Syntactic Structures Puns

I'm curious as to the best way to tag the syntactic structures of some text. So not just POS tags, but things like complement and relative clauses? Are there taggers specifically for this?

could someone help me with this problem please? I am not that sure with the answers.

A. The authors conveyed the results in a series of graphs.

a. Draw a labeled tree conforming to our official phrase structure rules. Make sure that you label the part of speech of each of the words in the sentence.

b. There is more than one way to analyze the syntactic structure of sentence (A) that conforms to our official phrase structure rules. Draw one of the different trees. That is, draw a labeled tree for (A) that conforms to the official phrase structure rules but that makes different claims about constituent structure than your answer to part (a).

c. List the phrases that are constituents in the tree you drew for part (a) that are not constituents in the tree you drew for part (b), and then list the phrases that are constituents in the tree you drew for part (b) that are not constituents in the tree you drew for part (a). (Make sure you indicate which set of phrases is which.)

d. Carefully explain the meaning that each syntactic analysis corresponds to. Which reading do you think was intended by the New York Times? If you have a reason for why you think so, say what that reason is.

I understand that Neural Networks uses vector space model to learn and represent the semantics of words. Most example is given as King - Man + Woman = Queen in n-dimensional space where each of these words are vectors pointing in n-dimensional space. I think this example only refers to semantic part of the words in language. What about language syntactic structure? How is it learned and represented in vector space model?

Looking for resources to answer a research question I have having to do with ordering syntactic categories by difficulty. If I have sentence "A" that someone would more likely deem more difficult than sentence "B" what are the metrics one would use in syntax to define "difficulty"? Or even better what is a paper where someone lays this out and correlates difficulty with percentage of understanding from Mechanical Turk surveys or something.

ISBN: 9780262277952

URL

Hoping for a publisher's PDF, available to subscribers at the link above. A hard-to-read version is available on usual sites, but I couldn't find a publisher's PDF anywhere.

I'm a linguistics undergrad, but I'm fairly early in my program and still very much a novice. I'm also an admirer of Chomsky's more political work and I'm eager to hear his thoughts on language that were apparently so groundbreaking. I'm on track to take my first syntax class next autumn- should I wait until then to read Syntactic Structures? What kind of prior knowledge does the book assume?

First, I'm not a linguist or anything like that. But I moved to France several years ago speaking no French, and over the course of learning the language I hit upon something that I feel absolutely must be true. One night when discussing my theory with a couch surfer who was an English teacher, they recommended Chomsky's book. While the vast majority was simply too technical and pretty far over my head, towards the end he casually mentions that it's possible that the same deconstruction of words into their individual sounds might reveal something about the origin of the word. If I recall correctly, he used the examples of glare, glimmer, glower, glacier, etc where the gl sound indicates cold or icy. I noticed this with the ch sound in French, chaussure, chaussettes, chaussons etc with the ch being indicative of something warm, or maybe more specifically brings warmth to humans, or human warmth (charmant, for example).

Has there been any follow up on this theory? Syntactic Structures was written so long ago I have to think that there has, and I'd be very curious to read more about it if so.

Hey masters! So i'm doing my undergraduate thesis, my topic is: "Syntactic Structure in Sahi Translated Language" And last week my teacher asked me, "what significance do we gain in analyzing this topic?" And i said "Well to understand the structure of the language ma'm" but the she said it's not a good enough reason as an objective. So my question is, is there any 'good enough' significance that i gain by analyzing this topic? Or can you guys give me some inspiration to take on another topic? And yes guys, trust me i've done my research and i just can't find a good one, it's a dead end! Help me :( Thank You!

I study at Brawijaya University in Indonesia, majoring in English Language and Literature and minoring in Linguistics.

Can't seem to find one

And will it provide me to reach "conversational level" (assuming I have the vocabulary to provide for the syntactic structure) if not, what other sources should I retrieve (Mostly prefer books) Thanks

-ly is an affix that generally attaches to adjectives and yields adverbs, yet in "matter-of-factly" there's a weird thing going on. does any one have other examples of weird phrases like this? maybe "over-the-topness" would be one?

