannot`rr27rbe`rr27rdefined`rr27rwithout`rr27rconstructing`rr27ra`rr27rdictionary`rr27rof`rr27rthat`rr27rlanguage. Thus`rr20rsentences`rr20rare`rr20robjects`rr20rgenerated`rr20rby`rr20rthe`rr20rgrammar`rr20rof`rr20ra`rr21rlanguage,`rr21rwhile`rr21rwords are objects listed in the dictionary to the left of each lexical entry. `rd50r `rr400rKrzeszowski`rr26r(1981)`rr26rgives`rr26ra`rr26rdefinition`rr26rin`rr25rwhich`rr25rwords`rr25rare`rr25rput`rr25rin`rr25rcontrast`rr25rwith other units of linguistic analysis: `rd50r `0'...`rr27ra`rr27rword`rr27ris`rr27rthe`rr27rsmallest`rr27rsignificant`rr27runit`rr27rof`rr27ra`rr27rgiven`rr27rlanguage,`rr28rwhich is`rr28rinternally`rr28rstable`rr28r(in`rr27rterms`rr27rof`rr27rthe`rr27rorder`rr27rof`rr27rcomponent`rr27rmorphemes)`rr27rbut potentially`rr30rmobile`rr30r(permutable`rr30rwith`rr30rother`rr31rwords`rr31rin`rr31rthe`rr31rsame`rr31rsentence)' (p. 134). `rd50r `2This`rr23rdefinition`rr23rmakes`rr23rit`rr23rpossible`rr23rto`rr23rdistinguish`rr23rbetween`rr23rthe`rr22rword`rr22rand`rr22rthe`rr22rphrase (not`rr26rthe`rr26rsmallest`rr26rsignificant`rr26runit),`rr26rthe`rr26rword`rr26rand`rr26rthe`rr26rmorpheme`rr27r(not`rr27rpositionally mobile`rr22rwithin`rr22ra`rr22rword),`rr22ras`rr22rwell`rr22ras`rr22rthe`rr22rword`rr22rand`rr22rthe`rr22rphoneme`rr21r(not`rr21rsignificant).`rr40rIn this way the definition isolates lexicology from syntax, morphology and phonology. `rd50r `rr400rHowever,`rr28rall`rr28rthese`rr28rareas`rr28rare`rr28rmutually`rr28rinterrelated,`rr28rand`rr28rin`rr28rthe`rr29ractual`rr29ranalytic practice`rr33rit`rr33ris`rr33roften`rr33rdifficult`rr33rto`rr33rmake`rr33rcategorial`rr33rdecisions,`rr32resp.`rr32rlexicology`rr32rand syntax.`rr44rIn`rr25rthe`rr25rlanguages`rr25rin`rr25rwhich`rr25rwords`rr25rcannot`rr25rbe`rr26reasily`rr26risolated`rr26rin`rr26rtexts,`rr26rthe problem of separating lexicology from grammar is especially acute. `rd50r `rr400rMoreover,`rr44rwe`rr44rcan`rr44rconsider`rr43ras`rr43rwords`rr43rnot`rr43ronly`rr43rcompounds`rr43r(blackboard, typewriter),`rr23rbut`rr24ralso`rr24rphrases`rr24rof`rr24rvarious`rr24rdegree`rr24rof`rr24rfixedness,`rr24rsuch`rr24ras`rr24rred`rr24rtape`rr24r(= bureaucracy),`rr22rkick`rr22rthe`rr21rbucket`rr21r(=die),`rr21retc..`rr40rIf`rr21rone`rr21raccepts`rr21rthe`rr21rview`rr21rthat`rr21rthe`rr21rlexicon has`rr20rto`rr20rdeal`rr20rwith`rr20rcompounds`rr20rand`rr20rfixed`rr20rexpressions,`rr20rone`rr20rfaces`rr20ra`rr21rformidable`rr21rtask`rr21rof delimiting`rr25rthe`rr25rupper`rr25rbound`rr25rof`rr25rlexicology,`rr25rseparating`rr25rit`rr25rfrom`rr25rsyntax`rr24r(cf.`rr43rBecker's interesting`rr23rexposition`rr23rof`rr23rthe`rr23rfrequency`rr24rwith`rr24rwhich`rr24rthese`rr24rexpressions`rr24rare`rr24rused`rr24rin ordinary`rr21rspeech).`rr39rThe`rr21rbasic`rr21rproblem`rr21ris`rr21rto`rr20rwhat`rr20rextent`rr20rconstraints`rr20ron`rr20rcollocations of`rr22rparticular`rr22ritems`rr22rin`rr22rsyntactic`rr22rconstructions`rr23rare`rr23rsubject`rr23rto`rr23rlisting`rr23rin`rr23ra`rr23rdictionary and`rr21rto`rr21rwhat`rr21rextent`rr21rthey`rr21rare`rr20rstatable`rr20rin`rr20rterms`rr20rof`rr20rrules`rr20r(cf.`rr20rthe`rr20rtreatment`rr20rof`rr20ridioms in`rr25rGPSG`rr25rin`rr25rGazdar`rr25ret`rr26ral,`rr26r1985).`rr44rThis`rr26rin`rr26rturn`rr26ris`rr26rconnected`rr26rwith`rr26ra`rr26rmore`rr26rgeneral problem`rr25rof`rr25rwhat`rr25rmight`rr25rbe`rr25rcalled`rr24r'precision'`rr24rof`rr24rgrammars.`rr43rEarly`rr24rtransformational models`rr23rwere`rr23rcrude`rr23rin`rr23rthat`rr23rthey`rr23rimposed`rr23rno`rr23rconstraints`rr23ron`rr23rthe`rr23rco-occurrence`rr23rof various`rr48rcontent`rr48rwords`rr48r(nouns,`rr48rverbs,`rr48radjectives,`rr48radverbs)`rr47rin`rr47rsyntactically well-formed`rr45rpreterminal`rr45rstrings.`rr64rSelection`rr45rrestrictions`rr45rwere`rr45rintroduced`rr46rby Chomsky`rr31r(1965);`rr30rthis,`rr30rhowever,`rr30ris`rr30rproblematic`rr30rsince`rr30rit`rr30rrequires`rr30rintroduction`rr30rof appalingly large number of theoretical concepts called semantic markers. `rd100r `33.1. Lexeme, Word-Form, Grammatical Word. `rd100r `rr400r`2Generally, on one hand, a word`rr19ris`rr19ran`rr19relement`rr19rof`rr19rthe`rr19rdictionary`rr19rof`rr19ra`rr19rlanguage,`rr19ras a`rr21runit`rr21rcomposed`rr21rof`rr21relements/'units'`rr21rof`rr21r'meaning';`rr21ron`rr21rthe`rr21rother`rr21rhand,`rr20ra`rr20rword`rr20ris`rr20ran`a0,200 `rr1235r`05 `rd150r `2element`rr27rof`rr28rthe`rr28rgrammatical`rr28rsystem`rr28rof`rr28ra`rr28rlanguage`rr28ras`rr28ra`rr28rbasic`rr28runit`rr28rof`rr28rsyntactic operations`rr25rand`rr25ras`rr25ra`rr25rpoint`rr25rwhere`rr25rall`rr24rsorts`rr24rof`rr24rgrammatical`rr24rrelations`rr24rconverge.`rr43rIn the first sense, the term lexeme is used, to denote 'word' as an abstract unit of`rr19rthe dictionary. `rd50r `rr400rLexemes,`rr28rwhen`rr28rthey`rr28renter`rr28rinto`rr28rsyntagmatic`rr28rrelations`rr28rwith`rr28rother`rr28rparts`rr27rof`rr27rthe sentence,`rr20rmay`rr20rbe`rr20rrealized`rr20rby`rr20rmore`rr20rthan`rr21rone`rr21rword`rr21rform.`rr39rFor`rr21rinstance,`rr21rthe`rr21rlexeme `0PALIC`rr21r`2('to`rr21rsmoke')`rr21rmay`rr21rbe`rr21rrealized`rr21ras`rr19r`8bedzie`rr19rpalil`rr21r`2('[he]`rr21rwill`rr21rsmoke').`rr35r`8Bedzie`rr18rpalil`rr20r`2is a unit which has a syntactic function as a whole rather than as two individual`rr19runits `8bedzie`rr19r`2and`rr17r`8palil`rr17r`2.`rr37rAlso,`rr19rin`rr19rthe`rr19rdimension`rr19rof`rr19rparadigmatic`rr19rrelations,`rr19rbedzie palil is as a unit, in the functional opposition to`rr16r`8pali`rr18r`2('[he/she/it] somkes'),`rr17r`8palil`rr19r`2('[he]`rr19rsmoked'), `8pal`rr18r`2('smoke!'),`rr16r`8palic`rr18r`2('to smoke'),`rr16r`8palac`rr18r`2('smoking'). `rd50r `rr400rIt`rr23rmust`rr23rbe`rr23runderlined`rr23rthat`rr23rthe`rr23relement`rr21r`8palil`h1`rr23r`2`sin`rr21r`8bedzie`rr20rpalil`rr22r`2is`rr22rnot`rr22rcomposed`rr22rof the`rr23runit`rr21r`8bedzie`rr23r`2(i.e.,`rr23r<`rr30r`0BYC`rr30r+`rr30rfuture`rr30rtense`rr30r>)`rr30rand`rr21r`8palil`h2`rr23r`2`s(i.e.,`rr24r<`rr31r`0PALIC`rr31r+`rr31rpast tense`rr19r`2>;`rr17r`8palil`h1`rr19r`2`sand`rr17r`8palil`h2`rr19r`2`sare two different functional units of the language, despite their identical phonological form, thus `rd50r `8palil`h2`rr18r`2`s<`rr25r`0past tense`rr18r`2> `rd50r and `rd50r `8palil`h1`rr18r`2`s<`rr25r`0future tense`rr18r`2> `rd50r are`rr25rtwo`rr25rdifferent`rr25rgrammatical`rr25runits`rr25rof`rr25requal`rr25rfunctional`rr26rstatus.`rr44rBeing`rr26rsuch,`rr26rthey enter certain syntactic operations, and are called grammatical words/forms. `rd50r `rr400rThe`rr29rterm`rr29r'grammatical`rr29rword',`rr29rthen,`rr29ris`rr29rused`rr29rto`rr28rdenote`rr28ra`rr28rfunctional`rr28runit`rr28rof`rr28ra language.`rr60r(There`rr41ris`rr41ra`rr41rfurther`rr41rdistinction`rr41rof`rr41rterms`rr41rphonological`rr41rword`rr42rand orthographic word, but this is not essential for present purposes). `rd50r `rr400rWord-form`rr29ris`rr28rthe`rr28rsmallest`rr28rsegment`rr28rof`rr28rtext`rr28rwhich`rr28rfulfils`rr28rat`rr28rleast`rr28rone`rr28rof`rr28rthe following conditions (after Grzegorczykowa et al, 1984): `rd50r 1) it may occur as an autonomous utterance, eg.`rr16r`8tak`rr18r`2('yes'),`rr16r`8czyzby`rr18r`2('really'),`rr16r`8jemu`rr19r`2('to him'),`rr16r`8lampe`rr18r`2('the lamp' <`rr25r`0GENITIVE`rr18r`2>); `rd50r 2) it is in syntagmatic relation with other elements of the predicate `rr400r(even though the order can be changed, eg.: `rd50r `rr365r`8Komu mam to dac? Jemu.`rr34r`2('Who shall I give this to?' 'To him') `d`t73 `8Komu to mam dac? `rd47r `rr350rJaki on jest? Nudny.`rr52r`2('What is he like?' 'Boring.') `d`t70 `8On jaki jest? `rd47r chcialbym`rr204r`2('I would like') `8moze bym chcial `rd50r `23)`rr24ris`rr24ra`rr24rcontinuous`rr24rlinear`rr24rsegment,`rr24ri.e.,`rr24rit`rr24rcannot`rr24rbe`rr23rsplit`rr23rinto`rr23rsubsegments`rr23r(even despite`rr23rorthography),`rr23re.g.`rr21r`8po`rr21rpolsku`rr23r`2('in`rr23rPolish'),`rr21r`8mniej`rr22rwiecej`rr24r`2('more`rr24ror`rr24rless'),`rr22r`8dzien dobry`rr18r`2('good day'), etc. `rd50r `rr400rBut`rr21rit`rr21ris`rr21rnot`rr21rword`rr21rforms`rr21rbut`rr21rgrammatical`rr20rwords,`rr20ri.e.,`rr20rfunctional`rr20runits`rr20rdefined`rr20rby a`rr21rcomplex`rr21rof`rr21rsyntactic`rr21rfunctions`rr21rand`rr21rgrammatical`rr21rcategories`rr21rwhich`rr21rare`rr21rthe`rr21robject of`rr45rgrammatical`rr45rdescription.`rr64rWord-form`rr45ris`rr45rinteresting`rr45rfor`rr45rits`rr45rrelations`rr45rto grammatical word and as an elementary unit of syntactic rules of linear order. `rd50r `rr400rOften,`rr29rword`rr29rform`rr29ris`rr29ridentified`rr29rwith`rr29rgrammatical`rr29rword`rr29r-`rr29rit`rr29rhappens`rr29rwhere`rr29ra grammatical word is represented by a single word form, eg.`a0,200 `rr1235r`06 `rd150r PIES`rr18r`2<`rr25r`0dat,sing`rr18r`2> =>`rr16r`8psu`rr18r`2('dog') `rd50r `0PISAC`rr18r`2<`rr25r`0ind, pres, 2nd person, sing`rr18r`2> =>`rr16r`8piszesz`rr18r`2('[you write'), etc. `rd50r A`rr22rgrammatical`rr22rword`rr22rrepresented`rr22rby`rr22ra`rr22rsingle`rr22rword`rr22rform`rr22rcan`rr22rbe`rr22rcalled`rr22ra`rr21rsynthetic grammatical`rr19rword`rr19r(synthetic`rr19rgrammatical`rr19rform).`rr38rBut`rr19ras`rr19rseen`rr19rabove,`rr19ra`rr20rgrammatical word/form can be also represented by more than one word form, as in `rd50r `0PISAC`rr18r`2<`rr25r`0fut, 3rd person`rr18r`2> =>`rr16r`8bedzie pisal`rr18r`2('[he] will write') `rd50r Grammatical`rr49rwords/forms`rr49rwith`rr49rthis`rr49rstructure`rr49rcan`rr49rbe`rr49rcalled`rr48ranalytic`rr48r(or periphrastic) grammatical words/forms (after Grzegorczykowa et al, op. cit). `rd100r `33.2. Variants of a grammatical word. `rd50r `2The`rr31rsame`rr31rgrammatical`rr31rword`rr31rmay`rr31rbe`rr31rrepresented`rr31rby`rr31rdifferent`rr31rword`rr31rforms`rr32r(or sequences`rr21rof`rr21rword`rr21rforms)`rr21rwhich`rr21rare`rr21rformal`rr20rvariants`rr20rof`rr20ra`rr20rgiven`rr20rgrammatical`rr20rword. The distribution of the variants of a given grammatical word may be `rd50r 1) identical - then we talk about facultative variants of the word, `rr400reg.`rr62rINZYNIER`rr43r`rr44r=>`rr42r`8inzynierowie`rr44r`2,`rr44ror`rr42r`8inzynierzy `2('engineers') `rd50r 2) in complementary distribution - positional variants of a given grammatical `rr400rword; here, a lexeme may occur in several variants, conditioned `rd50r `d`t80 a) morphologically: `rd50r `rr460r`0BEZ =>`rr125rbez`rr68r`2('without') `rd50r `d`t92 `0BEZ =>`rr125rbeze`rr93r`2('without') `rd50r `rr400rb) phonologically, as in enclitic and stressed forms of pronouns`rr43r`0JA,TY,ON `rr500r('I', 'you', 'he', respectively), eg. `rd50r `8tobie`rr34r`2<`rr43r`0+stress`rr43r`2>`rr90r('you') `rr525r`8ci`rr34r`2<`rr43r`0-stress`rr43r`2> `rd50r `rr400rc) syntactically, eg. `rd50r `rr710r`8=> latami `rr455r`2ROK `rr440r('year')`rr198r=>`rr34r`8laty `rd50r `rr455r`2where`rr34r`8latami`rr34r`2is used only in connection with preposition`rr34r`8przy `rr415r`2or`rr34r`8przed + numeral: przed trzema laty`rr34r`2('three years ago') `rd100r `rr400rOf`rr23rparticular`rr23rinterest`rr23rfor`rr23rmy`rr23rpurposes`rr23ris`rr23rthe`rr23rstatus`rr23rof`rr23rsyntactically`rr23rdetermined `rr350rvariants`rr26rof`rr26ra`rr26rlexeme.