• ベストアンサー

言語学

以前、言語学書の内容がいまいち読み取れずに質問したのですが、また分からないところが出てきたので、アドバイス等お願いします。 以下SYNTAXの話です The largest category in phrase structure is a special category, sometimes symbolized by the letter S. 句構造の中で最も大きな範疇は、時たまSという文字で表される特別範疇(?)だ。 In earlier versions of Generative Grammar this was a mnemonic for "Sentence"; however, we will continue to refer to it as "clause", or "the clause level." 生成文法の初期の解釈では、、、その後が分かりません。 mnemonicはどう訳せばいいのでしょうか? It is generally assumed in Generative Grammar that linguistic structure above the S level is not amenable to phrase structure analysis. 生成文法においては、Sレベルより上の(?)言語構造は句構造分析には左右されないと一般的に仮定されます。 More recent versions of Generative Grammar have eliminated the need for this special category altogether, having subsumed it under the phrasal category labels. 生成文法のもっと最近の見解は、句範疇ラベル下に包括させたので、完全にこの特別範疇の必要性を取り除いている。 We can consider a clause to be the grammatical expression of a PROPOSITION. 私たちは節を命題の文法上の表現とみなす。 A proposition has to do with entities in the message world and semantic relations among them, whereas a clause has to do with syntactic categories and the syntactic relations among them. この文は訳せませんでした。。 We can informally think of a proposition as consisting of a "complete thought." 私たちは非公式に(?)「完全な考え」から成るとして命題について考えることができる。 以下LINEAR ORDERの話です Linear order is just too strong and obvious a structural variable for languages not to use it in some way to accomplish important communicative work. この文もうまく訳せませんでした。 One characteristic that seems to distinguish human languages from other natural communicative system is that human language exhibits constituency and hierarchical structure. 他の自然なコミュニケーションのシステムと人間言語を区別するように思える1つの特性は、人間の言語が構成要素と階層構造を示すということです。 seems to がうまく訳せません Constituency means that linguistic units "clump together",or "merge" (Chomsky 1995) in discourse. 構成要素は「群れ?」や「融合」といった統語的単位を意味する。 in discourseはどう訳すのでしょうか。。 Linear order and constituency are two important variable that any syntactic analysis of a language must be able to describe. 線形順序と階層構造は、言語のどんな構造分析も説明できなければならない2つの重要な変動要因です。 以上です。長文ですみません。 どんなことでもいいですので何かアドバイスお願いします。

  • 英語
  • 回答数2
  • ありがとう数3

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • suikaemon
  • ベストアンサー率47% (9/19)
回答No.1

