

Grammar


Tenses


Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous


Past

Past Simple

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous


Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous


Parts Of Speech


Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Animate and Inanimate nouns

Nouns


Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Verbs


Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adverbs


Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective


Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pronouns


Pre Position


Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition


Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

prepositions


Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

conjunctions


Interjections

Express calling interjection

Phrases

Sentences


Grammar Rules

Passive and Active

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Demonstratives

Determiners


Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Semiotics


Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced


Teaching Methods

Teaching Strategies

Assessment
A hierarchy of semantic features
المؤلف:
THOMAS G. BEVER and PETER S. ROSENBAUM
المصدر:
Semantics AN INTERDISCIPLINARY READER IN PHILOSOPHY, LINGUISTICS AND PSYCHOLOGY
الجزء والصفحة:
588-33
2024-08-26
1425
A hierarchy of semantic features
For instance, the features in the matrix in (1) are specified with some redundancy. We can see from inspection of the frames in (2 a) and (2 b) that if a noun can act as ‘ + human’ then it can occur as ‘ + animate’ although the reverse is not necessarily true. For example, if we can say ‘the man thought it over’ we can also say ‘the man sensed the danger’, but if we can say ‘the ant ran away’ we cannot necessarily say ‘the ant answered slowly’.
Consequently, any word marked ‘-f human’ can be predicted as being ‘+animate’. This prediction is represented in rule (3 a), which obviates the necessity of lexical entries for ‘animateness’ in nouns which are marked as ‘human’.
(3) (a) + human ——> + animate
(b) + animate ——> - plant
Similarly, it is predictable that if a noun is ‘+animate’ it is ‘ — plant’ in English, although the reverse is not true. Then, rule (3b) by allows the features ‘ — plant ’ to be left out of the lexical entry for ‘ant’. Such redundancy rules simply reflect a class- inclusion hierarchy among the semantic features (e.g. (3 c)).

The evaluation criterion requires the simplest acceptable solution to be used. Accordingly, the solution which includes the semantic redundancy rules in (3) is clearly indicated over a solution without these rules, given that the theory allows such rules at all. (Notice that rule (3b) is not universal but is a rule peculiar to English, since there are languages in which at least some plants can be considered animate.)
We can now ask if the predictions made by this analysis about new lexical items are valid or not. Consider the two potential English words, ‘og ’ and ‘triffid ’, on the right hand side of figure (1). ‘og ’ is intended to be a word which signifies the dead remains of an entire plant, in the way which ‘ carcass ’ indicates the dead remains of an entire animal. ‘triffid ’, on the other hand, indicates a kind of pine tree that moves and communicates.
Neither of these words exists in everyday English, and they may both be classified as semantic lexical gaps - that is, they are combinations of semantic features which are not combined within a single lexical entry in English. Yet the reasons for their non-occurrence are radically different according to the analysis in (3). Rule (3b) by in principle blocks the appearance of any word like ‘ triffid ’ which is both plant and animal, but the word ‘ og ’ is not blocked by anything in the lexical rules. That is, ‘triffid’ is classified by our analysis as a systematic gap, while the non-occurrence of ‘ og ’ is entirely accidental.
This distinction, made as an incidental part of our analysis, appears to be sup¬ ported by the intuitions of speakers of English. Nobody would be surprised to learn that professional loggers and foresters have some word in their vocabulary which indicates the whole of a dead tree. But everybody would be surprised to learn that foresters have a single word for trees which they think are animals. [It is that sense of surprise for English speakers which made possible The Day of the Triffids, a science-fiction novel in which the discovery of this concept is a primary vehicle for the plot.]
This result represents an independent corroboration of the general form of the semantic lexicon and the evaluation criteria which we proposed above. The rules in (3 a, b) were not introduced to block systematic lexical gaps, but to achieve the highest valued semantic analysis. The fact that the systematic gaps they predict correspond to the intuitive ones is a distinct empirical corroboration of the precise formal characteristics of this form of semantic theory.
We have shown that an explanatory lexical semantic theory is possible, and have indicated some of its characteristics and empirical validations. We briefly indicate some other semantic lexical devices, the lexical distinctions which they predict, and the validity of those predictions.
الاكثر قراءة في Semantics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
الآخبار الصحية

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يصدر كتاباً يوثق تاريخ السدانة في العتبة العباسية المقدسة
"المهمة".. إصدار قصصي يوثّق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة فتوى الدفاع المقدسة للقصة القصيرة
(نوافذ).. إصدار أدبي يوثق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة الإمام العسكري (عليه السلام)