`rr45rThus`rr26rfor`rr27rinstance`rr27rword`rr27rforms`rr27rof`rr27rlexeme`rr27rDOBRY`rr27r('good'): `d`t70 `8dobry,`rr31rdobra,`rr31rdobre`rr33r`2occur`rr33rin`rr33rmutually`rr33rexcllusive`rr33rsyntactic`rr33rcontexts,`rr33ri.e.,`rr33rare`rr32rin complementary distribution: `rd50r `rr365r-`rr26r`8dobry`rr28r`2enters`rr28rinto`rr28rsyntactic`rr28rrelations`rr28ronly`rr28rwith`rr28rmasculine`rr29rnouns`rr29r(in`rr29rfact,`rr29rthe picture`rr19ris`rr19rrather`rr19rmore`rr19rcomplicated:`rr19rthe`rr19rproblem`rr19rof`rr19ragreement`rr19rand`rr19rgovernment`rr19rwill be treated in later sections) `rd50r `rr365r-`rr16r`8dobra`rr18r`2- only with feminine nouns`a0,200 `rr1235r`07 `rd150r `rr365r`2-`rr16r`8dobre`rr18r`2- with neuter singular and nonvirile plural nouns. `rd50r These`rr29rexpressions`rr29rcould`rr29rthen`rr30rbe`rr30rtreated`rr30ras`rr30rsyntactically`rr30rdetermined`rr30rpositional variants`rr21rof`rr21rone`rr21rlexeme`rr21r(DOBRY`rr21rin`rr21rthis`rr21rcase).`rr39rHowever,`rr21rthe`rr21rform`rr21rof`rr20reach`rr20rof`rr20rthese expressions`rr19rfulfils`rr19ralso`rr19ra`rr19rspecific`rr19rsemiotic`rr19rfunction:`rr19rit`rr19ris`rr19ran`rr19rindicator`rr20rof`rr20rthe`rr20rgender of`rr24rthe`rr24rnoun`rr24rwith`rr24rwhich`rr24radjective`rr24rDOBRY`rr24roccurs`rr24rin`rr23ran`rr23rexpression.`rr42rThe`rr23rlinguistic function of these expressions is then complex.`rr55rOn one hand, thay`rr37rare`rr37ran expression`rr29rof`rr29rmeaning`rr29rwhich`rr29rconstitutes`rr29rthe`rr29rcontent`rr29rof`rr29radjective`rr29rDOBRY`rr28ras`rr28ra lexical`rr26runit,`rr26ron`rr26rthe`rr26rother`rr26rhand,`rr26rthey`rr26rfulfil`rr27ran`rr27rintratextual`rr27rfunction,`rr27rsignalling`rr27rthe existence`rr21rof`rr21ra`rr21rsyntactic`rr21rrelationship`rr21r(connection)`rr20rbetween`rr20rthat`rr20rlexical`rr20runit`rr20rand`rr20rthe unit with which it co-occurs in a given expression. `rd50r `rr400r`8Dobry, dobra, dobre`rr18r`2are then three different functional units: `rd50r `rr365rDOBRY + =>`rr34r`8dobry `d`t73 `2DOBRY + =>`rr34r`8dobra `2DOBRY + =>`rr34r`8dobre `rd50r `rr350r`2The`rr20rability`rr20rof`rr20ra`rr21rgiven`rr21radjectival`rr21rform`rr21rto`rr21rco-occur`rr21rwith`rr21rnouns`rr21rof`rr21ra`rr21rspecific`rr21rgender `d`t70 is`rr46rcalled`rr46ra`rr46r(syntactically`rr46rdependent)`rr46rgrammatical`rr46rgender`rr46rof`rr45ran`rr45radjective, recognizing`rr26rgrammatical`rr27rgender`rr27ras`rr27ra`rr27rmorphological`rr27r(inflectional)`rr27rcategory`rr27rof`rr27ran adjective. `rd50r To`rr23rconclude,`rr23rfunctional`rr23rand`rr23rformal`rr23rdifferences`rr22rbetween`rr20r`8dobry,`rr20rdobra,`rr20rdobre`rr22r`2have`rr22ra categorial`rr28rcharacter`rr28r-`rr28rthey`rr28rconcern`rr28rmany`rr28rdictionary`rr28runits`rr28rwhich`rr28rbelong`rr28rto`rr28rthe class`rr23rof`rr23radjectives.`rr41rThis`rr23rfact`rr23ris`rr23rreflected`rr23rin`rr23rthe`rr23rsyntax,`rr23rsince`rr23rthe`rr22rrule`rr22ris`rr22rgeneral. In`rr45rcontrast,`rr45rphonological`rr45rvariants`rr45rof`rr45ra`rr45rword,`rr46reg.`rr44r`8jego,`rr44rniego,`rr46r`2which`rr46rare non-categorial`rr32rfeatures`rr32rof`rr32ra`rr32rlexial`rr32runit`rr32rare`rr32rbetter`rr31rexpressed`rr31rin`rr31rthe`rr31rdictionary information about a given lexeme. `rd50r `rr400rAt`rr22rthe`rr22rgrammatical`rr22rlevel`rr22rthen,`rr22ra`rr22rword`rr22ris`rr22rreferred`rr22rto`rr23rby`rr23rthe`rr23rlexeme`rr23rto`rr23rwhich`rr23rit belongs`rr28rand`rr28rthe`rr28rplace`rr28rwhich`rr28rit`rr27roccupies`rr27rin`rr27rthe`rr27rparadigm.`rr46rThus`rr25r`8czytal`rr27r`2'he`rr27rwas reading'`rr22rwould`rr23rbe`rr23rrepresented`rr23ras`rr23rbelonging`rr23rto`rr23rthe`rr23rlexeme`rr23rCZYTAC`rr23r'read',`rr23rand`rr23ras occupying`rr19rthe`rr19rplace`rr19rin`rr19rthe`rr19rparadigm`rr19rdefined`rr19rby the terms Imperfect, Indicative, 3rd sing.,`rr22rActive,`rr22retc.`rr22r-`rr22rthe`rr23rterms`rr23rbeing`rr23runordered`rr23rproperties`rr23rof`rr23rthe`rr23rword`rr23rconsidered as`rr23ra`rr23rwhole,`rr22rand`rr22rmorphosyntactic,`rr22rsince`rr22rthey`rr22rhave`rr22ra`rr22rrole`rr22rboth`rr22rin`rr22rmorphology`rr22rand in`rr24rsyntax:`rr24rthus,`rr24rfor`rr24rinstance,`rr25rit`rr25ris`rr25ra`rr25rsyntactic`rr25rstatement`rr25rthat`rr25rcertain`rr25rprepositions govern`rr27rcertain`rr27rcases`rr27r(see`rr27rApp.`rr27r1,`rr27rp.25`rr27rfor`rr27ran`rr26rillustration),`rr26rand`rr26rin`rr26rmorphological rules, eg. rules for case inflections. `rd50r `rr400rA`rr23rfeature`rr23rof`rr23rthis`rr23rrepresentation`rr23ris`rr23rthat`rr23rthe`rr24rlexeme,`rr24reg.`rr42rCZYTAC,`rr24ris`rr24ra`rr24rdifferent sort`rr22rof`rr22rprimitive`rr22ror`rr22relementary`rr22rterm`rr22rfrom`rr22rthe`rr22rmorphosyntactic`rr21rproperty,`rr21reg.`rr40rPast Participle.`rr37rThis`rr19ris`rr19rreflected`rr19rin`rr19rthe`rr19rdifferent`rr19rroles`rr19rwhich`rr19rthey`rr19rare`rr19rsaid`rr19rto`rr19rplay`rr19rin`rr19rthe derivation`rr39rof`rr39rword-forms:`rr39rthe`rr39rlexeme`rr39ras`rr39rthe`rr39rsource`rr38rof`rr38rthe`rr38rroot,`rr38rand`rr38rthe morphosyntactic`rr32rproperties`rr33r(plus`rr33rin`rr33rsome`rr33rcases`rr33rthe`rr33rinflectional`rr33rclass)`rr33ras`rr33rthe features`rr30rwhich`rr30rselect`rr30rthe`rr30roperations`rr30rwhich`rr30rare`rr30rapplicable`rr30rto`rr30rit.`rr48rHowever,`rr29rthe formal`rr22rterms`rr22rwhich`rr22rare`rr22rexemplified`rr23r(lexeme,`rr23rword,`rr23rmorphosyntactic`rr23rcategory,`rr23rand so`rr34ron)`rr34rcan`rr34rbe`rr34rapplied`rr34rto`rr34rany`rr34rlanguage`rr34rfor`rr34rwhich`rr33rthese`rr33rtechniques`rr33rare`rr33rfelt appropriate.`rr43rOnly`rr24rthe`rr25rsubstantive`rr25ror`rr25rdescriptive`rr25rterms`rr25rwill`rr25rvary`rr25r(Mathews,`rr25r1974: 67). `rd100r `rr1070r`44. SENTENCE. `rd120r `rr400r`2In`rr21rlinguistic`rr21ranalysis,`rr21rsentence`rr21ris`rr21rconsidered`rr20ras`rr20rone`rr20rof`rr20rthe`rr20rfundamental`rr20runits`rr20rof grammatical`rr19rdescription.`rr38rHowever,`rr19rwhat`rr19rone`rr19rhas`rr19ra`rr19rdirect`rr20raccess`rr20rto`rr20rin`rr20rhis`rr20ranalysis of`rr34rlanguage`rr34ris`rr34ractual`rr34rutterances.`rr52rTherefore`rr34rthe`rr34rdistinction`rr34rintroduced`rr34rby`rr34rde Saussure`rr20rbetween`rr20rlangue`rr20rand`rr20rparole,`rr20ror,`rr21rlater,`rr21rby`rr21rChomsky,`rr21rbetween`rr21r'competence'`a0,200 `rr1235r`08 `rd150r `2and`rr19r'performance'`rr19rwhich`rr19rreflects`rr19rthe`rr19rfundamental`rr19rdifference`rr19rbetween`rr19ra`rr19rsystem`rr19rand its`rr24ruse`rr24rcan`rr24rbe`rr24rapplied`rr24rto`rr24restablish`rr24rboth`rr24rthe`rr24rdifference`rr25rand`rr25rthe`rr25rrelation`rr25rbetween sentences and utterances. `rd50r `rr400rBut`rr29reach`rr29rof`rr29rthe`rr29rterms`rr29rcan`rr28rbe`rr28rused`rr28rto`rr28rrefer`rr28rto`rr28rdifferent`rr28rphenomena,`rr28rI`rr28rshall therefore try to disambiguate them in the first place. `rd50r `rr400rThus`rr34rthe`rr34rterm`rr34r'utterance',`rr34rin`rr34rone`rr34rsense,`rr41r`0'...may`rr41rrefer`rr41rto`rr42ra`rr42rpiece`rr42rof behaviour'`rr21r`2(Lyons,1977:26),`rr21rthat`rr21ris,`rr21rto`rr21rthe`rr21rprocess`rr21rof`rr21ruttering,`rr21rthe`rr21rproduct`rr21rof`rr20rthis behaviour`rr25rbeing`rr25ra`rr25rspeech`rr25ract.`rr44rIn`rr25rthe`rr25rsecond`rr25rsense,`rr26r'utterance'`rr26rmay`rr26rdenote`rr26rthe product`rr19rof`rr19rthat`rr19rbehaviour,`rr19ror`rr19rprocess,`rr19rin`rr19rthe`rr19rform`rr19rof`rr19rinscriptions,`rr19ri.e.,`rr19rsequences of symbols in some physical medium. `rd50r `rr400rAs`rr21rfor`rr21rthe`rr21rterm`rr21r'sentence',`rr21rit`rr21ris`rr21rdefined,`rr21rin`rr21rHurford`rr21r&`rr21rHeasley`rr21ras`rr28r`0'...a`rr28rstring of`rr28rwords`rr27rput`rr27rtogether`rr27rby`rr27rthe`rr27rgrammatical`rr27rrules`rr27rof`rr27ra`rr27rlanguage`rr27r[...,]`rr27rthe ideal`rr38rstring`rr39rof`rr39rwords`rr39rbehind`rr39rvarious`rr39rrealizations`rr39rin`rr39rutterances`rr39rand inscriptions`rr20r`2(1983:`rr20r16).`rr38rLyons`rr19rdraws`rr19ra`rr19rdistinction`rr19rbetween`rr19ra`rr19rmore`rr19rabtract`rr19rand`rr19ra more`rr22rconcrete`rr22rsense`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr22rterm.`rr40rThus,`rr22ron`rr22rone`rr22rhand,`rr22r'sentence'`rr22rmay`rr22rdenote`rr22rthe product`rr26rof`rr25ra`rr25rbit`rr25rof`rr25rlanguage`rr25rbehaviour,`rr25ra`rr25rsubclass`rr25rof`rr25rutterance-inscriptions,`rr25rthe segments`rr21rof`rr21rspeech`rr21r(1977:29;`rr21r1981:196),`rr21rand`rr21rbeing`rr21rsuch,`rr21rthey`rr21rcan`rr21rbe`rr22ruttered.`rr40rHe calls`rr27rthem`rr27r'text-sentences'.`rr45rOn`rr27rthe`rr27rother`rr27rhand,`rr26rhe`rr26ruses`rr26rthe`rr26rterm`rr26r'sentence'`rr26rto refer`rr41rto`rr48r`0'abstract`rr49rtheoretical`rr49rconstructs,`rr49rcorrelates`rr49rof`rr49rwhich`rr49rare generated`rr29rby`rr29rthe`rr29rlinguist's`rr29rmodel`rr29rof`rr29rthe`rr29rlanguage...'`rr22r`2(1977:622)`rr22rThey`rr21rare used`rr24rby`rr24rthe`rr24rlinguist`rr24rin`rr25rorder`rr25rto`rr25raccount`rr25rfor`rr32r`0'...acknowledged`rr32rgrammaticality of`rr41rcertain`rr41rpotential`rr41rutterances`rr41rand`rr41rthe`rr40rungrammaticality`rr40rof`rr40rothers' `2(Lyons,1981:196);`rr19rLyons`rr19rcalls`rr19rthem`rr20rsystem-sentences.`rr38rAs`rr20rsuch,`rr20rthey`rr20rare`rr20rmaximum units`rr57rof`rr57rgrammatical`rr57rdescription.`rr75rChomsky's`rr57rgrammar,`rr57rthen,`rr56rgenerates system-sentences. `rd50r `rr400rIn`rr27rthis`rr27rwork,`rr27rI`rr27rshall`rr27ruse,`rr27respecially`rr27rthe`rr27rterm`rr27r'sentence'`rr27rin`rr27rboth`rr27rthe`rr28rsense`rr28rof system-sentences`rr39rand`rr39rtext-sentences,`rr39rbut`rr39rthis`rr39rtype-token`rr38rdistinction`rr38rshould nevertheless be borne in mind throughout. `rd50r `rr400rI`rr21rshall`rr21rnow`rr21rprocede`rr21rto`rr21rdiscuss`rr21ra`rr22rfew`rr22raspects`rr22rof`rr22ranalysis`rr22rat`rr22rthe`rr22rsentence`rr22rlevel, considering`rr20respecially`rr20rword`rr20rorder.