Disclaimer: 私の言語関係の専門ですが、生成文法のことはあまり詳しくありません。 以下SYNTAXの話です The largest category in phrase structure is a special category, sometimes symbolized by the letter S. 句構造の中で最も大きな範疇は、時たまSという文字で表される特別範疇(?)だ。 In earlier versions of Generative Grammar this was a mnemonic for "Sentence"; however, we will continue to refer to it as "clause", or "the clause level." 生成文法の初期の解釈では、、、その後が分かりません。 mnemonicはどう訳せばいいのでしょうか? -->mnemonicって何か記憶を助けるもの、覚えやすくするためのものですよね。正確な日本語訳が必要ならば他の人の意見を参考にしてください。でもここでも意味はSentenceなんだから頭文字とってSってよべばいいじゃん。わかりやすい、おぼえやすいよ。ということで昔はSentenceをSとしてたけど、たぶんこのSっていうcategoryは特別だということが分かってからはSはclause(節)を指すことにするっていってますね。 It is generally assumed in Generative Grammar that linguistic structure above the S level is not amenable to phrase structure analysis. 生成文法においては、Sレベルより上の(?)言語構造は句構造分析には左右されないと一般的に仮定されます。 -->Sレベルより上の言語構造は句構造分析をしにくいっていうことですね。 「Sレベルより上」というのは言語学の知識が必要かも。たぶん木の形をした分析の仕方をしていくとおもうんですよね。下に行くほど細かくなるから上は「文」レベルということでしょうか。 More recent versions of Generative Grammar have eliminated the need for this special category altogether, having subsumed it under the phrasal category labels. 生成文法のもっと最近の見解は、句範疇ラベル下に包括させたので、完全にこの特別範疇の必要性を取り除いている。 -->phrasal categoryの一つにしたからもうSなんて特別なcategoryつくらんでいい。ということでしょう。 We can consider a clause to be the grammatical expression of a PROPOSITION. 私たちは節を命題の文法上の表現とみなす。 A proposition has to do with entities in the message world and semantic relations among them, whereas a clause has to do with syntactic categories and the syntactic relations among them. この文は訳せませんでした。。 -->このへんは生成文法やってる人でないとわかりにくいですよね。節が命題を表して、その命題ってのはメッセージの中でsemantic relationsにもsyntactic relationsにも関係している。ということじゃないかな。つまりメッセージを伝えるときに節が意味にも文構造にも影響を与えるみたいな感じでしょうか。 We can informally think of a proposition as consisting of a "complete thought." 私たちは非公式に(?)「完全な考え」から成るとして命題について考えることができる。 -->「非公式に」というところは重要じゃなさそうですね。まあ正式にそうだと決まってるわけじゃないんだけどという感じかな。 以下LINEAR ORDERの話です Linear order is just too strong and obvious a structural variable for languages not to use it in some way to accomplish important communicative work. この文もうまく訳せませんでした。 -->Linear orderってのは構造を左右するような大事なものだから円滑な意思疎通をさせるのに使わないわけにはいかない。みたいな感じかな? One characteristic that seems to distinguish human languages from other natural communicative system is that human language exhibits constituency and hierarchical structure. 他の自然なコミュニケーションのシステムと人間言語を区別するように思える1つの特性は、人間の言語が構成要素と階層構造を示すということです。 seems to がうまく訳せません -->seems to distinguish ~を区別するようである でもseems toをうまく訳すことは重要なのでしょうか?どうでもいいのでは? Constituency means that linguistic units "clump together",or "merge" (Chomsky 1995) in discourse. 構成要素は「群れ?」や「融合」といった統語的単位を意味する。 in discourseはどう訳すのでしょうか。。 -->discourse「談話」「会話」 “clump together”は”come together”ってことでしょう。談話の中でlinguistic unitsが合体した、一緒にくっついたようなものがconstituencyだといっているのかな。 Linear order and constituency are two important variable that any syntactic analysis of a language must be able to describe. 線形順序と階層構造は、言語のどんな構造分析も説明できなければならない2つの重要な変動要因です。 -->文構造を分析する上でその文のLinear order と constituencyをちゃんと説明できなきゃだめってことかな。

その他の回答 (1)

