• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!

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。

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数46
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1

文法の専門家ではないので、文法の用語は適語があるかもしれません。 最初のほうは、簡単なので適当に訳してます。(*)は、勝手に補いました。 「どんなことでも」とのことなので、参考までに。 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 生徒が真似するべき文の構造やパターンを、生徒に提供する、といった 英語の練習のさせ方がある。 ↓こんなのが他動詞節の典型的な構造である。 Doctors rarely visit patients in their homes at night. Britons normally prefer fish and chips overseas during the summer. それから生徒に空欄をうめるためのリストが渡される。 リストには、たとえば、以下のようなものが含まれている。 children,Americans,chefs,customs officials,wrestlers,cats. これらのどれでも、主語または目的語の欄に入れることができる。 学習者に自分で入れる語を考えさせる練習法もある。 同じような練習法は、自動詞節のような他のタイプの節でも使用できる。 文法学者が見れば、そういった練習法は、後の章で論じられる、 線形性(linearity)、階層性(hierarchy)、分類性(categoriality)と いった類の性質を利用していることに気づくことだろう。 この章では、句の構造の中で、置き換えができるものを、より 細かく見ていくことからはじめよう。それは英語のなかで利用 される、単に線形的な連続性ではなく、階層的な構造である。 それから利用される文法の分類を見ていく。 我々は、(*文に)使われている、ひとかたまりのユニットだけでなく、 ユニットとユニットの間の関係性にも関心がある。我々は、文法の 分析法をチェックするためのテストを行い、一目で構造を個別に 認識できるものと、ネイティブスピーカーにそのように認識されない ものとを区別しようとしている。 英語を学習している人々は、このような区別や、我々の文法的な 分析法を獲得し、それらを反映させなければならない。 節とは、ひとつの構成要素である句(典型的なものは、主語的な 関連を有する名詞句である)と、もうひとつの構成要素である 述語的な関係を有する動詞句からなる構造物である。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

回答ありがとうございます。 大変参考になり、助かりました。

関連するQ&A

  • 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.

  • 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。 Ditransitive Clauses Ditransitive clauses have to argument constituents in the verb phrase. The first noun phrase immediately following the verb normally refers to a living creature, the second to something nonliving. We'll describe here the two major classes of ditransitive clause. "Goal ditransitive clauses" have immediately following the verb an object noun phrase with the goal role. This object is called the "indirect object": ・・・ The second object argument is assigned the theme role. For most sentences like these, there are counterparts in which the first object has switched places with the second object must be introduced by the preposition "to". The noun phrase that was the indirect object is now the object of a prepositional phase headed by the preposition "to". Lool at these examples: ・・・ These noun phrases are no longer indirect objects of the verbs but instead are objects of the preposition "to". However, they are still arguments in their clause and cannot be omitted unless the context makes their mention unnecessary. We referred earlier to such noun phrases as oblique arguments, abbreviating the term as OBL-to. Some goal ditransitive clauses are idioms. These typically have "give" as their predicate, but allow other predicates such as "show" and "sell". Examples are "give the house a coat of paint, give the child a scolding, give the school a bad reputation, show the visitors a good time"(meaning "arrange for visitors to enjoy themselves"), and "sell them a bill of goods"(meaning "deceive them"). These have no counterparts with the goal proposition following "to". The same is true when the direct object is a clause rather than a noun phrase, as in these next examples: ・・・ There are no grammatical counterparts with "to": ・・・ The second class of ditransitive clause, "benefactive ditransitive clauses", contains predicates which assign the thematic role benefactive to the second object. In such clauses the second object, which is called the "benefactive object", refers to who the action was done "for" rather than who is was done "to". Not surprisingly, the preposition counterpart uses "for" rather than "to" before the oblique object: ・・・ There are, in addition to the two major classes of ditransitive clauses, clauses that cannot be so neatly classified because of special properties of their verbs. for instance, ditransitive clauses, it has no counterpart with a preposition: ・・・ The verb "cost" is also unusual in that it has no passive counterpart: You may be cost a lot of money (by that party). Other ditransitive do have passive counterparts: Angelica was told (by them) to arrive early for the award. The club was baked a guava-chiffon cake (by Craig). Since the verb may have two objects, we might expect there to be passive counterparts. After all, the object of a transitive clause is the unit that functions as suject for the counterpart passive clause. Two objects in the active voice should correspond to two subjects in the passive voice. but this is not the case. Only the noun phrase that functions as the first object (i.e., as the indirect object) can be subject of a passive counterpart. Following is an active voice example along with two candidates for its passive counterpart: The group awarded the college two special scholarships. The college was awarded two special scholarships (by the group). Two special scholarships were awarded the college (by the group). Actually, the noun phrase "two special scholarships" can be the subject of a passive, but only in the counterparts of the examples with "to": Two special scholarships will be awarded to the college (by the group).