`rr38rSome`rr19rdifferent`rr19rapproaches`rr19rwill`rr19rbe`rr19rlooked`rr19rat,`rr19rin search`rr21rfor`rr21ran`rr21roptimal`rr21rand,`rr21rhopefully,`rr21rthe`rr21rmost`rr21radequate`rr21rway`rr21rof`rr21rtreatment`rr21rof`rr21rboth inflectional`rr37rlanguages`rr37ras`rr37rwell`rr37ras,`rr37rto some extent, configurational languages. Undoubtedly,`rr26ran`rr26radequate`rr26rgrammatical`rr26rdescription`rr26ris`rr27ra`rr27rprerequisite`rr27rfor`rr27rwork`rr27ron computational analysis of natural language. `rd100r `34.1. Word Order and Grammaticality. `rd100r `rr400r`2From`rr37rthe`rr37rpoint`rr37rof view of formal, structural well-formedness of complex expressions, the following requirements must be fulfilled: `rd50r 1. formal (syntactic/relational) ability of co-occurrence `rd50r 2. linear order of the expressions (Topolinska, 1984). `rd50r `rr400rIn`rr22rPolish,`rr22rgrammatical`rr22rincorrectness`rr22rfollows`rr22rfrom`rr22rthe`rr22rnot`rr23robserving`rr23rof`rr23rrules`rr23rof co-occurrence`rr21r(distribution)`rr20rof`rr20rgrammatical`rr20rforms;`rr20rwhen`rr20rlinear`rr20rorder`rr20rhas`rr20rnot`rr20rbeen observed,`rr24rthe`rr24rsentence`rr25ris`rr25rnot`rr25rungrammatical;`rr25rthis`rr25ris`rr25rnot`rr25rthe`rr25rcase`rr25rin`rr25rEnglish.`rr43rIt seems`rr26rthat`rr25rin`rr25rfixed`rr25rword`rr25rorder`rr25rlanguages,`rr25rthe`rr25rposition`rr25rof`rr25rthe`rr25rexpression`rr25rin`rr25rthe linear`rr23rsequence`rr23rdepends`rr23rsolely`rr23ron`rr24rits`rr24rformal`rr24r(syntactic)`rr24rproperties.`rr42rIn`rr24rfree`rr24rword order`rr19rlanguages,`rr19rthe`rr19rposition`rr19rusually`rr19rdoes`rr19rnot`rr19rviolate`rr19rthe`rr19rrules`rr19rof`rr19rlinear order, and the`rr23rfinal`rr24rordering`rr24rdepends`rr24ron`rr24rthe`rr24rtheme-rheme`rr24rformation`rr24rrules.`rr42rNevertheless,`rr24ra certain`rr30rnumber`rr30rof`rr30rlinear`rr30rorder`rr30rrules`rr30ris`rr30rsubordinated`rr30rto`rr30rthe`rr30rrules`rr29rof`rr29rstructural formation`rr29rand`rr29rcannot`rr29rbe`rr29rformulated`rr29rindependently.`rr48rThus`rr29rtwo`rr29rof`rr29rthe`rr30rfollowing`a0,200 `rr1235r`09 `rd150r `2sentences have the wrong linear order: `rd50r (a) *`rr34r`8Sie Jana spodziewam. `rd50r `2(a')`rr34r`8Spodziewam sie Jana. `rr440r`2'I'm expecting Jan' `rd50r (b) *`rr34r`8Piotr na patrzy`rr112rmnie. `rr510r`2('Peter' 'at' 'is looking' 'me') `rd50r (b')`rr34r`8Piotr patrzy`rr96rna mnie. `rr475r`2('Peter' 'is looking' 'at' 'me' `rr440r'Peter is looking at me' `rd50r but they are interpretable semantically. `rd50r Now, the first of these sentences is grammatically incorrect: `rd50r (c) *`rr34r`8Nasze idziemy`rr192rdo kina. `rr455r`2'our' 'go'`rr43r`0[pl,1st pers]`rr43r`2'to' 'cinema' `rd50r (c')`rr34r`8My idziemy do kina `rr440r`2'We are going to the cinema' `rd50r The second of these, in turn, is ill-formed semantically: `rd50r (e)`rr52r`8Kot`rr112rpije`rr112rmleko. `rr440r`2'the cat is drinking the milk' `rd50r (e') *`rr34r`8Radosc`rr80rpije`rr144rodwage. `rr440r`2'the joy' 'is drinking' 'the courage' `rd50r `rr400rThese`rr38rthree`rr37rsets`rr37rof`rr37rrules,`rr37ri.e.,`rr37rsemantic`rr37rstructure`rr37rformation`rr37rrules,`rr37rformal (syntactic) structure formation rules and linear word order rules are`rr19rto`rr19rsome`rr19rextent autonomous,`rr22rsince`rr22rone`rr22rcan`rr22rform`rr22rsentences`rr22rthat`rr22rviolate`rr22rjust`rr22rone`rr22rset`rr22rof`rr22rrules.`rr40rAll three are, however, required to produce fully grammatical sentences. `rd100r `34.2. Word Order and Configurationality. `rd100r `rr400r`2As`rr19rit`rr20rhas`rr20rjust`rr20rbeen`rr20robserved,`rr20rPolish`rr20rand`rr20rEnglish`rr20rdiffer`rr20rfrom`rr20reach`rr20rother`rr20rin`rr20rterms of`rr25rthe`rr25rfreedom`rr25rwith`rr24rwhich`rr24rconstituents`rr24rmay`rr24rbe`rr24rrearranged`rr24rwithin`rr24rphrases.`rr43rThis general`rr30rdifference`rr30rhas`rr30rformed`rr31rthe`rr31rbasis`rr31rof`rr31ra`rr31rtraditional`rr31rtypological`rr31rdistinction between`rr69r'free-word-order'`rr68rlanguages`rr68rsuch`rr68ras`rr68rPolish`rr68ror`rr68rLatin`rr68rand 'fixed-word-order'`rr32rlanguages`rr32rsuch`rr32ras`rr32rEnglish.`rr51rThe`rr32rtheory`rr32rof`rr32rgrammar`rr33rshould account`rr28rfor`rr28rthis`rr28rvariation`rr28rin`rr28rterms`rr27rof`rr27rspecific`rr27rparameters`rr27rembedded`rr27rwithin`rr27rthe deductive`rr23rstructure`rr23rof`rr23rthe`rr23rtheory,`rr23rso`rr23rthat`rr23rthe`rr23rcontrast`rr23rbetween`rr24r'free-word-order' and`rr29r'fixed-word-order'`rr29rcan`rr29rbe`rr29rtraced`rr29rto`rr29rbe`rr28rthe`rr28roptions`rr28rexercised`rr28rby`rr28rparticular grammars, possibly at the points specified by Universal Grammar (Stowell: 1). `rd50r `rr400rWithin`rr32rthe`rr32rscientific`rr32rtradition`rr32rof`rr32rgenerative`rr32rgrammar,`rr33rit`rr33rhas`rr33rgenerally`rr33rbeen assumed`rr26rthat`rr26rfixed`rr26rconstituent`rr26rorder`rr26ris`rr25rdetermined`rr25rprimarily`rr25rby`rr25rthe`rr25rformulae`rr25rof context-free`rr22rrewrite`rr22rrules`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr22rcategorial`rr22rcomponent`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr22rbase.`rr40rEach`rr22rPS`rr22rrule defines`rr21rthe`rr21rinternal`rr21rstructure`rr21rof`rr20ra`rr20rparticular`rr20rtype`rr20rof`rr20rconstituent,`rr20rspecifying`rr20rthe`rr20rset of constituents which it immediately dominates`rr19rand`rr19rthe`rr19rlinear`rr19rorder`rr19rin`rr19rwhich`rr19rthese constituents`rr24rappear.`rr42rFor`rr24rinstance,`rr24rhere`rr24ris`rr24ra`rr24rsimplified`rr23rversion`rr23rof`rr23rthe`rr23rPS`rr23rrule`rr23rfor VP: `rd50r `rr385rVP --> V (NP) (PRT) (NP) (PP) (PP) (S')`a0,200 `rr1225r`010 `rd150r `2The`rr27rcategorial`rr27rrule`rr27rsystem`rr27ris`rr27rsupposed`rr28rto`rr28rbe`rr28rresponsible`rr28rfor`rr28rconstituent`rr28rorder within`rr22rphrases`rr22r-`rr22rincluding`rr22rsentences`rr22r(S/S')`rr22rand`rr22rphrases`rr22rprojected`rr22rfrom`rr22rthe`rr22rmajor lexical categories (NP,VP,PP, etc). `rd50r `rr400rThe`rr33rnotation`rr33rof`rr34rCF`rr34rrewrite`rr34rrules`rr34rassumed`rr34rin`rr34rmost`rr34rversions`rr34rof`rr34rGenerative Grammar`rr19r(and`rr19rboth`rr19rin`rr19rthe`rr19rAspects`rr19rmodel`rr19rand`rr19rin the GB framework) required that a fixed`rr19rconstituent`rr19rorder`rr19rbe`rr19restablished`rr19rfor`rr19reach`rr19rphrase`rr19rtype,`rr19rsince`rr19rthe`rr19rthe`rr19rsytem`rr20rof grammatical`rr43rrelations`rr43ris`rr43rdefined`rr43rstructurally.`rr61rConsequently,`rr42rfree-word-order languages`rr20rare`rr20rtreated`rr20rwithin`rr20rthese`rr21rtheories`rr21ras`rr21rbeing`rr21ridentical`rr21rto`rr21rfixed-word-order languages`rr23rat`rr23rthe`rr23rlevel`rr23rof`rr23rsyntax.`rr42rUsing`rr23rGB`rr23rterminology,`rr23rthe`rr23rright`rr23r(or`rr23rLF)`rr23rside`rr23rof the`rr27rgrammar`rr27ris`rr27ralso`rr27ridentical.`rr46rThe`rr27rdifference`rr27ris`rr27rin`rr27rthe`rr27rleft`rr27r(or`rr27rPF)`rr27rside`rr27rof`rr28rthe grammar. There, local optional transformations, called 'scrambling' rules operate to derive the observed surface word orders. Thus in`rr16r`8Aspects`rr18r`2, Chomsky writes `rd50r `0'In`rr30rgeneral,`rr30rthe`rr30rrules`rr30rof`rr30rstylistic`rr30rreordering`rr30rare`rr30rvery`rr30rdifferent`rr30rfrom the`rr27rgrammatical`rr27rtransformations,`rr28rwhich`rr28rare`rr28rso`rr28rmuch`rr28rmore`rr28rdeeply`rr28rembedded in`rr27rthe`rr27rgrammatical`rr27rsystem.`rr53rIt`rr27rmight,`rr27rin`rr27rfact,`rr27rbe`rr27rargued`rr27rthe`rr27rformer`rr27rare not so much rules of grammar as rules of performance...'`rr18r`2(1965: 127). `rd50r `rr400rThe`rr28rscrambling`rr28rtheory`rr28rseems`rr28rto`rr28rlose`rr28rsome`rr28rof`rr28rits`rr29rtheoretical`rr29rinterest`rr29rin`rr29rthe implementation,`rr19rwhen`rr19rone`rr19rnotices`rr19rthat`rr19rfew`rr19rreal`rr19rpredictions`rr19rare`rr19rmade`rr19rby`rr19rit.`rr38rWorse still,`rr20rit`rr20rpractically`rr20rtreats`rr20ras`rr20ra`rr20ras`rr20ra`rr20rmatter`rr20rof`rr20rstylistic`rr21rchoices`rr21ra`rr21rphenomenon`rr21rwhich seems,`rr34rin`rr34rmany`rr34rrelevant`rr34raspects,`rr34rstrictly`rr34rgrammatical`rr34r(cf.`rr53rGorna,`rr34r1976:`rr34r202; Newmeyer,`rr31r1980).`rr50rMoreover,`rr31rit`rr31raddresses`rr31rthe`rr32rproblem`rr32rof`rr32rword`rr32rorder`rr32rwithout providing`rr24rany`rr24rexplanation`rr24rfor`rr24rits`rr23runderlying`rr23rmechanisms.`rr42rThere`rr23ris`rr23ralso`rr23ra`rr23rrelated problem, termed by linguists as configurationality. `rd50r `rr400rIt`rr21rhas`rr21rbeen`rr21rsuggested`rr21rthat`rr21rthe`rr21rexplanation`rr21rof`rr21rconfigurationality`rr21rand`rr22rword`rr22rorder related`rr20rphenomena`rr20rmay`rr20rbe`rr20rfound`rr20rin`rr20rthe`rr20rX-bar`rr20rtheory`rr19rof`rr19rthe`rr19rcategorial`rr19rcomponent which,`rr30ramong`rr30rother`rr30rthings,`rr30roffers`rr30rus`rr30rtwo`rr30rdimensions:`rr30rcategory,`rr30rand`rr30r'type'`rr30r(or hierarchical`rr21rdepth),`rr21ralong`rr21rwhich`rr21rrules,`rr21rand`rr20rtherefore`rr20rlanguages,`rr20rmay`rr20rvary`rr20r(Hale:`rr20r3). The`rr22rdimension`rr22rof`rr22rhierarchical`rr22rdepth`rr22ris`rr22rprobably`rr22rthe`rr22rcentral`rr22rone`rr22rin`rr23rrelation`rr23rto`rr23rthe question`rr21rof`rr21rconfigurationality,`rr20rsince`rr20rit`rr20rpermits`rr20rphrase`rr20rmarkers`rr20rto`rr20rbe`rr20rrelatively`rr20r'flat' or relatively 'hierarchical'. Thus if we take the following set of rules: `rd50r (1) X" --> ...X'... (2) X' --> ...X ..., `rd50r two core linguistic types can be defined along this dimension: `rd50r (a)`rr24rtwo-bar`rr24rlanguages,`rr24ri.e.,`rr24rsuch`rr24rwhose`rr24rgrammars`rr24rutilize`rr24rthe`rr24rendocentric`rr24rPS`rr24rrule schemata (1) and (2); such languages may be termed configurational `rd50r (b)`rr21rone`rr21rbar`rr21rlanguages,`rr21rwhose`rr21rsole`rr21rendocentric`rr21rrule`rr21rschemata`rr21ris`rr20r(2);`rr20rthese`rr20rmay`rr20rbe termed nonconfigurational. `rd50r The`rr22rrespective`rr22rstructures`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr22rtwo`rr22rlanguage`rr22rtypes`rr22rwould`rr22rbe`rr23ras`rr23rfollows:`rr23r(a')`rr23rfor two-bar languages `rd50r `rr490rX" `rr475r/ `rr440rA"`rr90rX' `rr545r/ `rr510rX`rr108rB"`a0,200 `rr1225r`011 `rd150r `2(b') for one-bar languages `rd50r `rr490rX' `rr455r/ | `rr420r/ | `rr400rA' X`rr90rB' `rd50r (also cf. Cann, 1986: 28,30 for a similar approach). `rd50r `rr400rIndeed,`rr23rit`rr23rseems`rr23rthe`rr23rcase`rr23rfor`rr23rPolish`rr23rthat`rr23rwe`rr23ronly`rr23rneed`rr23rto`rr23rdistinguish`rr23rbetween two`rr19rlevels`rr19rin`rr19rthe`rr19rstructure`rr19rof`rr20rits`rr20rPS`rr20rrules:`rr20rthe`rr20r'lexical'`rr20r(X)`rr20rlevel`rr20r(i.e.,`rr20rone`rr20rwhere`rr20rthe 'head'`rr33rof`rr33rthe`rr33rphrase`rr33ris),`rr32rand`rr32rthe`rr32r'phrasal'`rr32r(XP)`rr32rlevel.