  • litsa1234
  • ベストアンサー率28% (230/795)
回答No.2

The largest category in phrase structure is a special category, sometimes symbolized by the letter S. (ヒント) センテンス(文)を句で構成されていると考える句構造分析では最初にセンテンス(文)を持って来ます。それをSという記号で表わします。 In earlier versions of Generative Grammar this was a mnemonic for "Sentence"; however, we will continue to refer to it as "clause", or "the clause level." (ヒント) mnemonic :記憶のための記号です。 「S」は「節(主語と述語から成っています)」とか「節レベル」という意味でこれからは使います。 It is generally assumed in Generative Grammar that linguistic structure above the S level is not amenable to phrase structure analysis. (ヒント) assumed :前提されています。つまり以下のことは正しいという事とされていますので承知して置いてくださいということです。 not amenable :適していない。馴染まない。 More recent versions of Generative Grammar have eliminated the need for this special category altogether, having subsumed it under the phrasal category labels. (ヒント) subsume:(何々の下に)統合する。 We can consider a clause to be the grammatical expression of a PROPOSITION. (ヒント) 「節」は文法の概念であり、「命題」は意味論の概念である。 「命題」を文法的に言えば「節」となる。 A proposition has to do with entities in the message world and semantic relations among them, whereas a clause has to do with syntactic categories and the syntactic relations among them. (ヒント) 命題はメッセージ内の項目を取り出してきて、関係を調べる。 節は言葉の配置を問題にする。 We can informally think of a proposition as consisting of a "complete thought." (ヒント) 命題は「AはBである」式の「完成された思考」から成っていると簡単に考えてもいいだろう。 Linear order is just too strong and obvious a structural variable for languages not to use it in some way to accomplish important communicative work. (ヒント) 言語を単語と文法を変数とする函数と考える。 単語の並び順は文法規則の一つであるが、文の構造を決定するものとしての変数である。 too ... not to ..:大変...なので...しないという訳にはいかない。 One characteristic that seems to distinguish human languages from other natural communicative system is that human language exhibits constituency and hierarchical structure. (ヒント) 人間は単語の塊を構成する力がある。またその構成要素を使って階層を作っていく力がある。 Constituency means that linguistic units "clump together",or "merge" (Chomsky 1995) in discourse. (ヒント) discourse:論文 Linear order and constituency are two important variable that any syntactic analysis of a language must be able to describe. (ヒント) 文法規則は言語函数の変数である。その中で「単語の並び順」と「単語の塊化」は重要である。 以上、参考になれば幸いです。

関連するQ&A

  • 言語学書の内容

    言語学書をよんでいるのですが、いまいち内容が理解できません。 訳し方が間違っているのでしょうか・・・。 アドバイスお願いします。 Part of what you know when you know a language is how words can combine to form larger units,such as phrases and clauses. この文は訳せませんでした。。 LINEAR ORDER, CONSTITUENCY(which we will also refer to as SYNTACTIC MERGER, "grouping" or "clumping),and HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE(also referred to as "nesting")are the major features of the SYNTAX of all human languages. 線形性序列、構成要素(これは分類や群れといった統語的融合と言及)また、階層構造(文の中にはめこむ?と言及)、これらは人間言語の統語論の主な特徴。 The basic building blocks of syntactic structure are called SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES.These are two subtypes of syntactic categories;LEXICAL CATEGORIES and PHRASAL CATEGORIES. 統語的構造の基本的なかたまりを統語範疇と呼ぶ。2つの特殊型の統語範疇がある。語彙範疇と句範疇だ。 LEXICAL CATEGORIES consist of units that do not have internal syntactic structure themselves. 語彙範疇は内部の統語構造?そのものをもっていない単位からなる。 For example, a noun may have morphological structure(prefixes,suffixes,etc.)but is not made up of syntactically distinct units. 例えば名詞は形態論的構造(接頭辞や接尾辞など)をもつが、統語的に明瞭な単位?からは構成されない。 Phrasal categories, on the other hand, may have internal syntactic structure.For example, a noun phrase must contain a noun, but may also contain adjectives and many other units that "clump together"with the noun. 一方で句範疇は内部の統語構造?をもつ。例えば、名詞句は名詞を含む。   この後が分かりません。。 It is important to note that a phrasal category may consist of only one unit.For example, a noun like Lucretia may also be a noun phrase.This is because it has tha same distributional properties as a noun phrase. 句範疇はたった一つの単位からなるということが重要である。例えばLucretiaというような名詞は名詞句だろう。なぜなら、名詞句と同じ分類特性を持つからだ。 以上です。長文ですみません。 よろしくお願いします。