  • 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。

  • 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.)

  • 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.

  • 言語学書の内容について

    いつもお世話になっております。 言語学書の内容でうまく訳せず、理解できないところがあるので、ヒントやアドバイスなどお願いします。 Grammatical relations can be organized according to a nominative/accusative or an ergative/absolutive system. 文法関係は、主格/対格や能格/絶対格システムによって組織される。 In this section, we will look at some languages which illustrate both nominative/accusative and ergative/absolutive systems, depending on the context. このセクションでは、文脈に依存して、主格/対格、能格/絶対格システムの両方を説明する言語を見ていく。 Such languages are sometimes said to exhibit a "split" system for organizing grammatical relation. そのような言語は文法的な関係を組織化する”分裂”システムを示すと言われる。 In most such split, the appearance of one system or the other is related either to the semantics/pragmatics of intransitive clauses(SPLIT INTRANSITIVITY), or to the semantics/pragmatics of transitive clauses(SPLIT ERGATIVITY). この文章がうまく訳せず、内容が理解できません。 Some languages express S arguments of intransitive verbs in two or more morphologically distinct ways. Such languages are sometimes said to exhibit SPLIT INTRANSITIVITY. いくつかの言語は、二つ以上の形態的に異なる方法で自動詞のS項を表現します。そのような言語は分裂自動性を示すと言われる。 The most common split intransitive systems express some S arguments in the same way as A arguments and others in the same way as O arguments. Other terms that have been used for such systems include STATIVE/ACTIVE, ACTIVE,SPLIT-S,and FLUID-S systems, among others. この文章も理解できませんでした。 There are two kinds of S arguments in Lakhota; Sa arguments are those S arguments that are treated grammatically like transitive A arguments, while So arguments are those S arguments that are treated like O arguments. Lakhota語には、2つの種類のS項がある。Sa項は、S項が文法的に他動詞のA項のように扱われるもの。一方でSo項は、S項がO項のように扱われるもの。 Usually there is a fairly obvious semantic basis for the distinction between the two types of S arguments, though the basis is apparently not the same for every language. For example, in modern colloguial Guarani(Paraguay) intransitive verbs that describe events that involve change fall into the Sa class,while those that describe states fall into the So class. うまく訳せません。。。 長文ですみません。 訳のチェックなど、どんなことでもいいですので何かアドバイスをお願いします。

  • 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。

  • 英文和訳お願い致します!長文ですが分かる方いましたらよろしくお願い致し

    英文和訳お願い致します!長文ですが分かる方いましたらよろしくお願い致します><; Thus far, we have argued that the language faculty incorporates , a set of universal principles which guide the child in acquiring a grammar. However, it clearly cannot be the case that all aspects of the grammar of language are universal; if this were so, all natural language grammars would be the same and there would be no grammatical learning involved in language acquisition (i.e. no need for children to learn anything about the grammar of sentences in the language they are acquiring ), only lexical learning(viz. learning the lexical items/words in the language and their idiosyncratic linguistic properties, e.g. whether a given item has an irregular plural or past-tense form). But although there are universal principles which determine the broad outlines of the grammar of natural languages, there also seem to be language-particular aspects of grammar which children have to learn as part of the task of acquiring their native language. Thus, language acquisition involves not only lexical learning but also some grammatical learning. Lets take a closer look at the grammatical learning involved, and what it tells us about the language acquisition process. Clearly, grammatical is not going to involve learning those aspects of grammar which are determined by universal (hence innate) grammatical operations and principles. Rather , grammatical learning will be limited to those parameters ( i.e. dimensions or aspects ) of grammar which are subject to language particular variation (and hence vary from one language to another). In other words, grammatical learning will be limited to parametrised aspects of grammar (i.e. those aspects of grammar which are subject to parametric variation from one language to another).

専門家に質問してみよう