`rr51rThe`rr32rdistribution`rr32rof`rr32rthe dependent`rr30rcategories`rr30rin`rr30rboth`rr30rtypes`rr30rof`rr30rlanguages`rr30rwill,`rr30ras`rr30ra`rr30rconsequence,`rr30ralso differ: `rd50r (a') for two-bar languages it might be like this `rd100r `rr700r`0XP `d`t140 / `rr525rSPEC(X') X' `rr775r/ `rr625rMOD(X') X' `rr850r/ `rr725rARG(X) X `rd50r `rr350r(b') and like this for one-bar level ones `rd50r XP `rr625r/ / | `rr575r/ / | `rr525r/ / | `rr350rSPEC(X) MOD(X) X ARG(X) `rd50r `d`t70 `2(The linear order is arbitrary). `rd100r `rr400rA`rr22rcommon`rr22rcharacteristics`rr22rof`rr22rconfigurational`rr22rlanguages,`rr22rnot`rr22ra`rr21rdefining`rr21rcriterion, but`rr23ra`rr23rfairly`rr24rconsistent`rr24rproperty`rr24rnonetheless,`rr24ris`rr24rrelative`rr24r'tightness'`rr24rof`rr24rgrammatical organization`rr22r-`rr22rin`rr21rparticular,`rr21ra`rr21rrelatively`rr21rstraightforward`rr21rand`rr21rconsistent`rr21rrelationship between`rr20rtheta-role`rr20rassignment`rr20rand`rr20rstructural`rr20rposition.`rr39rIn`rr20rshort,`rr20rin`rr21rconfigurational languages,`rr19rgrammatical`rr19rgrammatical`rr19rprinciples`rr19rare`rr19rtypically`rr19rarticulated`rr19rin`rr19rstructural terms;`rr31rthus`rr31rtheta-roles`rr32rare`rr32rassigned`rr32rto`rr32rstructurally`rr32rdefined`rr32rpositions.`rr50rIn`rr32rthis regard,`rr51rnon-configurational`rr51rlanguages`rr51rare`rr51rcharacterized`rr51rby`rr51rmuch`rr50rgreater 'looseness'`rr21rof`rr21rgrammatical`rr21rorganization.`rr40rHale`rr21r(op.`rr22rcit.)`rr22rsuggests`rr22rthat`rr22rthe`rr22rprinciple of`rr21rgovernment,`rr21rwhich`rr21ris`rr21rbehind`rr21rtheta-role`rr21rassignment,`rr21rbeing`rr21rentirely`rr21rderivative`rr21rof siterhood`rr20r(since`rr20rit`rr20ris`rr20ra`rr21rrelation`rr21rthat`rr21rholds`rr21rbetween`rr21rthe`rr21rhead`rr21rof`rr21ra`rr21rcategory`rr21rand`rr21rits immediate`rr23rsisters),`rr23rcan`rr23roperate`rr23ronly`rr23rin`rr23ra`rr23rstructure`rr23rlike`rr23r(a)`rr23rabove`rr23r-`rr23rthus`rr23rit`rr23r'clicks on'`rr19rin`rr19rtwo-bar`rr19rlanguages;`rr19rin`rr19ra`rr19r'flat'`rr19rstructure`rr19rlike`rr19r(b),`rr19rgovernment`rr19ras`rr19rdefined`rr19rabove cannot`rr21rserve`rr21rto`rr21rpartition`rr21ra`rr21rstructure`rr21rinto`rr20rdistinct`rr20rsub-phrasal`rr20rdomains`rr20r-`rr20rtherefore this principle 'shuts down' in one-bar languages (op. cit., p3). `rd50r `rr400rIn`rr26rconfigurational`rr26rlanguages,`rr26rprinciples`rr26rsuch`rr26ras`rr26rabstract`rr26rcase`rr27rassignment`rr27rand theta-role`rr52rassignment`rr52rare`rr52rdependent`rr52rupon`rr51rgovernment.`rr70rIn`rr51rcontrast,`rr51rin non-configurational`rr31rlanguages,`rr31rconfiguration`rr31ralone`rr31rcannot`rr31raccount`rr31rfor`rr32rdifferent case`rr31rand`rr31rtheta-role`rr30rassignment.`rr49rTherefore,`rr30rif`rr30ra`rr30rNC`rr30rlanguage`rr30ruses`rr30rcase,`rr30rit`rr30ris inherent case, not assigned one.`rr37rThus in`rr19rPolish,`rr19rfor`rr19rexample,`rr19rinherent`rr19rcase`rr19ris`rr19rcase associated`rr25rwith`rr25rnominal`rr25rexpressions`rr24rby`rr24rvirtue`rr24rof`rr24rthe`rr24rword-formation`rr24rcomponent alone.`rr37rAnd with respect to the notion of theta-positions (i.e., a position to`rr19rwhich`rr19ra theta-role is assigned, all positions are theta-positions in NC languages.`a0,200 `rr1225r`012 `rd150r `rr400r`2It`rr22rhas`rr22reven`rr22rbeen`rr22rsuggested`rr22rthat`rr22rfree`rr22rconstituent`rr22rorder`rr22rmay`rr22rbe`rr22rdue`rr22rto`rr22rthe`rr21rfact that the inclusion of`rr19ra`rr19rcomponent`rr19rof`rr19rPS`rr19rrules`rr19rin`rr19ra`rr19rparticular`rr19rgrammar`rr19ris`rr19rsubject`rr19rto parametric`rr29rvariation.`rr47rMore`rr28rspecifically,`rr28rone`rr28rcould`rr28rsuggest`rr28rthat`rr28rfree`rr28rconstituent order`rr26rin`rr27rlanguages`rr27rlike`rr27rLatin`rr27rfollows`rr27rfrom`rr27rthe`rr27rfact`rr27rthat`rr27rthe`rr27rgrammars`rr27rof`rr27rthese languages`rr22rlack`rr22rPS`rr22rrules`rr22rentirely.`rr40rAlthough`rr22rthese`rr22rlanguages`rr21rexhibit`rr21rcertain`rr21rlimited restrictions`rr48ron`rr49rconstituent`rr49rorder,`rr49rHale`rr49rproposes`rr49rthat`rr49rthese`rr49rfollow`rr49rfrom requirements imposed by interpretive rules - but they in fact lack PS rules. `rd50r `rr400rIt seems, however,`rr35rthat`rr35rconfigurational/nonconfigurational`rr35rdistinction`rr35rshould rather`rr22rbe`rr22rattributed`rr23rto`rr23rto`rr23rthe`rr23rpresence`rr23ror`rr23rabsence`rr23rof`rr23r'linear`rr23rprecedence'`rr23rrules`rr23rin particular`rr21rgrammars`rr21r(see`rr21rfor`rr21rexample`rr21rGazdar`rr21ret`rr21ral,`rr21r1985`rr21rfor`rr21ran`rr21relaboration`rr21ron`rr20rthe operation of LP rules in English).`rr37rThe role of these rules was`rr19ralso`rr19rillustrated`rr19rin`rr19rthe previous section. `rd50r `rr400rAll`rr24rof`rr24rthe`rr24rtheories`rr24rof`rr23rphrase`rr23rstructure`rr23rcited`rr23rabove`rr23rshare`rr23rone`rr23rassumption:`rr23rthat restrictions`rr23ron`rr23rconstituent`rr23rorder`rr23rin`rr23rconfigurational`rr23rlanguages`rr23rsuch`rr23ras`rr23rEnglish`rr23rare imposed`rr29rby`rr29rCF`rr29rrewrite`rr28rrules.`rr47rHowever,`rr28ra`rr28rdiferent`rr28rapproach`rr28rmay`rr28rbe`rr28rtaken:`rr28rwe could`rr20rassume`rr20rthat`rr20rthe`rr20rcomponent`rr20rof`rr21rcategorial`rr21rrules`rr21rsimply`rr21rdoes`rr21rnot`rr21rexist`rr21rin`rr21rany language;`rr61rall`rr61rlanguages`rr60rcould`rr60rthen`rr60rbe`rr60rtreated`rr60ras`rr60rbeing`rr60ressentially non-configurational,`rr38rfrom`rr38rthe`rr38rperspective`rr38rof`rr38rthe`rr38rtheory`rr39rof`rr39rphrase`rr39rstructure (Stowell,`rr33rp2).`rr51rIn`rr33rthis`rr33rapproach,`rr33rthe`rr33rbase`rr33rcomponent`rr33ris`rr33rcategory-neutral,`rr33rand certain`rr23rapparent`rr23rinstances`rr23rof`rr23rcategory-specific`rr23rproperties`rr23rof`rr23rphrase`rr23rstructure`rr24rare really due to the operation of a class of word-formation rules (op. cit., p.3). `rd50r `rr400rBut`rr19rif`rr19rthere`rr19rare`rr19rno`rr19rPS`rr19rrules,`rr19rthen`rr19rit`rr19ris`rr19rnot`rr19rclear`rr19rhow`rr19rto`rr19raccount`rr19rfor`rr19rthe`rr19rfact`rr19rthat constituent`rr25rscrambling`rr25ris`rr25rnormally`rr25rconstrained`rr25rso`rr25ras`rr25rnot`rr25rto`rr25rapply`rr25racross`rr26rclause boundaries,`rr21rsuggesting`rr21rthat`rr21reven`rr20rlanguages`rr20rwith`rr20rentirely`rr20rfree`rr20rword`rr20rorder`rr20rmaintain some`rr22rconstituent`rr22rstructure.`rr41rIn`rr22raddition,`rr23rcertain`rr23rrestrictions`rr23ron`rr23rdiscontinuous`rr23rNPs and`rr26rthe`rr25rplacement`rr25rof`rr25rthe`rr25rAux`rr25rreceive`rr25ra`rr25rnatural`rr25raccount`rr25rin`rr25rterms`rr25rof`rr25rconstituent structure. `rd50r `rr400rA`rr31rsolution`rr31rto`rr31rthese`rr31rproblems`rr31ris`rr31roffered`rr31rby`rr32rthe`rr32rtheory`rr32rof`rr32rJapanese`rr32rphrase structure`rr27rdeveloped`rr27rby`rr27rFarmer`rr27r(1980,`rr27rquoted`rr27rby`rr27rStowell,`rr27rop.`rr27rcit.).`rr45rHe`rr26rproposes that`rr22rthe`rr22rbase`rr22rcomponent`rr22rof`rr22rJapanese`rr22ris`rr22rcategory-neutral;`rr22rin`rr22rother`rr23rwords,`rr23rthe`rr23rPS rules`rr24rof`rr24rthe`rr24rlanguage`rr24rmay`rr24rrefer`rr24ronly`rr24rto`rr24rthe`rr24rprimitives`rr24rof`rr23rX-bar`rr23rtheory,`rr23rand`rr23rmay not`rr37rmake`rr37ruse`rr37rof`rr37rcategorial`rr37rfeatures.`rr56rFirst,`rr37rlexical`rr37rinsertion`rr38ris`rr38rcontext-free, abstracting`rr21raway`rr21rfrom`rr21rsubcategorization`rr20rrequirements,`rr20rsince`rr20rno`rr20rstructural`rr20rposition is`rr19rreserved`rr19rfor`rr19rany`rr19rspecific`rr19rcategory`rr19rby`rr19rthe`rr19rbase`rr19rrules;`rr19rthis`rr19rderives`rr19r'scrambling'`rr20ras an`rr23rautomatic`rr23rconsequence.`rr41rThere`rr23ris`rr23rno`rr22rredundancy`rr22rwith`rr22rstrict`rr22rsubcategorization, since`rr30rit`rr30ris`rr30rimpossible`rr30rfor`rr30rPS`rr30rrules`rr30rto`rr31rspecify`rr31rwhich`rr31rcategories`rr31rmay`rr31roccur`rr31ras complements`rr24rin`rr24rNP`rr24ror`rr24rVP.`rr42rBut`rr24rphrases`rr24rand`rr24rsentences`rr24rmust`rr23rstill`rr23rconform`rr23rto`rr23rthe hierarchical`rr22rstructure`rr22rdefined`rr23rby`rr23rthe`rr23rcategory-neutral`rr23rbase,`rr23rand`rr23rthe`rr23rcomplements of`rr28reach`rr28rverb`rr28rmust`rr28rappear`rr28rwithin`rr28rV'`rr28rin`rr28rorder`rr28rto`rr27rsatisfy`rr27rstrict`rr27rsubcategorization. Thus the integrity of clausal`rr19rstructure`rr19ris`rr19rmaintained,`rr19rand`rr19r'scrambling'`rr19racross`rr19rclause boundaries is ruled out.`rr37rFinally, phrasal nodes have no intrinsic categorial features, and`rr27rthey`rr27racquire`rr27ra`rr27rcategorial`rr27rindentity`rr27ronly`rr27rafter`rr28rlexical`rr28rinsertion`rr28rhas`rr28rplaced`rr28ra particular`rr21rlexical`rr21rcategory`rr21rin`rr21rthe`rr21rhead`rr21rposition`rr21rof`rr21ra`rr20rphrase.`rr39rHence`rr20rall`rr20rphrases`rr20rare of`rr24rnecessity`rr24rendocentric,`rr24rand`rr24rhierarchical`rr24rstructure`rr24ris`rr24rconstant`rr25racross`rr25rcategories (Stowell, op.cit.). `rd50r `rr400rBut`rr22rit`rr22ris`rr22rnot`rr22rclear`rr22rwhether`rr22rthis`rr22raccount,`rr22ras`rr22rits`rr22rconsequence,`rr22rpostulates`rr22rthat`rr21rall phrases`rr22rhave`rr22ra`rr22rparallel`rr22rstructure`rr23r-`rr23rit`rr23rseems`rr23rthat`rr23rthey`rr23rhave`rr23rnot`rr23r(cf.`rr41rCann,`rr23r1986): each`rr29rmajor`rr29rphrase`rr29rtype`rr29rhas`rr29rnumerous`rr29ridiosyncratic`rr29rproperties,`rr29rsuggesting`rr29rthat category-specific`rr19rPS`rr19rrules`rr19rare`rr19rrequired`rr19rfor`rr19reach`rr19rcategory,`rr19reven`rr19rgiven`rr20rX-bar`rr20rtheory (suffice`rr25rto`rr25rcompare`rr25rnoun`rr25rphrases`rr25rand`rr25radjectival`rr25ror`rr24radverbial`rr24rphrases).`rr43rIt`rr24rseems that`rr27rcertain`rr27raspects`rr27rof`rr28rconstituent`rr28rstructure`rr28rmust`rr28rbe`rr28raccounted`rr28rfor`rr28rdirectly`rr28rby rules`rr20rwhich`rr20rdetermine`rr20rhierarchical`rr20rPS`rr20rconfigurations.`rr38rOne`rr20rof`rr19rsuch`rr19rPS`rr19rrules`rr19rthat`rr19ris required`rr29ris`rr29rone`rr29rthat`rr30rorders`rr30rthe`rr30rhead`rr30rterm`rr30rX`rr30rof`rr30ra`rr30rphrase`rr30rXP`rr30rat`rr30rthe`rr30rright/left boundary`rr23rof`rr23ra`rr23rlevel.`rr41rThis`rr23rholds`rr23rconstant`rr23racross`rr23rall`rr23rmajor`rr22rcategories:`rr22rNP,`rr22rAP,`rr22rVP, PP.`a0,200 `rr1225r`013 `rd150r `rr400r`2However,`rr45rcategory-neutral`rr45rPS`rr45rrules`rr45rcan`rr45rdefine`rr45rpositions`rr46rfor`rr46rthe`rr46rhead, complements,`rr21ri.e.,`rr20rthe`rr20rhierarchical`rr20rstructure`rr20rof`rr20rphrases;`rr20rtheta-role`rr20rtheory`rr20rand`rr20rcase would`rr21rthen`rr22rcombine`rr22rto`rr22raccount`rr22rfor`rr22rthe`rr22rdistribution`rr22rand`rr22rordering`rr22rof`rr22rvarious`rr22rtypes of`rr27rarguments`rr27rat`rr27reach`rr27rX-bar`rr27rlevel;`rr27rthe`rr27rrest`rr27rcould`rr27rbe`rr27rdealt`rr27rwith`rr27rin`rr27ran`rr27rextended component`rr29rof`rr29rword-formation`rr29rrules`rr29r-`rr29rthis`rr30ris`rr30rexactly`rr30rthe`rr30rposition`rr30rthat`rr30rStowell takes`rr22r(op.`rr22rcit.,);`rr22ra`rr22rsimilar`rr22rconclusion`rr22rin`rr22rmany`rr21rrespects`rr21rseems`rr21rto`rr21rfollow`rr21rfrom`rr21rCann (op.