  • 言語学について

    言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 System for organizing grammatical relations In order to insightfully discuss systems of grammatical relations within a clause, it is convenient to identify three basic "semantico-syntactic roles" termed S, A and O. Similar terms are used by Comrie and Silverstein. These terms assume two prototypical clause types. The S is defined as the only nominal argument of a single-argument clause. This quite different from the S used by Greeberg in his characterization of constituent order typology, as discussed in chapter 7, or the S used in earlier versions of generative grammar to refer to the highest node in constituent structure. While the term S often reminds us of the grammatical relation subject, S as used in this chapter refers informally to the "Single" argument of a single-argument clause. Sometimes this type of clause is referred to as INTRANSITIVE clause. The A is defined as the most AGENT-like argument of a multi-argument clause. Sometimes this type of clause is referred to as a TRANSITIVE clause. If there is no argument that is a very good agent, the A is the argument that is treated morphosyntactically in the same manner as prototypical agents are treated. Usually there will be one argument in every verbal clause that exhibits this property, though there may not be.More complex systems are described below. O is the most PATIENT-like argument of a multi-argument clause (see chapter 4). While the term O often reminds us of the grammatical relation "object", O refers informally to the "Other" argument of a multi-argument clause. Again, if none of the arguments is very much like a PATIENT, then the argument that is treated like a prototype patient is considered to be the O. In this schema, the grammatical relation of SUBJECT can be defined universally(fo all languages, rather than for one particular language) as S together with A, while DIRECT OBJECT, or simply "object" can be defined as O alone. Some languages pay more grammatical attention to these notions than do others. In the following extended discussion, we will discuss the various morphosyntactic systems for expressing S, A and O. Languages may treat S and A the same morphosyntactically, and O differently. The following English examples illustrate this system with pronominal case forms-one form, "he" is used for third-person singular masculine pronouns in both the S and the A roles. A different form, "him", is used for third-person masculine singular pronouns in the O role. The extended circle around S and A in this diagram indicates that S and A are treated by the grammar of English as "the same", as demonstrated by the subject properties discuss above (use of the subject case form, "he", in 24, immediately before the verb). The distinct circle around O indicates that O is treated differently, insofar as a different pronominal form, "him", is used to refer to it. "Him" also appears in a different position in the clause, namely after the verb. This system is often referred to as a NOMINATIVE/ACCUSATIVE system. The morphosyntactic grouping of S and A together can be called the NOMINATIVE case, while the distinct morphosyntactic treatment of the O role is the ACCUSATIVE case. The Quechuan languages (a group of languages spoken throughout the Andes mountains in South America) employ the same arrangement. However, in addition to pronominal forms and constituent order, the Quecha languages express this system in morphological case marking on free noun phrases. In the following examples from Huallaga Quechua the same case marker 0(zero), occurs on noun phrases in both the S and A roles. A dis tinct case marker, "-ta", occurs on noun phrases in the O role (all Quechua examples courtesy of David Weber, p.c.)

  • 英文の日本語訳の添削おねがいします!

    The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori. プリオリやポステリオリという用語は命題を知るための基礎をしるすために主に使われる もし命題が表される言語を学習をする経験よりも、命題がある経験の独立性を認識されることができるならば、与えられた命題はプリオリだと認識できる。 それに対しポステオリだと認識できる命題は経験に基づいていると認識される。たとえば、すべての独身者たちは未婚者であるという命題は、プリオリである。 そして、今、そとで雨が降っているという命題はポステリオリである。

  • 言語学について

    言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative/absolutive and/or nominative/accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order. Of course, the answer is "yes". English, consistent with its strong nominative/accusative orientation, treats S and A alike in that the S of intransitive verbs and the \a of transitive verbs most neutrally occur in preverbal position. The O of transitive verbs, on the other hand, is treated differently in that it occurs in post-verbal position. In some verb-medial languages the verb and the O argument from a "tight" constituent in transitive clauses. In Kuikuro, a Cariban language of Brazil, SV(intransitive) and OV(transitive) are very rigid structures. The most neutral position for the A argument is following the OV complex(example 30a). In 30a, the S argument of an intransitive verb occurs in preverbal position. In 30b, O argument of antransitive verb occurs in preverbal position, and the A argument occurs in post-verbal position. since both S and O occur in the same position, we can say that this language manifests an ergative/absolutive system in constituent order. One language, Sanuma(a variety of Yanomami spoken in Brazil and Venezuela), is a verb-final language, SV and OV form tight constituents. In transitive clauses A precedes O and V, but if there is any other constituent, call it X, it must occur after A. Thus the orders are AXOV and XSV. Since A is treated distinctly by being separate from the OV complex, this pattern can be considered to be a kind of constituent order ergativity. In summary, any system that treats S and A alike as opposed to O is a nominative-accusative system fir organizing grammatical relations. Any system that treats S and O alike as opposed to A is an ergative/absolutive system. The following section will provide some suggestions to how to approach the analysis of grammatical relations.