I have to present a summary of the ideas presented in the second half Syntactic Structures in a week (in my second language, FUN). Hopefully someone who has fully absorbed this book will be so awesome as to lend a hand.

I am curious about something Prof. Chomsky says in his chapter On the Goals of Linguistic Theory where he is comparing three potential general theories and their power to generate/justify grammars (based on a corpus) that satisfy the conditions of adequacy, generality and simplicity.

He opts to pursue a linguistic theory that is oriented towards evaluating a set grammars against a corpus and selecting the "best" grammar. This kind of theory "may not tell us, in any practical way, how to go about constructing the grammar of a given language from a corpus." (54) He also dismisses the goal of a theory oriented towards finding out how to actually construct a grammar as probably not "attainable in any interesting way"(52).

I would like to summarize it this way:
We should not concern ourselves with how "realistic" a grammar is, that is, how much it represents or mirrors a given language's grammar, but instead concern ourselves with selecting the grammar that is capable of producing only strings deemed grammatical by native speakers, is "simple" etc. In other words, the "best" grammar could possibly be an unintuitive blob of levels and rules that, upon inspection, seems "artificial", but so long as it satisfies Chomsky's requirements, it's still "the best" possible grammar/theory of L.

D'y'all think this summary is conceptually accurate? Am I reading this the wrong way? Thank you for your time and attention!

This question is more about linguistics than history, but since it heavily draws from historical linguistics/philology (and /r/asklinguists is a dead sub) I thought I'd inquire about it here.

It seems, from my limited linguistic experience (English, Portuguese, Latin and notions of some other languages), that natural languages share core syntactic notions, such as in basic morphology (in classifying words as nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc.) and in the possible ways to combine their meanings as a unit (more concretely, clause classifications seem to be the same).

Regarding European languages, this is not too surprising, given the influence Latin had due to the Roman Empire and the Church, and due to the postulated Proto-Indo-European language. However, theories such as Chomsky's Universal Grammar seem to suggest such commonality extends to all languages, well beyond those covered by these explanations.

So my question is: are these curiously reoccurring syntactic (and to some extent semantic) elements in fact universal across contemporary and ancient languages? If so (and this strays somewhat from history), are there historical, psychological or phenomenological theories or conjectures attempting to explain (instead of merely postulate) this astounding coincidence?

EDIT: clarification

In one of my linguistics (syntax) classes we talked about how meaning changes the X-bar structure of sentences. Two of the examples that we got were:

• He agreed to turn the wheel.
• He agreed to turn the corner.

The "agree" part is (I think) just a subject control verb and kind of irrelevant when dealing with the nonfinite clause "to turn the ____." I understand the semantic difference between "turning" in the sense of spinning something and spinning yourself, but how would the two nonfinite differ in terms of their syntactic structure? He isn't literally "turning" the corner, but it still seems to me as if there be any difference between the two.

(Inspired by a recent front page post) I also have a girlfriend that sleep talks, and it always comes out as gibberish. However, it isn't necessarily broken English, just the word choice is always random. Why is that? Why doesn't she say things that make sense?

Edit: So it seems that its pretty inconclusive!
Edit: So I went away for a bit, this post had 4 comments when I last checked. Holy crap I have a lot to read. Thank you to all those who have helped explain!
Edit: Sorry about the title, I am dumb. I meant to say "Semantically Wrong", not "Syntactically Wrong"

Hey masters! So i'm doing my undergraduate thesis, my topic is: "Syntactic Structure in Sahi Translated Language" And last week my teacher asked me, "what significance do we gain in analyzing this topic?" And i said "Well to understand the structure of the language ma'm" but the she said it's not a good enough reason as an objective. So my question is, is there any 'good enough' significance that i gain by analyzing this topic? Or can you guys give me some inspiration to take on another topic? And yes guys, trust me i've done my research and i just can't find a good one, it's a dead end! Help me :( Thank You!

I study at Brawijaya University in Indonesia, majoring in English Language and Literature and minoring in Linguistics.