`rr30rcit.),`rr30rand`rr30rthis`rr30rseems`rr30rindeed`rr31ra`rr31rvery`rr31rattractive`rr31rapproach`rr31rto`rr31rme.`rr49rThus`rr31rthe properties`rr24rof`rr24rPS`rr24rrules`rr24rrelating`rr24rto`rr24rthe`rr24rhierarchical`rr24rand`rr24rlinear`rr24rordering`rr23rturn`rr23rout`rr23rto follow from the interaction of a number of distinct components of grammar. `rd50r `rr400rTo`rr20rillustrate`rr20rthe`rr20reffects`rr20rof`rr20rthe`rr20rinteraction`rr20rof`rr21rthe`rr21rhierarchical`rr21rstructure`rr21rrules`rr21rand other`rr22rcomponents`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr22rgrammar,`rr22rlet`rr22rus`rr22rhave`rr22ra`rr22rlook`rr21rat`rr21ra`rr21rnoun`rr21rphrase`rr21rin`rr21rPolish, eg. `rd50r ta moja stara skrzynka z drewna ('this my old box of wood') `rd50r (Appendix 2: fig. 2.21, p. 2-11). `rd50r Instead of a tree diagram, we could contruct something like a 'hierarchical'`rr19rdiagram or`rr32r'slot'`rr32rdiagram,`rr32ri.e.,`rr31rsuch`rr31rwhere`rr31reach`rr31rcategory`rr31rfills`rr31rin`rr31ra`rr31rcertain`rr31rslot`rr31rin`rr31rthe structure`rr30rof`rr30ra`rr30rphrase.`rr48rThus`rr30rfor`rr30rour`rr30rnoun`rr30rphrase,`rr30rthe`rr30rdiagram`rr30rwould`rr30rlook`rr30ras follows: `rd100r `rr1150r`0NP `rr1175r| `rr375r* <-* <------------------------Nspec `d`t75 | |`rr675r| | | * <-------------------Nmod | | |`rr550r| | | |`rr175r* <-----------Nhead | | |`rr175r|`rr350r| | | |`rr175r|`rr150r* <----Ncomp | | |`rr175r|`rr125r_|_ | | |`rr175r| | | `rr350rta moja stara skrzynka z drewna `rd50r `d`t70 `2If`rr19reach`rr19rconstituent`rr19ris`rr19rassigned`rr19rsome value which would indicate the place where it it`rr21rbelongs`rr21rin`rr22rthe`rr22rconstruction,`rr22rand`rr22rthe`rr22rsemantic`rr22rinterpretation`rr22ris`rr22rcompositional`rr22rin the`rr23rsense`rr23rof`rr23rMontague`rr23r(eg.`rr23ras`rr23rin`rr23rDowty,`rr23r1982`rr23ror`rr23rCann,`rr23r1986),`rr23rit`rr22rfollows`rr22rthat`rr22rthe correct interpretation`rr19rof`rr19rthe`rr19rphrase`rr19rwould`rr19rbe`rr19rmade`rr19rirrespective`rr19rof`rr19rthe`rr19rorder`rr19rof`rr19rthe constituents`rr28rin`rr28rthe`rr28rphrase`rr28r(up`rr28rto`rr28rthe`rr28rlevel`rr28rof`rr28rambiguity,`rr28rthat`rr28ris);`rr27rso`rr27rthe`rr27rorder might also well be like this `rd50r `rr1150r`0NP `d`t230 | `rr375r* <---- * ------------------ Nsp `d`t75 |`rr200r|`rr525r| | * <- | ------------------- Nm | | |`rr525r| | | |`rr375r* <--Nh | | |`rr375r|`rr125r| | | |`rr125r* <----- | <---Nc | | | _|_`rr200r| | | | | |`rr175r| `rr350rta stara moja z drewna skrzynka `rd50r `d`t70 `2This`rr20rkind`rr20rof`rr20rinterpretation`rr20rof`rr20reach`rr20rconstituent`rr20rcould`rr20rbe`rr20rmade`rr20rpossible`rr21rirrespective of`rr29rthe`rr29rposition`rr28rof`rr28rthe`rr28rconstituent`rr28reven`rr28rwithin`rr28ra`rr28rlarger`rr28rconstruction,`rr28rup`rr28rto`rr28rthe sentence`rr31rlevel.`rr50rA`rr31rcorresponding`rr31rtraditional`rr31rtree-structure`rr31rdiagram`rr32rwould`rr32rthen`a0,200 `rr1225r`014 `rd150r `2have 'crossing' branches - and I do not see any reason why it should not have. `rd50r `rr400rThere`rr24rare`rr24rseveral`rr24rconsequences`rr24rof`rr24rthis`rr23rphenomenon,`rr23rand`rr23rthey`rr23rdo`rr23rseem`rr23rto`rr23rbe present in`rr19rlanguages.`rr37rThus,`rr19rfor`rr19rinstance,`rr19rin`rr19ra`rr19rnon-configurational`rr19rlanguage,`rr19ra`rr19rverb must`rr24rsubcategorize`rr24rfor`rr24rlexical`rr24rcase`rr24r(i.e.,`rr24rit`rr23rgoverns`rr23ra`rr23rNP`rr23rin`rr23ra`rr23rparticular`rr23rcase,`rr23reg. for verb`rr16r`8czytac`rr18r`2('to read') in Polish, the subject noun must`rr19rbe`rr19rin`rr19rNominative`rr19rand`rr19rthe object`rr24rnoun`rr24rin`rr24rAccusative`rr24r-`rr24rsee`rr24rApp.`rr24r2,`rr24rdiagrams`rr24r2.22`rr24rand`rr24r2.23).`rr42rIn`rr23rcontrast,`rr23rin English, the adjacency condition would be responsible for imposing a fixed order`rr19rof components,`rr41rsince`rr40ralmost`rr40rno`rr40rlexical`rr40rcase`rr40rmarking`rr40rexists.`rr59rObviously,`rr40rin`rr40ra free-word-order`rr24rlanguage,`rr24rit`rr24rwould`rr24rbe`rr25rnecessary`rr25rfor`rr25rNPs`rr25rto`rr25rbear`rr25rcase`rr25rmarkings when`rr25rthere`rr25rare`rr24rseveral`rr24rNP`rr24rcomplements.`rr43rBut`rr24rthis`rr24rdoes`rr24rnot`rr24rentail`rr24rindiscriminate free`rr28rconstituent`rr28rorder`rr28rin`rr28rthese`rr28rlanguages.`rr47rThus`rr28rprepositions`rr28rand`rr28rpostpositions normally`rr21roccur`rr21rwith`rr21rjust`rr21ra`rr21rsingle`rr21rNP.`rr39rAlso`rr21rthe`rr20radverb `8bardzo`rr20r`2('very')`rr20rin`rr20rthe`rr20rphrase `8bardzo`rr19rdobra`rr19rskrzynka`rr21r`2('a`rr21rvery`rr21rgood`rr21rbox')`rr21rwould`rr21rusually`rr21roccur`rr21rnext`rr21rto`rr21rthe`rr22radjective - possibly because adverbs have no case marking in Polish! `rd50r `rr400rTo`rr31rsummarise,`rr31ra`rr31rnon-configurational`rr31rlanguage`rr31rdiffers`rr31rfrom`rr31ra`rr31rconfigurational language`rr38rin`rr38rthat`rr38rmorphological`rr38rform`rr39r(eg.`rr39raffixes),`rr39rrather`rr39rthan`rr39rposition`rr39r(i.e., configuration),`rr19rindicates`rr19rwhich`rr19rwords`rr19rare`rr19rsyntactically`rr19rconnected`rr19rto`rr19reach`rr19rother.`rr38rIn English, the grammatical, and hence semantic, relationships are indicated`rr19rin`rr19rsurface form`rr38rby`rr38rthe`rr38rposition`rr38rof`rr38rwords,`rr38rand`rr38rchanging`rr38rthese`rr38rpositions`rr38rchanges`rr37rthe relationships,`rr31rand`rr31rhence`rr31rthe`rr31rmeaning.`rr50rIn`rr31rcontrast,`rr31rin`rr31rPolish,`rr32rthe`rr32rrelationships bewteen`rr24rwords`rr23rare`rr23rindicated`rr23rby`rr23rthe`rr23raffixes`rr23ron`rr23rthe`rr23rvarious`rr23rnouns,`rr23rand`rr23rto`rr23rchange the relationships, one would have to change the affixes. `rd50r `rr400rIt`rr21rseems`rr21rthen,`rr21rthat`rr22rin`rr22rthese`rr22rlanguages`rr22rmorphological`rr22rform`rr22rplays`rr22rthe`rr22rsame`rr22rrole that`rr22rword`rr22rorder`rr22rdoes`rr22rin`rr22ra`rr22rconfigurational`rr21rlanguage`rr21r(English,`rr21rfor`rr21rexample).`rr40rThis`rr21ris why,`rr23rI`rr23rthink,`rr24rit`rr24ris`rr24rmore`rr24rappropriate`rr24rto`rr24rterm`rr24rPolish`rr24ras`rr24ran`rr24rinflectional`rr24rlanguage,`rr24rin opposition`rr26rto`rr26ra`rr26rconfigurational`rr26rlanguage`rr25rlike`rr25rEnglish.`rr44rObviously`rr25rthis`rr25ra`rr25rtendency rather`rr26rthan`rr26ran`rr26rabsolute,`rr26rand`rr26rcertain`rr26relements`rr27rof`rr27rboth`rr27rtypes`rr27rwould`rr27rbe`rr27rfound`rr27rin both`rr19rlanguages`rr19r(i.e.,`rr19rsome`rr19rinformation`rr19rabout grammatical relations can be obtained either`rr22rthrough`rr22rword`rr22rorder`rr22ror`rr22rmorphology),`rr22rbut`rr22rit`rr23ris`rr23ra`rr23rtendency`rr23rstrong`rr23renough`rr23rto make`rr29ra`rr29rclear`rr28rdistinction,`rr28respecially`rr28rwhen`rr28rtwo`rr28rgiven`rr28rlanguages`rr28rare`rr28ron`rr28rdifferent ends along a given parameter. `rd100r `34.3. Theme-Rheme Structure (Functional Sentence Perspective). `rd100r `rr400r`2I shall now discuss a few aspects`rr19rof`rr19rthe`rr19rFunctional`rr19rSentence`rr19rPerspective`rr19rtheory, developed`rr25rby`rr25rPrague`rr25rSchool`rr25rlinguists,`rr25rsuch`rr25ras`rr25rMathesius`rr24rand`rr24rFirbas,`rr24rin`rr24rorder`rr24rto see how it might account for certain word order phenomena in Polish. `rd50r `rr400rThe`rr23rsemantic`rr23r(communicative)`rr23rstructure`rr23rof`rr23ra`rr24rsentence`rr24rrequires`rr24rthat`rr24rthe`rr24robject or`rr22ra`rr22rset`rr22rof`rr22robject`rr22rtalked`rr22rabout`rr22rand`rr22rinformation`rr22rgiven`rr22rabout`rr22rit`rr22rto`rr22rbe`rr22rindicated.`rr40rA sentence`rr35ris`rr35rthen`rr35rsaid`rr35rto`rr35rbe composed of theme and rheme (or topic and comment),`rr24rin`rr24rother`rr24rwords,`rr24rit`rr24rhas`rr23ra`rr23rtheme-rheme`rr23rstructure,`rr23ralso`rr23rcalled`rr23rfunctional sentence perspective (Topolinska, 1984: 31). `rd50r `rr400rThere`rr32ris`rr32ra`rr32rnoticeable`rr32rconnection`rr32rbetween`rr33rthe`rr33rdefinition`rr33rof`rr33rtheme`rr33rand`rr33rthe semantico-syntactic`rr31rdefinition`rr31rof`rr30rargument,`rr30rand`rr30ralso`rr30rbetween`rr30rthe`rr30rdefinition`rr30rof rheme`rr19rand`rr19rthe`rr19rdefinition`rr19rof`rr19rpredicate.`rr38rNamely,`rr19rin`rr19relementary`rr20rsentences`rr20rcomposed of`rr45rone-argument`rr45rpredicate`rr45rand`rr44rin`rr44rderived`rr44rsentences`rr44rwith`rr44rmulti-argument predicates`rr27rused`rr27rwith`rr28rone`rr28rargument`rr28ras`rr28ra`rr28rresult`rr28rof`rr28runfilling`rr28rthe`rr28rother`rr28rargument positions, there is a one-to-one correspondence`rr35rbetween`rr35rthe`rr35rargument`rr35rand theme, and the predicate and rheme, as in: `rd50r theme: argument / rheme: predicate`a0,200 `rr1225r`015 `rd150r `8Jan / czyta, `rr455r`2'is reading' `rd50r `8Piotr / jest zonaty. `rr475r'is married' `rd50r `rr400r`2A`rr48rmore`rr48rcomplicated`rr49rsituation`rr49ris`rr49rfound`rr49rin`rr49relementary`rr49rsentences`rr49rwith multi-argument predicates - any argument may be the theme.`rr55rMost often, however,`rr31rthere`rr31ris`rr31rjust`rr31rone`rr31rtheme`rr31reven`rr31rwhere`rr31rseveral`rr31rarguments`rr31rare`rr32rpresent. Rarely,`rr48rallarguments`rr47rmay`rr47rjointly`rr47rconstitute`rr47rthe`rr47r(complex)`rr47rtheme.`rr66rSpecial constructions are used in Polish, like `8jezeli chodzi o ... , to... co do .... , to ... `2'as concerns ..., ... ', `rd50r more rarely the change of the order (permutation) of arguments is involved: `rd50r `8Jezeli chodzi o Piotra i Anne, to on sie z nia ozenil. Co do Piotra i Anny, to on sie z nia ozenil. `2'Peter and Ann got married' `rd50r The`rr29rcomplex`rr29rtheme`rr29rin`rr29rthe`rr29rabove`rr29rsentences`rr29ris`rr29rrepresented`rr29rby`rr29rthe`rr29rexpressions `8'Piotr i Anna'`rr18r`2. `rd50r `rr400rIn`rr20rsentences`rr20rwith`rr20rmulti-argument`rr20rpredicates`rr20rwhich`rr20rhave`rr20rone`rr20rsimple`rr20rtheme,`rr20rany of`rr30rthe`rr30rarguments,`rr30rregardless`rr31rof`rr31rits`rr31rform,`rr31rmay`rr31rbe`rr31rchosen`rr31rto`rr31rserve`rr31ras`rr31rtheme, depending`rr25rof`rr25rthe`rr25rcommunicative`rr25rintention`rr25rof`rr25rthe`rr25rspeaker.`rr43rOn`rr25rthe`rr25rsurface,`rr24rthen, theme`rr20rdoes`rr20rnot`rr20rhave`rr20rto`rr20rbe`rr21ralways`rr21rrepresented`rr21rby`rr21ra`rr21rnoun`rr21rin`rr21rthe`rr21rnominative`rr21rcase, although`rr22rin`rr22rutterances`rr22rwhich`rr22rare`rr22rnot`rr22rclosely`rr22rinterrelated`rr22rin`rr22ra`rr22rbroader`rr21rcontext`rr21rthe noun`rr21rin`rr21rthe`rr21rNominative`rr22rwould`rr22rusually`rr22rfulfil`rr22rthe`rr22rfunction`rr22rof`rr22rtheme,`rr22rhere`rr22rare`rr22ra`rr22rfew examples: `rd50r `8Piotr / ozenil sie z Anna. `2'Peter got maried to Ann' `rd50r `8Z Anna / ozenil sie Piotr. `rd47r Piotr / kocha Anne. `2'Peter loves Ann' `rd50r `8Anne / kocha Piotr. `rd50r `2(English`rr29rtranslations`rr29rfor`rr29rthe`rr29rsecond`rr29rof`rr29reach`rr29rsentences`rr29rmight`rr29rbe`rr29rthe`rr28rso`rr28rcalled 'topicalized' constrution: `rd50r It was Ann that Peter married. It is Ann that Peter loves.) `rd50r In all of the above sentences, theme is always represented by the first noun. `rd50r `rr400rSentences`rr28rwith`rr28rtheme`rr28rexpressed`rr28rby`rr29rnouns`rr29rin`rr29rthe`rr29rnominative,`rr29roccupying`rr29rthe initial`rr19rposition,`rr19rare`rr19rthe`rr19rmost`rr19rnatural constructions, functioning independently of the context.