  • 言語学について

    言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 Nominative/accusative systems usually seem very reasonable to speakers of Indo-European languages since most of these languages exhibit this kind of system. The following examples from Yup'ik (alaska) illustrate another system for grouping S, A, and O. In these examples the case marker "-aq" occurs on the S argument of an intransitive clause and O argument of a transitive clause. If any morphological case marks A alone, it can be called the ERGATIVE case. Similarly, any morphological case that marks both S and O can be termed the ABSOLUTE case. This arrangement, known as an ERGATIVE /ABSOLUTIVE system, is sporadic in European and African languages. However, it is common in other areas of the world Ergativity occurs as a basic system for organizing grammatical relations in many languages of Australia, Central Asia,and the Americas. It occurs as a partial case marking system in South Asia and in many other languages of the Americas. Many Austronesian languages have also been claimed to exhibit this system. In addition to morphological case marking on pronouns or full noun phrases, languages may manifest ergative/absolutive or nominative/accusative systems in person marking on verbs, and/or constituent order. We have seen above that Quechua manifests a nominative/accusative system in case marking of noun phrases. Quechua also manifests a nominative/accusative system for organizing grammatical relations in person marking on verbs. In examples 28a, the third-person singular S of an intransitive verb is referred to by the suffix "-n". In 28b, first-person S argument is expressed by the suffix "-a"(actually length on the final vowel of the root). Examples 28c shows that suffix "-n" is also used for third-person A argument of transitive verbs. Hence, A and S are treated morphologically alike by the person-making system of Quechua. The fact that, in 28c, the first-person suffix for O arguments is "-ma" rather than "-a" illustrates that O and S are treated as different. Again, this way of treating S and A alike and O differently constitutes a nominative/accusative system. As might be expected, languages can also manifest an ergative /absolutive GR system in person marking on verbs. Yup'ik will again serve as our example of such a system: In example 29a, the suffix "-nga" indicates a first-person singular S argument of an intransitive verc. In 29b, the suffix "-q" marks the third-person s. In 29c, the suffix "-nga" marks the first-person O argument of a transitive clause. Since this is the same marker that is used for first-person S arguments, this suffix groups S and O together morphologically into an absolutive category. The third-person singular A argument of a transitive clause is expressed by a suffix "-a" . Since this suffix is different from the third-person S suffix, it can be said to identify ergative arguments. Again, this treatment of S together with O as distinct from A constitutes an ergative/absolutive system. Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative/absolutive and/or nominative/accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order.

