LEADER 05502nam 2200697 450 001 9910821660903321 005 20230803222237.0 010 $a90-272-7016-3 035 $a(CKB)2550000001352714 035 $a(EBL)1783857 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001332726 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12618161 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001332726 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11377551 035 $a(PQKB)10999290 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1783857 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10929851 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL642784 035 $a(OCoLC)890702185 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1783857 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000001352714 100 $a20140921h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aDependency linguistics $erecent advances in linguistic theory using dependency structures /$fedited by Kim Gerdes, University Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 ; Eva Hajicova?, Charles University Prague ; Leo Wanner, Pompeu Fabra University Barcelona 210 1$aAmsterdam, Netherlands :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d2014. 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (367 p.) 225 1 $aLinguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today ;$vVolume 215 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-5598-9 311 $a1-322-11533-8 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aDependency Linguistics; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of content; Authors; Foreword; 1. Is dependency a linguistic domain?; 2. This volume; Dependency in language; 1. Introductory remarks; 1.1 The task stated; 1.2 Some History; 1.3 Dependency and meaning-text stratificational approach; 2. Different types of linguistic dependency; 3. Fourteen possible combinations of the three types of linguistic dependency; 4. Semantic Dependency; 5. Syntactic dependency; 5.1 Deep- vs. surface-syntactic dependency; 5.2 Deep-Syntactic Relations 327 $a5.3 Surface-syntactic relations: criteria for establishing surface-syntactic relations in a language5.4 Examples of deep- vs. surface-syntactic structures; 6. Morphological dependency; 6.1 Agreement; 6.2 Government; 7. What syntactic dependency is good for; 7.1 Diatheses and Voices; 7.2 Lexical functions; 7.3 Phrasemes; 7.4 Paraphrasing; 7.5 Word order; 8. Where syntactic dependency is not sufficient; 9. Constituents vs. phrases; 10. "Bracketing paradox"; 11. Conclusions; Acknowledgments; References; Appendix: A Tentative List of English SSynt-Relations 327 $aDelimitation of information between grammatical rules and lexicon1. Introduction; 2. Grammar vs. lexicon in selected theoretical approaches; 3. Valency; 3.1 Valency approach of FGD; 3.2 Valency in the lexicon and grammar; 4. Dependent content clauses in Czech; 4.1 Dependent content clauses in FGD; 4.2 Modality in dependent content clauses; 4.3 Interconnecting lexical and grammatical information; 5. Grammatical diatheses of Czech verbs; 5.1 Passivization; 5.2 Resultative constructions; 5.3 Recipient diathesis; 5.4 Grammatical diatheses in the lexicon and grammar 327 $a6. Pair/group meaning of Czech nouns6.1 Nouns with pair/group meaning; 6.2 Pair/group meaning as a grammaticalized feature; 7. Conclusions; Acknowledgments; References; Sentence structure and discourse structure; 1. Motivation and background; 2. Basic aspects of the underlying syntactic structure in the PDT relevant for discourse; 3. Discourse annotation; 3.1 Discourse relevance of intra-sentential relations; 3.2 Basic aspects of discourse annotation; 4. Three semantic relations expressed both in a sentence and in a text; 4.1 The case of condition; 4.2 The case of specification 327 $a4.3 The Case of Opposition5. Overview of all relations expressed both in one sentence and between sentences; 6. Conclusion; Acknowledgements; References; The Copenhagen Dependency Treebank (CDT); 1. Introduction; 2. Syntactic annotation; 3. Morphological annotation; 4. The semantic dimension; 5. From syntax to discourse; 5.1 Discourse relations in the CDT; 5.2 Vagueness, doubts and inter-annotator agreement figures; 5.3 CDT graphs; 5.4 Unifying syntax and discourse in a tree structure. A discussion; 5.5 Attribution; 6. Conclusion; References; Creating a Dependency Syntactic Treebank 327 $a1. Introduction 330 $aThe objective of this paper is to discuss a formal representation of subject pronoun within a multi-strata dependency model. We propose criteria to describe consistently subject pronoun variations, naming subject pronouns that have no meaning and/or no morpho-phonological expression. We will present particular syntactic structures raised from a change of voice category; and will emphasize the problematic representation of Pro-Drop impersonal construction within the multi-strata framework. 410 0$aLinguistik aktuell ;$vVolume 215. 606 $aDependency grammar 606 $aLinguistic analysis (Linguistics) 606 $aComputational linguistics 615 0$aDependency grammar. 615 0$aLinguistic analysis (Linguistics) 615 0$aComputational linguistics. 676 $a415 702 $aHajic?ova?$b Eva 702 $aGerdes$b Kim 702 $aWanner$b Leo 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910821660903321 996 $aDependency linguistics$93939173 997 $aUNINA