`rr63rThey`rr45rare`rr45rregarded`rr45ras`rr45runmarked,`rr45ror`rr45rneutral,`rr45rin`rr45rrespect`rr45rto`rr45rthe theme-rheme`rr32rordering`rr32rof`rr32rtheir`rr32relements,`rr31rin`rr31rother`rr31rwords,`rr31rthey`rr31rhave`rr31ra`rr31rneutral functional perspective. `rd50r `rr400rIn`rr19rturn,`rr19rexpressions`rr19rwith`rr19rthe`rr19rsame`rr19rpredicates`rr19rbut`rr19rin`rr19rwhich`rr19rtheme`rr19ris`rr20rrepresented by`rr23ra`rr23rnon-nominative`rr23rform`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr22rnoun,`rr22rare`rr22rregarded`rr22ras`rr22rmarked,`rr22rand`rr22rthey`rr22rusually function in a more general context.`a0,200 `rr1225r`016 `rd150r `rr400r`2The`rr21rchoice`rr21rof`rr21rone`rr21rargument`rr21ras`rr21rtheme`rr21rmeans`rr22rinvariably`rr22rthe`rr22rshift`rr22rof`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr22rrest of`rr19rthe`rr19rarguments`rr19rto`rr19rthe`rr19rrheme`rr19rposition`rr19rin the sentence.`rr37rRheme is then a complex structure resulting from`rr19rthe`rr19rabsorbtion`rr19rby`rr19rthe`rr19rpredicate`rr19rsome`rr19rof`rr19rthe`rr19rarguments;`rr19rin other`rr25rwords,`rr25rthe`rr25rprdicate`rr25rhas`rr25rthe`rr25rabiblity`rr25rto`rr25rorder`rr25r(or`rr25rhierarchize)`rr25rdifferently`rr25rits arguments`rr19r-`rr19rthey`rr19rhave`rr19rthe`rr19rability`rr19rto`rr20rcreate`rr20rdifferent`rr20rtheme-rheme`rr20rstructures,`rr20rwith unmarked (neutral) or marked orders. `rd100r `rr400rIt`rr20rfollows`rr20rthen,`rr20rthat`rr20rpredicate-argument`rr20rconstructions`rr20rare`rr20rnot`rr20rordered`rr20rin`rr19rPolish; they`rr22rare`rr22rjust`rr22rdifferentiated`rr22raccording`rr22rto`rr22rtheir`rr22rpredicates.`rr40rThus`rr22rthe`rr22rfirst`rr22rargument (x)`rr21rin`rr28r`0ma(x,y)`rr21r`2('has(x,y)')`rr20rwill`rr20rhave`rr20ra`rr20rnoun`rr20rin`rr20rnominative,`rr20ror`rr20rnon-nominative`rr20rforms in`rr22rits`rr22rconverses`rr22r(cf.`rr41rTopolinska,`rr22r1984),`rr23ri.e.,`rr30r`0nalezy_do(x,y)`rr23r`2('belongs_to(x,y)'),`rr23rfor example. `rd100r `rr400rHere`rr20rare`rr20rsome`rr19rexamples`rr19rof`rr19rsentence`rr19r(i.e.,`rr19rtheme-rheme)`rr19rstructures`rr19rfor`rr19rsentence 'Peter`rr19ris`rr19rgetting`rr19rmarried`rr19rto`rr20rAnn',`rr20r(the`rr20roriginal`rr20rPrague`rr20rSchool`rr20rterminology`rr20rhas`rr20rbeen preserved): `rd50r 1.`rr32r`8Piotr z Anna / sie zeni`rr18r`2('Peter' 'to Ann' / 'is getting married') `rd50r , `rr800r`0S `rr775r/ `rr725r/ `rr675r/ `rr625r/`rr300rTLD `rr575r/`rr300r/ / `rr525r/`rr275r/ / `rr475r/`rr275r/ / `rr450rM(od)`rr150rT(im) L(oc) D(ictum) `rr475r/`rr250r/`rr125r/`rr150r/ `rr450r/`rr225r/`rr150r/`rr125r/ `rr425r/`rr225r/`rr150r/`rr125rTm`rr325rRm `rr400r/`rr200r/`rr175r/`rr125r/ `rr375r/`rr200r/`rr175r/`rr125rx`rr125ry`rr350rg /`rr200r/`rr175r/`rr150r|`rr125r|`rr350r| 0`rr150r[pres] 0 Piotr Anna`rr175rsie_zeni `rd100r 2a.`rr37r`8Piotr`rr21r/`rr21rzeni`rr21rsie`rr20rz`rr20rAnna`rr22r`2('Peter'`rr22r/`rr22r'is`rr22rgetting`rr22rmaried'`rr22r'to`rr22rAnn')`rr22r(the`rr22rtree`rr22rwill`rr22rbe abbreviated now): `rd50r `rr800r`0D `rr775r/ `rr725r/ `rr675r/ `rr650rTm`rr225rRm `d`t130 |`rr275r| |`rr275r| x`rr275rg y |`rr275r| `rr625rPiotr`rr125rzeni_sie Anna`a0,200 `rr1225r17 `rd150r `rr350r`22b.`rr32r`8Z Anna / zeni sie Piotr.`rr18r`2('to Ann'/ 'Peter is getting married ') `rd50r `rr875r`0D `rr850r/ `rr800r/ `rr750r/ `rr700rTm`rr300rRm `d`t140 |`rr325r| y`rr325rg x |`rr325r| `rr675rAnna`rr200rzeni_sie Piotr `rd100r `rr350r`2(slightly adapted from Topolinska, 1984: 36,37). `rd100r `rr400rThe`rr45rtheme-rheme`rr45rstructure`rr45rseems,`rr45rthen`rr46rto`rr46rneatly`rr46raccount`rr46rfor`rr46rcertain `rr350rphenomena`rr24rof`rr24rword`rr24rorder`rr24rin`rr24rPolish.`rr42rIt`rr24ralso`rr24rappears`rr23rthat`rr23rincluding`rr23rtheme-rheme `d`t70 distinction`rr26rcan`rr26rbe`rr26rbeneficial`rr26rin`rr26rEnglish`rr26rtoo,`rr27respecially`rr27rwithin`rr27rthe`rr27rcontext`rr27rof`rr27rthe communicative`rr24rdynamism`rr24rtheory,`rr24ralso`rr24rpart`rr23rof`rr23rPrague`rr23rSchool`rr23rlinguistics`rr23r(also`rr23rsee Kay, 1975). `rd100r `34.4. Grammatical Relations. `rd100r `rr400r`2Most`rr20rdescriptions`rr20rof`rr20rsyntax`rr20rhave`rr20rassumed`rr20rthat,`rr20rperhaps`rr20rin`rr21raddition`rr21rto`rr21rsemantic and`rr20rpragmatic`rr19rroles,`rr19rthere`rr19rare`rr19ralso`rr19rpurely`rr19rsyntactic`rr19rrelations`rr19rcontracted`rr19rbetween`rr19ra NP`rr21rand`rr21rits`rr21rpredicate,`rr21rwhich,`rr22rhowever`rr22rclosely`rr22rthey`rr22rmay`rr22rcorrelate`rr22rwith`rr22rsemantic`rr22ror pragmatic`rr37rrelations,`rr37rcannot`rr37rbe identified with them.`rr55rThese might be called grammatical`rr26rrelations`rr26r(but`rr26rthe`rr26rterm`rr26rgrammatical`rr27rhere`rr27rdoes`rr27rnot`rr27rhave`rr27rthe`rr27rnarow sense`rr25rof`rr25rsyntactic),`rr25rand`rr25rthey`rr25rcan`rr25rbe`rr25rcalled`rr25rsubject`rr24r(Sub),`rr24rdirect`rr24robject`rr24r(DO)`rr24rand indirect`rr20robject`rr20r(IO).`rr38rIt`rr20rwill`rr20rassumed,`rr20rafer`rr20rComrie`rr20r(1981),`rr20rthat`rr20rgrammatical`rr20rrelations do`rr32rexist,`rr31rbut`rr31runlike`rr31rmuch`rr31rrecent`rr31rwork`rr31ron`rr31rgrammatical`rr31rrelations`rr31r(in`rr31rparticular, relational`rr20rgrammar),`rr20rit`rr20rwill`rr20rbe`rr20rargued`rr21rthat`rr21rmuch`rr21rof`rr21rsyntax`rr21rcan`rr21rbe`rr21runderstood`rr21ronly in`rr21rrelation`rr21rto`rr21rsemantics`rr21rand`rr21rpragmatics`rr21r(cf.`rr21ralso`rr21rBach`rr21r1982,`rr21rfor`rr20ra`rr20rsimilar`rr20rview),`rr20ror more`rr19rspecifically,`rr19rthat`rr19rgrammatical`rr19rrelations`rr20rcannot`rr20rbe`rr20runderstood`rr20rin`rr20rtheir`rr20rentirety unless they are related to semantic and pragmatic roles: `rd50r `0'... at least many aspects of the nature of grammatical relations can be understood`rr30rin`rr30rterms`rr30rof`rr30rthe`rr30rinteraction`rr30rof`rr30rsemantc`rr30rand`rr30rpragmatic`rr30rroles: for`rr27rinstance,`rr27rmany`rr27rfacets`rr27rof`rr27rsubjecthood`rr28rcan`rr28rbe`rr28runderstood`rr28rby`rr28rregarding the`rr38rprototype`rr38rof`rr38rsubject`rr38ras`rr38rthe`rr37rintersection`rr37rof`rr37ragent`rr37rand`rr37rtopic...' (Comrie, 1981: 60). `rd100r `rr400r`2In`rr19rmuch`rr19rrecent`rr19rwork`rr20ron`rr20rgrammatical`rr20rrelatins,`rr20rit`rr20ris`rr20rtaken`rr20rfor`rr20rgranted`rr20rthat`rr20rcertain grammatical`rr32rroles`rr32rexist`rr32ras`rr32rgiven`rr32rby`rr32rthe`rr32rgeneral`rr32rtheory,`rr31rand`rr31rthat`rr31rthe`rr31rlinguist looking`rr28rat`rr28ran`rr28rindividual`rr28rlanguage`rr28rhas`rr28rto`rr28rwork`rr28rout`rr29rwhich`rr29rNPs`rr29rin`rr29rthis`rr29rlanguage evince`rr21rthese`rr21rparticular`rr20rroles`rr20r-`rr20rof`rr20rcourse`rr20roversimplifications`rr20rare`rr20rimminent`rr20rto`rr20ravoid certain pitfalls (e.g. problems with indirect objects in English) (Comrie,`rr19rop.`rr19rcit.).`rr37rBut there`rr19ris`rr19ra`rr19rdiscrepancy`rr19rbetween`rr19rsyntax`rr19rand`rr19rmorphology,`rr19ri.e., that the morphology is arbitrarily`rr24rrelative`rr24rto`rr24rthe`rr24rsyntax`rr24r(or`rr24rvice`rr24rversa),`rr24reg.`rr25rthe`rr25ruse`rr25rof`rr25ra`rr25rcertain`rr25rcase`rr25rto exhibit`rr25ra`rr25rgrammatical`rr25rrelation.`rr43rRather,`rr25rinteraction`rr25rof`rr25rparameters:`rr25rsemantic`rr24rroles, pragmatic`rr43rroles,`rr43rgrammatical`rr43rrelations`rr43rand`rr43rmorphological`rr44rcases`rr44rshould`rr44rbe considered. `rd50r `rr400rIf`rr24rPolish`rr24rand`rr24rEnglish`rr24rare`rr24rcompared,`rr24rit`rr24rturns`rr24rout`rr23rthat`rr23rthey`rr23rmay`rr23rbe`rr23rregarded`rr23ras being`rr19rradically`rr19rdifferent`rr19rtypes`rr19ralong`rr19ra`rr19rgiven`rr20rparameter.`rr38rThus`rr20rin`rr20rEnglish,`rr20rthere`rr20ris`rr20ra high`rr19rcorrelation`rr19rbetween`rr19rgrammatical`rr19rrelations`rr19rand`rr19rword`rr19rorder; indeed, word order`a0,200 `rr1225r`018 `rd150r `2is`rr22rthe`rr23rbasic`rr23rcarrier`rr23rof`rr23rgrammatical`rr23rrelations,`rr23resp.`rr23rof`rr23rsubject`rr23rand`rr23rdirect`rr23robject,`rr23ras can be seen in `rd100r `0John loves Mary. Mary loves John. `rd50r `2The`rr19rposition`rr19rimmediately`rr19rbefore the verb is reserved for the subject, while position immediately`rr28rafter`rr28rthe`rr28rverb`rr28ris`rr28rreserved`rr28rfor`rr28rdirect`rr28robject;`rr28reven`rr28rin`rr29rcorresponding questions, changing of the word order therefore changes the grammatical relations, and ultimately the meaning of the sentence. `rd50r `rr400rAlso,`rr30rrelations`rr30rand`rr30rvalencies`rr30rof`rr30rverbs`rr29rcan`rr29rbe`rr29rconsidered.`rr48rThus`rr29rEnglish`rr29rhas many`rr32rverbs`rr32rthat`rr32rcan`rr32rbe`rr32rused`rr32reither`rr32rtransitively`rr32ror`rr32rintransitively.`rr51rWhen`rr32rused transitively,`rr27rthe`rr27rsubject`rr26rwill`rr26rbe`rr26ran`rr26ragent;`rr26rwhen`rr26rused`rr26rintransitively,`rr26rthe`rr26rverb`rr26rwill have a patient as its subject, as in `rd100r `0John opened the door. The door opened. `rd50r `rr400r`2Next,`rr27rin`rr27rEnglish,`rr27rmorphological`rr27rmarking`rr27rof`rr27rNPs`rr27rplays`rr27ra`rr27rmarginal`rr27rrole.`rr45rTo`rr27rbe sure, most pronouns have a nominative vs. accusative distinction, as in `rd100r `0I saw him. He saw me. `rd50r `2However,`rr25rthe`rr25rexistence`rr25rof`rr25rthis`rr25rcase`rr25rdistinction`rr25rdoes`rr24rnot`rr24rprovide`rr24rfor`rr24rany`rr24rgreater freedom of word order: sentences like `rd100r `0*Him saw I. *Me saw he. `rd50r `2are`rr32rsimply`rr32rungrammatical`rr32rin`rr32rthe`rr32rmodern`rr32rlanguage.