  • 言語学について

    言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 Nominative/accusative systems usually seem very reasonable to speakers of Indo-European languages since most of these languages exhibit this kind of system. The following examples from Yup\'ik (alaska) illustrate another system for grouping S, A, and O. In these examples the case marker \"-aq\" occurs on the S argument of an intransitive clause and O argument of a transitive clause. If any morphological case marks A alone, it can be called the ERGATIVE case. Similarly, any morphological case that marks both S and O can be termed the ABSOLUTE case. This arrangement, known as an ERGATIVE /ABSOLUTIVE system, is sporadic in European and African languages. However, it is common in other areas of the world Ergativity occurs as a basic system for organizing grammatical relations in many languages of Australia, Central Asia,and the Americas. It occurs as a partial case marking system in South Asia and in many other languages of the Americas. Many Austronesian languages have also been claimed to exhibit this system. In addition to morphological case marking on pronouns or full noun phrases, languages may manifest ergative/absolutive or nominative/accusative systems in person marking on verbs, and/or constituent order. We have seen above that Quechua manifests a nominative/accusative system in case marking of noun phrases. Quechua also manifests a nominative/accusative system for organizing grammatical relations in person marking on verbs. In examples 28a, the third-person singular S of an intransitive verb is referred to by the suffix \"-n\". In 28b, first-person S argument is expressed by the suffix \"-a\"(actually length on the final vowel of the root). Examples 28c shows that suffix \"-n\" is also used for third-person A argument of transitive verbs. Hence, A and S are treated morphologically alike by the person-making system of Quechua. The fact that, in 28c, the first-person suffix for O arguments is \"-ma\" rather than \"-a\" illustrates that O and S are treated as different. Again, this way of treating S and A alike and O differently constitutes a nominative/accusative system. As might be expected, languages can also manifest an ergative /absolutive GR system in person marking on verbs. Yup\'ik will again serve as our example of such a system: In example 29a, the suffix \"-nga\" indicates a first-person singular S argument of an intransitive verc. In 29b, the suffix \"-q\" marks the third-person s. In 29c, the suffix \"-nga\" marks the first-person O argument of a transitive clause. Since this is the same marker that is used for first-person S arguments, this suffix groups S and O together morphologically into an absolutive category. The third-person singular A argument of a transitive clause is expressed by a suffix \"-a\" . Since this suffix is different from the third-person S suffix, it can be said to identify ergative arguments. Again, this treatment of S together with O as distinct from A constitutes an ergative/absolutive system. Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative/absolutive and/or nominative/accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order.

  • 言語学書

    こんにちは。長文失礼します。。。 言語学書の内容でいまいちどう訳していいかわからないところがあるので、訳や内容、アドバイスなど回答お願いします。 One teaching exercise popular with many English language instructors provides students with a sentence structure or pattern that they must imitate.Here is a typical structure for transitive clauses: Doctors rarely visit patients in their homes at night. Britons normally prefer fish and chips overseas during the summer. Then the students are given lists of forms that can fill the slots.For example,one list might include the following:children,Americans,chefs,customs officials,wrestlers,cats. Any one of these could be inserted into either the subject or direct object slots.Other exercises might have learners suggesting their own items for each slot. The same kind of exercise can be used for other types of clauses such as intransitive clauses.Grammarians looking at such exercises would notice that they exploit the kinds of properties discussed in the last chapter ―linearity,hierarchy,and categoriality.Teachers would need to be aware of the ranges of options available for clause sequences. In this chapter we start to look in more detail at the options for clause structure,not just the linear sequences but the hierarchical structures exploited in English,and the grammatical categories used.We are interested not only in the units employed but also in the grammatical relations between the units.We will be applying tests to check grammatical analyses and to distinguish between clauses that look structurally identical at first glance, yet are not treated as such by native speakers.Those learning English have to acquire these distinctions,and our grammatical analyses must reflect them. Clauses are constructions with one phrase constituent, typically a noun phrase,that bears the subject relation and another constituent,the verb phrase,bearing the predicate relation. アドバイスなど、どんなことでもいいですので、回答よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 脳神経科学と言語に関する英文で

    ある英文読解問題集にある次の英文についての設問に関して尋ねいたします。 (問い) 次の英文の最終文にある”making associations”((2)とします)と同じ内容が述べられている箇所を抜き出せ。(他の設問は省略しました) From both the point of view of neuroscience and linguistics, two related questions about words and grammar are especially germane in relation to the main themes of this chapter. First, what is the nature of the neural machinery that allows us to learn language? And second, why do we have such a profound drive to learn language? The major twentieth-century figure who has grappled with these questions is linguist Noam Chomsky, who, while not interested in brain structure, has argued that the complexity of language is such that it cannot simply be learned. Chomsky therefore proposed that language must be predicated on a “universal grammar” laid down in the evolution of our species. Whereas this argument is undoubtedly correct (the basic language machinery, like all aspects of brain circuitry that support adult behavior, is indeed constructed during the normal development of each individual as a result of inheritance), Chomsky's eschewing of neurobiology avoids the central question of how, in evolutionary or developmental terms, this machinery comes to be and how it actually encodes words and grammar. Whatever the mechanisms eventually prove to be, much of the language we use is obviously learned by making neuronal linkages between arbitrary symbols and the objects, concepts, and interrelationships they signify in the real world. As such, human language provides a rich source for understanding how the relevant parts of the human cortex and their constituent neurons work to produce the enormous facility for making associations, which appears to be a fundamental aspect of all cortical functions. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.1892の第2段落) 解答はその前の文(最後から2つ目の文)にある” making neuronal linkages between arbitrary symbols and the objects, concepts, and interrelationships they signify in the real world”((1)とします)となっていました。 しかし、私はこの解釈は正しくないのではないかという気がします。 それは、(1)と(2)は同じく大脳皮質におけるニューロン間の「結合」のことを言っているものの、 (1) は言語活動を支える言語プロパーのものであって、恣意的な記号とモノなどとの間での結合である、 のに対して、 (2) は言語活動を含め、認知・記憶・学習・思考・問題解決など多岐にわたる高次認知機能一般を支えるものとしてであり、一般に「連合」と訳されるものをさしている、 と私には思えるからです。 私の読みとりは間違っていますでしょうか、ご教示ください。

