PROJECTION RULES

The projection rules of KF are a system of rules that operate on full grammatical descriptions of sentences and on dictionary entries to produce semantic interpretations for every sentence of the language. Projection rules are of two types; described informally, projection rules of type 1 (PR 1) operate on sentences formed without transformations or with obligatory transformations only; those of type 2 (PR2) operate on sentences formed by optional transformations. It is already anticipated in KF (p. 207) that if the syntactic theory of a language could be formulated without recourse to optional transformations, PR 2 could be eliminated. Since the publication of KF the possibilities of a syntax without optional transformations, singulary¹ or generalized,² have been shown to be real, so that the need for PR 2 no longer exists. Let us then consider the differences among various PR 1.

 

Projection rules in KF differ among each other according to (a) the conditions for their application and (b) their effect. We take up each factor in turn.

 

(a) The conditions are stated in terms of the grammatical status of constituent strings in a binary (i.e. two-constituent) construction. The specification of the grammatical status of strings in KF is, however, thoroughly eclectic. The terms ‘ noun ’ and ‘ article ’, to which the rules refer, are lexical categories given by the grammar; similarly, ‘verb phrase’, ‘noun phrase’, and ‘main verb’ are defined as non-lexical (preterminal) categories of the grammar. Such labels, on the other hand, as ‘ object of the main verb ’ and ‘ subject ’ have a different theoretical status in the syntax which KF takes for granted.³ Finally, such notions as ‘modifier’ and ‘head’, to which PR₁ makes reference (p. 198), have no status in the theory at all; they beg a question in disguise and are probably undefinable without reference to semantics. Although KF gives no indication of the number of PRs in a language (n. 20), it would seem that the procedure would require as many PRs as there are binary constructions in the grammar. (No treatment for ternary constructions is proposed by KF.)

 

(b) The PRs differ in their effect, such effect being stated in terms of deletions of selection restrictions. Let us represent a construction as (21), where M and N are

 

lexical strings with their associated sets of syntactic and semantic markers, and  and v are their respective selection restrictions. In principle, there are four possible restrictions on the selections of the construction, A, as a whole.

 

A may retain the restrictions of both constituents (i), or of the left constituent (ii) or of the right constituent (iii); or it may be unrestricted (iv). In KF, projection rule 1 is a rule of type (22 iii); rule 3 is of type (22 ii); rules 2 and 4 are of type (22 iv). No rule of type (22 i) is cited, but there appears no reason to exclude its occurrence in principle.

 

In sum, the function of the KF projection rules is to classify all binary constructions, terminal as well as preterminal, of a grammar into four types according to the deletion or non-deletion of the selection restrictions of their right and left constituents. Except for the differential effects on selection restrictions, the power of all projection rules is the same: namely, to sum the paths of the constituents. Consequently, the classification of constructions by PRs could easily be shown within the categorial part of the syntax,⁴ so that no separate PR ‘ component ’ would be necessary.

 

Before attempting a radically new approach [ch. 3], we must still consider the position of deviant utterances in an explicit linguistic theory. Since KF touches on the problem only tangentially, we must on this point turn to certain other sources which are close to KF in spirit.

 

¹ Katz and Postal (1964: 31-46).

² Chomsky (1965).

3 A way of defining these syntactic functions derivatively has now been described by Chomsky (1965).

⁴ For example, instead of using ‘ + ’ in all branching rules (A → M + N), we might restrict the plus to rules of types (22 i) and use  and ‘<—|—>’,respectively, for rules of type <22ii-iv>(22ii-iv).

الاكثر قراءة في Semantics

Semantic features

Hierarchies of hyponyms

Hyponymy

Primary and Secondary verbs

Types associated with the Adjective class

Antonymy

Hyponymy and the has-relation

Lexical relations

Polysemy

Adverbs with manner but not sentential function

Situation types

Agent and theme

Adjective types and derived adverbs

Semantic roles

Words and clitics

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

ضمن ملتقى غيث السماء.. باحثة تناقش البُعد الفكري للمبعث النبوي في بناء المرأة

انعقاد الجلسة البحثية ضمن فعّاليات ملتقى غيث السماء القرآني النسوي السنوي الثاني

فعاليات ملتقى غيث السماء القرآني تشهد عرض فيلمٍ عن الحافظة بتول أسعد من ذوي الاحتياجات الخاصّة

عرض فيلم وثائقي عن بعثة النبي محمد (صلّى الله عليه وآله) ضمن فعّاليات ملتقى غيث السماء الثاني

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

العلاج بالماء البارد.. باحثون يكشفون فوائده الصحية

من دون صالة رياضية.. عادة بسيطة لتحسين الصحة وخسارة الوزن

لصحة القلب وتفادي السرطان.. استهلك هذا النوع من الطعام

دراسة تحذر من خطر شرب القهوة في أكواب البلاستيك

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

إنجاز طبي تاريخي.. جراحة قلب بلا شق في الصدر

اليابان.. مراحيض توفر فحص للحالة الصحية عبر "تحليل البراز" !

اختراق واسع لمنصة "إنستغرام".. ونشر بيانات على "الدارك ويب"

علماء يحذرون: هكذا سيفنى كوكب الأرض

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Anaphora vs. deixis

Grammatical case vs. semantic case

Semantic roles and Grammatical Relations Conclusion

Arguments and semantic roles

Semantic roles and Grammatical Relations

Constituency

Identifying meaningful elements Summary

Identifying meaningful elements within words

Identifying meaningful elements Identifying word meanings

Consequences of modifying Gunlogsons 2001 model

A case study of the semantics of clear - Factivity revisited

A case study of the semantics of clear - The analysis