`rr51rMoreover,`rr33rexcept`rr33rin`rr33rvery straightforward`rr41rexamples`rr40rlike`rr40rthe`rr40rabove,`rr40rthe`rr40rcorrelation`rr40rbetween`rr40rcase`rr40rand grammatical`rr24rrelation`rr24ris`rr24rrather`rr24rweak;`rr24rfor`rr24rinstance,`rr24rmany`rr24rspeakers`rr24rof`rr25rEnglish`rr25rhave the pattern illustrated below: `rd50r a) John and I saw Mary. b) Me and John saw Mary. `rd50r Here,`rr26rthe`rr26rdifference`rr25rbetween`rr32r`0I `2and`rr32r`0me `2is`rr25rin`rr25rturn`rr25rconditioned`rr25rby`rr25rregister`rr25r((b)`rr25ris considered more colloquial than (a)), although there is no`rr19rdifference`rr19rin`rr19rgrammatical relations (op. cit: 70). `rd50r `rr400rGenerally,`rr29rin`rr29rEnglish,`rr29rpragmatic`rr28rroles`rr28rplay`rr28ra`rr28rvery`rr28rsmall`rr28rrole`rr28rin`rr28rthe`rr28rsyntactic structure`rr24rof`rr24rsentences;`rr24rhence`rr24rthe`rr24rchoice`rr24rbetween`rr24ralternative`rr25rsyntactic`rr25rmeans`rr25rof encoding`rr46rthe`rr45rsame`rr45rsemantic`rr45rstructure`rr45ris`rr45roften`rr45rdetermined`rr45rby`rr45rpragmatic considerations,`rr20rone`rr20rof`rr20rthe`rr21rprinciples`rr21rbeing`rr21ra`rr21rpreference`rr21rto`rr21rmake`rr21rthe`rr21rtopic`rr21rsubject wherever possible, thus leading to a correlation between subject and topic. `rd50r `rr400rIn`rr25rcontrast,`rr25rin`rr25rPolish,`rr25rthe`rr25rbasic`rr25rmarker`rr25rof`rr25rgrammatical`rr25rrelation`rr25ris`rr25ris`rr25rnot`rr24rword order,`rr23rbut`rr23rrather`rr23rthe`rr23rmorphology;`rr23rthus`rr23rthe`rr23rnoun`rr23rin`rr23rthe`rr23rnominative`rr23ris`rr23rthe`rr23rsubject and`rr34rthe`rr34rnoun`rr34rin`rr34rthe`rr34raccusative`rr34ris`rr33rthe`rr33rdirect`rr33robject`rr33rin`rr33ra`rr33rmajority`rr33rof`rr33rcases. Changing`rr21rthe`rr21rword`rr21rorder`rr21rdoes`rr22rnot`rr22raffect`rr22rthe`rr22rdistribution`rr22rof`rr22rgrammatical`rr22rrelations or`rr37rsemantic`rr37rroles,`rr37rand`rr37rany`rr37rof`rr37rthe`rr37rlogically`rr37rpossible`rr37rpermutations of major categories might be accepted - up to the level of ambiguity.`a0,200 `rr1225r`019 `rd150r `rr400r`2But`rr26rthe`rr26rpermutations`rr26rare`rr26rby`rr26rno`rr26rmeans`rr26requivalent;`rr26rin`rr26rparticular,`rr26rthey`rr26rdiffer`rr26rin terms`rr30rof`rr30rthe`rr30rpragmatic`rr30rroles`rr30rexpressed.`rr48rThe`rr29rbasic`rr29rprinciple`rr29rin`rr29rPolish,`rr29resp.`rr29rin non-affective`rr23ruse,`rr23ris`rr23rthat`rr23rtopic`rr23rcomes`rr23rat`rr23rthe`rr24rbeginning`rr24rof`rr24rthe`rr24rsentence,`rr24rand`rr24rthe focus`rr21rat`rr21rthe`rr20rend.`rr39rLet`rr20rus`rr20rthen`rr20rlook`rr20rat`rr20rsome`rr20rspecific`rr20rexamples`rr20rtaken`rr20rfrom`rr20rPolish`rr20r(I hope that the 'violence' of the example will be excused): `rd50r (1) `8- Kto uderzyl Piotra? - Piotra uderzyl Janek. `rr600r`2`rr90r`rr144r `rd50r - 'Who hit Peter?' - 'Jan hit Peter' `rd50r (2) `8- Kogo Janek uderzyl? - Janek uderzyl Piotra. `rr475r`2`rr198r`rr126r `rd50r - 'Who did Jan hit? - 'Jan hit Peter' `rd50r (3) `8- Pawel uderzyl Roberta. - A Janek? - Janek uderzyl Piotra. `rr385r`2`rr144r`rr126r `rr162r `rd50r - 'Pawel hit Robert' - 'What about Jan? - 'Jan hit Peter' `rd50r (4) `8- Pawel uderzyl Roberta. - A Piotra? - Piotra uderzyl Janek `rr385r`2`rr144r`rr126r`rr108r`rr162r `rd50r - 'Pawel hit Robert' - 'What about Peter?' - 'Jan hit Peter' `rd50r Note`rr23rthat`rr23rin`rr23rexamples`rr23r(3)`rr23rand`rr23r(4),`rr23rthe`rr23rdistinction`rr24rbetween`rr24rthe`rr24rnominative`rr24r(`rr22r`8Jan`rr24r`2) and`rr22rthe`rr22raccusative`rr22r(`rr20r`8Piotra`rr22r`2)`rr22ris`rr22rcrucial`rr22rto`rr21rthe`rr21runderstanding`rr21rwhether`rr21rthe`rr21rquestion is`rr20rabout`rr20rthe`rr20rbully`rr20ror`rr20rthe`rr20rvictim;`rr20rthis`rr20ris`rr20rnot`rr20rbrought`rr20rout`rr20rin`rr20rthe`rr20rEnglish`rr21rtranslations, which`rr23rwould,`rr23rto`rr23rcarry`rr23rthe`rr23rsame`rr23ramount`rr23rof`rr23rinformation,`rr23rhave`rr23rto`rr23rbe`rr22rmore`rr22rexplicit, eg. `rd100r `0(3) and who did Jan hit?, (4) and who hit Peter? `rd50r `rr400r`2It`rr26rseems`rr26rthen,`rr26rthat`rr26rPolish`rr26rand`rr26rEnglish`rr27rdiffer`rr27rin`rr27rthat`rr27rin`rr27rEnglish`rr27rword`rr27rorder`rr27ris determined`rr20rby`rr20rgrammatical`rr20rrelations`rr19rand`rr19rindependent`rr19rof`rr19rpragmatic`rr19rroles;`rr19rin`rr19rPolish, morphology`rr22ris`rr22rdetermined`rr22rby`rr22rand`rr22rcarries`rr23rgrammatical`rr23rrelations,`rr23rwhile`rr23rword`rr23rorder is`rr28rdetermined`rr28rby`rr28rpragmatic`rr28rroles.`rr46r(Comrie,`rr28rop.`rr28rcit.:`rr28r72;`rr28ralso`rr28rcf.`rr28rop.`rr28rcit.`rr28rfor`rr28ran account`rr23rof`rr23rdiffernces`rr23rbetween`rr23rRussian`rr23rand`rr23rEnglish`rr23rin`rr23rterms`rr24rof`rr24rthe`rr24rinteraction`rr24rof semantic roles with grammatical relations). `rd50r `rr400rMoreover,`rr20rPolish`rr20rhas`rr20rno`rr20rsyntactic`rr20requivalent`rr20rof`rr19robject-to-subject`rr19rraising,`rr19rthus`rr19ra translation of `rd100r `0It is easy to solve this problem. `rd50r `2might be `rd50r `8Latwo (jest) rozwiazac ten problem. `rd50r `2Given`rr26rthe`rr26rfree`rr26rword`rr26rorder`rr26rof`rr26rPolish,`rr26rit`rr26ris`rr26ralso`rr26rpossible`rr26rto`rr26rmove`rr26rthe`rr27rNP`rr27rto`rr27rthe beginning of the sentence:`a0,200 `rr1225r`020 `rd150r `rr365r`8Ten problem jest latwo rozwiazac.`rr34r`2('This problem is easy to solve') `rd50r We`rr26robserve`rr26rthen`rr26rthe`rr26rsyntactically`rr26rdifferent`rr26rmeans`rr26rof`rr26rencoding`rr26rthe`rr26rsame`rr26rset`rr25rof semantic`rr26rroles.`rr45rThus`rr26rthe`rr26requivalent`rr26rof`rr26rEnglish`rr26rpassive`rr26rwould`rr26rbe,`rr26rin`rr27rPolish,`rr27rthe active with the word order DO-V-Sub, as in `rd50r `8Piotra udedrzyl Janek.`rr34r`2('Jan hit Peter/it was Peter who Jan hit') `8Piotr byl/zostal uderzony przez Janka.`rr34r`2('Peter was/has been hit by Jan') `rd50r but`rr28rin`rr27rfact`rr27ra`rr27rsubjectless`rr27rconstruction`rr27rwith`rr27rthe`rr27rverb`rr27rin`rr27rthe`rr27r'impersonal`rr27rform'`rr27ris more usual: `rd100r `8Piotra uderzono.`rr18r`2('Peter has been hit') `rd50r It seems then the basic function of`rr19rthe`rr19rPolish`rr19rpassive`rr19ris`rr19rnot`rr19ras`rr19rmuch`rr19rpragmatic`rr19ras stylistic (likewise Russian, cf. Comrie, op. cit.: 76). `rd50r `rr400rTo`rr27rsummarise,`rr26rin`rr26rEnglish,`rr26rthe`rr26rgrammatical`rr26rrelations`rr26rplay`rr26ra`rr26rmuch`rr26rgreater`rr26rrole than`rr19rin`rr19rPolish.`rr38rFirstly,`rr19rthe`rr19rgrammatical`rr19rroles`rr19rin`rr19rEnglish`rr20rare`rr20rmore`rr20rindependent`rr20rthan in`rr24rPolish,`rr24rwith`rr24ra`rr24rlow`rr24rcorrelation`rr23rin`rr23rEnglish`rr23rbetween`rr23rgrammatical`rr23rroles`rr23rand`rr23reither syntactic`rr34ror`rr34rpragmatic`rr35rroles`rr35r(or`rr35rmorphology,`rr35rwhich`rr35ris`rr35rvirtually`rr35rnon-existent). Secondly,`rr23rthere`rr23ris`rr23ra`rr23rwider`rr23rrange`rr23rof`rr23rsyntactic`rr23rprocesses`rr23rin`rr23rEnglish`rr22rthan`rr22rin`rr22rPolish, where`rr27rgrammatical`rr27rroles`rr27rand`rr27rchanges`rr27rin`rr28rgrammatical`rr28rrelations`rr28rare`rr28rrelevant.`rr46rIn Polish,`rr26rsemantic`rr26rand`rr26rpragmatic`rr26rroles`rr26r(and`rr26reven`rr26rmorphology)`rr26rplay`rr26ra`rr26rgreater`rr25rrole than in English. There is, obviously, a difference of degree. `rd50r `rr400rSome`rr40rgrammatical`rr40rrelations`rr40rmay`rr40rbe`rr40rcrucial`rr41rin`rr41rPolish,`rr41rfor`rr41rinstance`rr41rverb agreement`rr37rwith`rr37rthe subject.`rr55rThere is no way in which agreement can be reformulated as agreement with agent or topic: `rd50r (1) `8Anna uderzyla`rr41r`0[fem]`rr41r`8Pawla. `2'Anna hit Paul' `rd50r (2) `8Pawel zostal uderzony`rr41r`0[masc]`rr41r`8przez Anne. `2'Paul was hit by Anna' `rd50r (3) `8Pawla uderzyla`rr41r`0[fem]`rr41r`8Anna. `2'Paul, Anna hit' `rd50r Also, only direct objects can become subject of the passive construction. `rd50r `rr400rHowever,`rr38rsome`rr38rNPs`rr38rdo`rr38rnot`rr39rmake`rr39ra`rr39rnominative-accusative`rr39rdistinction,`rr39ror morphology`rr23ris`rr23rambivalent`rr23rand`rr23rboth`rr23rinterpretations`rr23rmake`rr23rsense`rr23r-`rr22rthen`rr22rpreference is given to a SUB-V-DO interpretation - a preference rather than an absolute. `rd50r `rr400rIt`rr30rseems`rr30rthen`rr31rthat`rr31rthe`rr31rinteraction`rr31rof`rr31rsemantis,`rr31rsyntactic`rr31rand`rr31rmorphological relations`rr20rcan`rr19rcharacterize`rr19ra`rr19rpart`rr19rof`rr19rsyntactic`rr19rdifferences`rr19rbetween`rr19rlanguages`rr19rwith`rr19ra different`rr21rmode`rr21rof`rr21rorganization`rr21rbetter`rr21rthan`rr21rdoes`rr21rword`rr22rorder`rr22ron`rr22rits`rr22rown,`rr22respecially when`rr28rin`rr28rterms`rr28rof`rr28rthe`rr27rbasic`rr27rword`rr27rorder`rr27rthe`rr27rlanguages`rr27rare`rr27rsimilar.`rr46rThis`rr27rmakes quite`rr19robvious`rr19rconclusions`rr19rfor`rr19rbuilding`rr20rparsers`rr20rfor`rr20rrespective`rr20rlanguages`rr20rin`rr20rorder`rr20rto adequately account for their organization.`a0,200 `rr1225r`021 `rd140r `rr695r`45. Processing Free-Word-Order Languages. `rd120r `rr400r`2There`rr33rhave`rr33rbeen`rr33rsome`rr33rattempts`rr33rto`rr33raccount`rr33rfor`rr33rfreer`rr33rword`rr33rorder,`rr33rboth`rr33rin practical`rr26rimplementations,`rr26ri.e.,`rr26ractual`rr26rparsers,`rr26rand`rr26rin`rr26rstrictly`rr26rtheoretical`rr26rterms.`rr44rI shall`rr27rexamine`rr27rbriefly`rr27rWEDNESDAY,`rr27ra`rr27rsystem`rr27rwhich`rr27ris`rr27rlexically`rr27rbased,`rr27rJohnson's unconstrained`rr19rsyntactic`rr19rparser,`rr20rand`rr20rLFG,`rr20rwhich,`rr20rthrough`rr20rits`rr20rorder-free`rr20rcomposition claims to have the potential to account for free word order. `rd100r `35.1. WEDNESDAY. `rd100r `rr400r`2WEDNESDAY`rr28r(Castelfranchi`rr28ret`rr28ral,`rr28r1982)`rr28ris`rr27rlexically`rr27rbased`rr27rsystem`rr27rdesigned`rr27rto cope`rr21rwith`rr21rthe`rr21rfreer`rr21rword`rr21rorder`rr21rof`rr21rItalian.`rr40rIn`rr21rthe`rr21rsystem,`rr21rsyntax`rr21ris`rr22rnot`rr22ra`rr22rseparate component,`rr19rbut`rr19ris`rr19rdistributed`rr19rthroughout`rr19rthe`rr19rlexicon.`rr37rAccording to its authors, the parser`rr22rcan`rr22rdeal`rr22rwith,`rr22rinter`rr22ralia,`rr22rflexible`rr22ridioms`rr22rthat`rr22rcan`rr22rvary`rr22rin`rr23rmorphology,`rr23rword order,`rr33ra`rr33rvariety`rr33rof`rr33rsyntactic`rr33rconstructions,`rr32rsemantic`rr32radditions,`rr32rand`rr32rsynonyms, whose`rr21rrecognition`rr22ris`rr22rgoverned`rr22rby`rr22rthe`rr22rindividual`rr22rlexical`rr22rentries`rr22rand`rr22rtakes`rr22rplace`rr22rat the`rr24rassembling`rr24rlevel.`rr42rUnfortunately,`rr24rI`rr24rhave`rr24rnot`rr24rbeen`rr23rable`rr23rto`rr23robtain`rr23rmore`rr23rdetails about the system. `rd100r `35.2. Johnson's Parser. `rd100r `rr400r`2Most`rr22rattempts`rr22rto`rr22rdescribe`rr22rthis`rr22rword`rr23rorder`rr23rfreedom`rr23rtake`rr23rmechanisms`rr23rdesigned to`rr21rhandle`rr21rfairly`rr20rrigid`rr20rword`rr20rorder`rr20rsystems`rr20rand`rr20rmodify`rr20rthem`rr20rin`rr20rorder`rr20rto`rr20raccount`rr20rfor the`rr21rgreater`rr21rfreedom`rr21rof`rr21rNC`rr21rlanguages.`rr40rJohnson`rr21r(1985)`rr22rproduces`rr22ran`rr22runconstrained system`rr64rinstead.