  • 言語学について

    言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。 できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。 よろしくお願いします。 Noun phrases are not the only constituents of made of up of various combinations of phrases and even clauses. The verb phrase also allows a range of combinations. Thus, clauses are categorized as intransitive, transitive, copular, and ditransitive, depending on how many argument noun phrases or clauses, if any, follow the verb.   Dogs bark. A wolf howled mournfully. The lonely ploughman talked to the cows. None of these three contain a verb directly followed by an object. Here is a constituent tree for the sentence about the cow: Clauses like these, in which the verbs do not take objects, are called "intransitive clauses ".The verbs are said to be used intransitively. Transitive are clauses in which lowing are all examples of transitive clauses: The panther climbed the tree. The mayor rejected the petitions. Dr. Faustus knew that Helen was unreliable. But not all clauses with a sequence of a verb followed by a noun phrase are transitive clauses. Consider this clause in which the verb is followed by a noun phrase: Esmeralda arrived the next day. The noun phrase "the next day" is a time noun phrase that could be shifted to the beginning of the clause. It is not part of a verb phrase whose head is "arrived", and it is not an argument of the predicate ARRIVE. It is thus not a daughter of the verb phrase. The clause is an intransitive clause and there is no sister slot for an object. Transitive clauses, however, have an object position after the main verb. The noun phrases verbs "climbed" and "rejected" in the previous two examples are objects of their verb phrases. One useful way to test whether a clause is transitive is to see whether it has a passive counterpart. Look at these pairs of examples: The panther climbed the tree. The tree was climbed by the panther. The mayor rejected the petitions. The petitions were rejected by the mayor. The first clause in each pair is a transitive clause. Only transitive clauses have passive voice counterparts. See what happens when we try to form a passive voice clause corresponding to the intransitive clause with the time noun phrase: Esmeralda arrived the next day. The next day was arrived by Esmeralda. Unlike the noun phrase objects in the other examples, "the next day" cannot be the subject of the passive voice clause. In the active voice clause it isn't the object of the verb phrase. Phrases like "the next day" are optional constituents known as "adjuncts". Adjuncts are more freely moved than are required constituents. Thus the next day can be shifted to the front of the clause: The next day Esmeralda arrived. The passive voice test is probably the most reliable way to check whether an active voice clause is transitive or intransitive. In the next section we'll examine another kind of clause that looks like a transitive clause but isn't. Again we'll apply the passive test.

  • 正確な訳

    A proposition has to do with entities in the message world and semantic relations among them, whereas a clause has to do with syntactic categories and the syntactic relations among them. If linear order were the only respect in which units in the linguistic stream could be related to one another, language would be very simple indeed. Constituency means that linguistic units “clump together,”or“merge”(Chomsky 1995) in discouse. 以前こちらで質問し、回答を頂いたのですが、ヒントや大まかな意味での回答でした。今回、英文を正確に読む授業でして、上記3つの文が正確に訳せず困っています。 言語学の内容で、難解かもしれませんが、どなたか回答よろしくお願いします。