`rr82rIn`rr63rorder`rr63rto`rr63rdescribe`rr63rdicsontinuous`rr63rconstituents`rr63rin non-configurational`rr43rlanguages,`rr43rhe`rr43rgeneralizes`rr43rthe`rr43rnotion`rr44rof`rr44rlocation`rr44rof`rr44ra constituent`rr22rto`rr21rallow`rr21rdiscontinuous`rr21rlocations;`rr21rthese`rr21rdiscontinuous`rr21rconstituents`rr21rcan be described by a variant of DCGs. `rd50r `rr400rIn this`rr19rapproach,`rr19rdiscontinuous`rr19rconstituents`rr19rare`rr19rrepresented`rr19rdirectly,`rr19rin`rr19rterms`rr19rof a`rr26rsyntactic`rr26rcategory`rr26rand`rr26ra`rr26rdiscontinuous`rr26rlocation`rr26rin`rr25rthe`rr25rutterance,`rr25re.g.,`rr25ra`rr25rgiven constituent`rr30rcould`rr30rthen`rr30rhave`rr30ra`rr31rfollowing`rr31rlocation:`rr31r{[0,1],[3,4]};`rr31robviously,`rr31rthis`rr31ra manner`rr19rreminiscent`rr19rof`rr19rvertices`rr19rin`rr19ra chart. 'Head-driven' aspects of Head Grammars (eg.`rr38rPollard's),`rr19rwhose`rr19rconception`rr19ris`rr19rthat`rr19rheads`rr19rcontain`rr19ras`rr19rlexical`rr20rinformation`rr20ra`rr20rlist of`rr19rthe`rr19ritems`rr19rthey`rr19rsubcategorize`rr19rfor,`rr19rare`rr19radopted,`rr19rbut`rr19rhe claims that the use of this method is not limited to DCGs but can be incorporated in GPSG, LFG of GB. `rd50r `rr400rIf`rr20rthis`rr20rapproach`rr21rturns`rr21rout`rr21rto`rr21rbe`rr21rpractical,`rr21rit`rr21rhas`rr21ra`rr21rvery`rr21rinteresting`rr21rconsequence in`rr35rthat`rr35rit`rr34rwould`rr34roffer`rr34ra`rr34runified`rr34raccount`rr34rof`rr34rparsing`rr34rboth`rr34rconfigurational`rr34rand non-configurational`rr22rlanguages.`rr41rIts`rr22rmajor`rr22rshortcoming,`rr22rhowever`rr22ris`rr22rthe`rr22rfact`rr22rthat`rr23rit is`rr39rtoo`rr39rpowerful,`rr39runconstrained.`rr58rNo`rr39rlanguage`rr39rexhibits`rr39rtotal`rr39rscrambling,`rr39rand therefore,`rr23rin`rr23rorder`rr23rfor`rr23rthe`rr23rparser`rr23rto`rr23rbe`rr23rinteresting`rr23rlinguistically,`rr23rit`rr23rwould`rr24rhave`rr24rto have`rr26rconstraining`rr26rmechanisms`rr26rbuilt`rr26ron`rr26rtop.`rr44rBut`rr26rit`rr26ris`rr26rgenerally`rr25rknown`rr25rfrom`rr25rthe experience`rr25rwith`rr25rATNs`rr25rthat`rr25rconstraining`rr25ra`rr26rTuring`rr26rmachine`rr26ris`rr26rvery`rr26rdifficult,`rr26rif`rr26rnot altogether`rr40rimpossible.`rr58rIt`rr40rwould`rr40rbe`rr40rmore`rr39rdesirable`rr39rif,`rr39rinstead,`rr39rthe`rr39rparser's constraints`rr21rwere`rr21rthe`rr21rresult`rr21rof`rr21rthe`rr21rprinciples`rr22rof`rr22rits`rr22rinternal`rr22rorganization.`rr40rOne`rr22rway of ensuring this could be to provide a sufficiently constrained grammar. `rd50r `35.3. Order-Free-Composition in LFG. `rd100r `rr400r`2In LFG, the nature of the mapping between c-structure and f-structure enables it to`rr22rachieve`rr22rmany`rr22rof`rr22rthe`rr21reffects`rr21rof`rr21rdiscontinuous`rr21rconstituents,`rr21reven`rr21rthough`rr21rthe`rr21rPS component (the c-structure) does not allow discontinuous constituents as`rr19rsuch.`rr37rIn`a0,200 `rr1225r`022 `rd150r `2particular,`rr26rthe`rr26rinformation`rr25rrepresented`rr25rin`rr25rone`rr25rcomponent`rr25rof`rr25rthe`rr25rf-structure`rr25rmay come`rr33rfrom`rr33rseveral`rr33rconstituents`rr33rlocated`rr33rthroughout`rr33rthe`rr34rsentence.`rr52rSo`rr34rLFG`rr34ris capable`rr24rof`rr23rdescribing`rr23rthe`rr23r'discontinuity'`rr23rwithout`rr23rusing`rr23rdiscontinuous`rr23rconstituents. There`rr23ris,`rr23rhowever,`rr23ra`rr23rsubtle`rr23rdifference`rr23rin`rr23rthe`rr23ramount`rr23rof`rr23r'discontinuity'`rr23rallowed`rr23rby the`rr30rLFG`rr30rand`rr30rthe`rr30rextent`rr29rto`rr29rwhich`rr29r'discontinuous'`rr29rconstituents`rr29ractually`rr29roccur`rr29rin non-configurational`rr23rlanguages.`rr42rInvariably,`rr24rthe`rr24rproblems`rr24rwith`rr24rmany`rr24rdiscontinuous constituents`rr22rwould`rr22roccur`rr22rsince,`rr21rin`rr21rLFG,`rr21rthe`rr21rposition`rr21rof`rr21rany`rr21ritem`rr21rin`rr21rthe`rr21rsentence's f-structure`rr22ris`rr22rdetermined`rr22rsolely`rr23rby`rr23rthe`rr23rf-equation`rr23rannotations`rr23rattached`rr23rto`rr23rit,`rr23rand no new components in the f-structure can be created (Johnson, 1985: 15). `rd100r `rr890r`46. CONCLUDING REMARKS. `rd120r `rr400r`2Certain`rr35robvious`rr35rconclusions`rr35ras`rr35rto`rr35rthe`rr34rway`rr34rsophisticated,`rr34rpowerful`rr34rparsers should be built could be drawn from what has been said so far. `rd50r `rr400rAs concerns the grammar, organising the lexicon in`rr19ra`rr19rcertain`rr19rway`rr19r(eg.,`rr19ralong`rr19rthe lines`rr25rsuggested`rr25rin`rr25rprevious`rr25rsections)`rr25rhas`rr25ran`rr25radvantage`rr25rof`rr24rmaking`rr24rPS`rr24rrules`rr24rto`rr24ra large`rr20rextent`rr20r'category-neutral'`rr20rin`rr20rthe`rr20rsense`rr20rof`rr20rFarmer`rr21rand`rr21rStowell`rr21r(op.`rr21rcit),`rr21rand,`rr21rin effect,`rr35ran`rr35refficient`rr35rimplementation`rr35rof`rr35rthis`rr35rtype`rr35rof`rr35rrules`rr35rfor`rr35rfree-word`rr34rorder languages.`rr38rMoreover,`rr19rboth`rr19rfree-`rr19rand`rr19rfixed-word-order`rr19rlanguages`rr19rcould`rr19rbe`rr20rtreated in`rr27ra`rr27runified`rr27rway,`rr27rwith`rr27rthe`rr27rrules`rr27rof`rr27rlinear`rr27rprecedence`rr27roperating`rr27rmore`rr27rstrictly`rr26rin languages`rr33rlike`rr34rEnglish.`rr52rThis`rr34ralso`rr34rseems`rr34rto`rr34rbe`rr34ra`rr34rsolution`rr34rfor`rr34rparsing`rr34rpartly ungrammatical`rr22ror`rr22relliptical`rr22rsentences.`rr40rObviously,`rr22rin`rr22rthis`rr21rapproach,`rr21rthe`rr21rdescriptive burden`rr30ron`rr30rthe`rr30rlexicon`rr30ris`rr30rconsiderable.`rr49rSo`rr30ris`rr30rthe`rr30rrole`rr30rof`rr30rsemantics.`rr31ra`rr31rstrong model-theoretical semantic component in Montague tradition is envisaged. `rd50r `rr400rAnother`rr24rconsideration`rr24rin`rr24rbuilding`rr24ra`rr24rsophisticated`rr24rparser`rr23rseems`rr23rvery`rr23rimportant, as`rr20rwe`rr20rhave`rr20rseen`rr20rin`rr20rthe`rr20rtheoretical`rr20rdiscussion`rr20rof`rr20rlinguistic`rr20rdescription,`rr20rand`rr20rit`rr20ris,`rr20rin the words of Lyons, that `rd50r `0'...uterances`rr54rare`rr53rproduced`rr53rin`rr53rparticular`rr53rcontexts`rr53rand`rr53rcannot`rr53rbe understood`rr30r(even`rr30rwithin`rr30rthe`rr30rlimits`rr31rimposed`rr31r[...]`rr31ron`rr31rthe`rr31rinterpretation of`rr34rthe`rr34rterm`rr34r'understanding'[...])`rr33rwithout`rr33ra`rr33rknowledge`rr33rof`rr33rthe`rr33rrelevant contextual features [...] '...we must not lose sight of the relationship between utterances and particular contexts...'`rr18r`2(1968: 419). `rd50r This`rr25ris`rr25rlargely`rr25rreflected`rr25ralso`rr25rin`rr25rthe`rr25rway`rr25rhumans`rr26rdo`rr26rit:`rr26rinferential`rr26rprocesses`rr26rare brought into play as soon as we start to read any phrase or text. `rd50r `rr400rThere are some very powerful tools already available`rr35rfor`rr35rthe`rr35ruse`rr35rin`rr35rthe computational`rr26rapproach:`rr26rATN-based`rr26rsystems,`rr26rMarcus-type`rr26rparsers`rr27ror`rr27rcharts.`rr45rIn particular,`rr19rthe`rr19rchart,`rr19rboth`rr19rin`rr19rits`rr19rrole`rr19ras`rr19ran`rr19rindexing`rr19rscheme`rr19rfor`rr19rconstituents`rr19rand as an`rr23ractive`rr23rparsing`rr23ragent,`rr23rcan`rr23rbe`rr23rseen`rr23ra`rr23rvery`rr23rdesirable`rr23rtool,`rr23rits`rr23rmain`rr23rvirtue`rr24rbeing, besides`rr20rthe`rr20r'bookkeeping'`rr20rrole,`rr20rthe`rr20rfact`rr20rthat`rr20rit`rr20rallows`rr20rto`rr20rtreat`rr20rindependent`rr19rpending hypotheses independently, and also its enormous flexibility and perspicuousness. `rd50r `rr400rChart parsing is often seen as a`rr19rrival`rr19rapproach`rr19rto`rr19rMarcus-parsing.`rr37rMarcus`rr19ris`rr19ran appealing`rr25rparsing`rr25rmethod,`rr24rsince`rr24rwe`rr24rcan`rr24rgo`rr24rto`rr24rfind`rr24rlocal`rr24rclues`rr24rwhich`rr24renable`rr24rthe parser`rr20rto`rr20rselect`rr20rproperly`rr20rwhat`rr20rto`rr21rdo`rr21rnext.`rr39rThis`rr21ridea`rr21rseems`rr21radvantageous`rr21rfor`rr21rfree word`rr20rorder`rr20rlanguages`rr20rsince`rr20rrich`rr20rinflection`rr20rmakes`rr20rthe`rr20rlocal`rr20rclues`rr20rmore`rr20rexplicit`rr20rand the`rr33rparser's`rr33rexpectations`rr33rmore`rr34rprecise.`rr52rBut`rr34rthere`rr34rare`rr34rproblems`rr34rwith`rr34rwriting grammar`rr40rrules`rr40rfor`rr40ra`rr40rdeterministic`rr40rparser;`rr39ron`rr39rone`rr39rhand,`rr39rthere`rr39ris`rr39ra`rr39rheavy responsibility`rr20ron`rr20rthe`rr20rgrammar-writer`rr20rto`rr20rfind`rr20ra`rr20rway`rr20rof`rr20rwriting`rr20rhis`rr20rgrammar`rr21rso`rr21rthat the`rr25rparser`rr25rwill`rr25rbe`rr25refficient`rr25rand`rr25rlinguistically`rr24rinteresting`rr24r(Ritchie,`rr24r1983:79);`rr24ron`rr24rthe other`rr23rhand,`rr23rit`rr23rdoes`rr23rnot`rr23rpredict`rr23rcertain`rr23rproperties`rr23runiversal`rr23rin`rr24rlanguages`rr24r(Briscoe, 1983: 67).`a0,200 `rr1225r`023 `rd150r `rr400r`2From`rr23rthe`rr23rpoint`rr23rof`rr23rview`rr23rof`rr23ractual`rr23rimplementation`rr23rof`rr22rnatural`rr22rlanuage`rr22rprocessing systems,`rr27rthere`rr27rhas`rr27rbeen`rr27ran`rr27rincrease`rr27rof`rr27rthe`rr27rapplication`rr28rin`rr28rat`rr28rleast`rr28rtwo`rr28rdistinct directions`rr27rin`rr27rthe`rr27rpast`rr27rfew`rr27ryears.`rr45rThus`rr27ron`rr27rone`rr27rhand,`rr27rthere`rr27rhas`rr26rbeen`rr26ra`rr26rmarked trend`rr21rtowards`rr21rthe`rr22rconstruction`rr22rof`rr22rlarge,`rr22refficient`rr22rparsers`rr22rfor`rr22ruse`rr22ras`rr22rfront`rr22rends`rr22rto data`rr41rbases`rr41ror`rr41rintelligent`rr41rsystems.`rr59rOn`rr41rthe`rr41rother`rr41rhand,`rr41ras`rr40ra`rr40rresult`rr40rof`rr40ra re-evaluation of the fundamental notions of parsing and syntactic structure,`rr19rviewed from`rr25rthe`rr25rperspective`rr25rof`rr25rprograms`rr25rthat`rr24runderstand`rr24rnatural`rr24rlanguage,`rr24rsystems`rr24rare being`rr34rdesigned`rr34rehich`rr34rattempt`rr34rto`rr34rcapture`rr34rin`rr35rtheir`rr35rdesign`rr35rthe`rr35rsame`rr35rkinds`rr35rof generalizations`rr30rthat`rr30rlinguists`rr30rand`rr30rpsycholinguists`rr29rposit`rr29ras`rr29rtheories`rr29rof`rr29rlanguage structure`rr20rand`rr20rlanguage`rr20ruse.`rr39rThus`rr20rthe`rr20rMarcus`rr20rparser,`rr20rfor`rr20rinstance,`rr20rcan`rr20rbe`rr21rseen`rr21ras an`rr31rembodiment`rr31rof`rr31ran`rr31rapproach,`rr31rhowever`rr31rfragile`rr31ras`rr31ryet,`rr31rin`rr31rwhich`rr31rattention`rr31ris towards`rr22rthe`rr22rinteraction`rr22rbetween`rr22rthe`rr22rstructural`rr22rfacts`rr22rabout`rr22rsyntax`rr22rand`rr23rthe`rr23rcontrol structures for implementic the parsing process. `rd50r `rr400rAlso,`rr22rthe`rr22rcurrent`rr22rtrend`rr22ris`rr22raway`rr22rfrom`rr22rsimple`rr22rmethods`rr22rof`rr21rapplying`rr21rgrammars`rr21r(as with`rr19rPS`rr19rgrammars),`rr19rtoward`rr19rmore`rr19rintegrated`rr20rapproaches.`rr38rThis`rr20rcould`rr20rbe`rr20rspurred`rr20ron by`rr32rthe`rr32rfact`rr32rthat`rr32rparsers`rr32rare`rr32rgeing`rr32rcalled`rr32rupon`rr31rto`rr31rhandle`rr31rmore`rr31r'natural'`rr31rtext, including`rr21rdiscourse,`rr21rconversation,`rr21rand`rr21rsentence`rr22rfragments.`rr40rThese`rr22rinvolve`rr22raspects of`rr25rlanguage`rr25rthat`rr25rcannot`rr25rbe`rr25reasily`rr24rdescribed`rr24rin`rr24rthe`rr24rconventional,`rr24rgrammar-based models.`a0,200 `rr1225r`024