To aggregate up,you can envision grammar as a machine or a gadget for making sentences.It is in the brain of speaker and speaks to his or her insight into the language.It contains rules for making basic sentences at the profound dimension which are then changed by transformational rules into increasingly complex sentences.
Presently given us a chance to perceive what sort of contentions can be progressed for their existence.One of these contentions is that in certain sentences development appears to have happened, i.e it creates the impression that a few constituents have been moved from their unique places.Let us take a precedent :
(11) I put the book on the table
Presently, "put" is an action word which is trailed by a NP,that is,something which can be put somewhere.This NP is trailed by a PP (prepositional Phrase),beginning with in,on,inside,outside, and put,In other words,for an action word like "put" the vocabulary must indicate what constituents tail it. by
put = V (pursued ) NP,PP
In this way in the event that we overlook either the NP or the PP after "put",we will create a linguistically not well framed sentence.For model :
(12) * I put on the table. (Here the NP following the V has been forgotten.
(13)* I put on the table (Here PP following the NP after the V has been forgotten )
Presently think about the accompanying sentence:
(14) What did I put [ - ] on the table?
In this sentences, "put" isn't trailed by a NP.However,we recently begun that "put" is subcategorized in the dictionary just like an action word pursued by a NP and a PP.These subcategorized actualities are constant.Thus,what has happened is that the NP after put has truth that it has moved away should imply that there was a unique position for it to move away from.Thus,we accept that there is a profound dimension at which it was there,and that certains T-rules have the sentence.In short,rules move portions of expressions starting with one spot then onto the next in sentences.We will endeavor to comprehend this in more detail later..!
Presently given us a chance to perceive what sort of contentions can be progressed for their existence.One of these contentions is that in certain sentences development appears to have happened, i.e it creates the impression that a few constituents have been moved from their unique places.Let us take a precedent :
(11) I put the book on the table
Presently, "put" is an action word which is trailed by a NP,that is,something which can be put somewhere.This NP is trailed by a PP (prepositional Phrase),beginning with in,on,inside,outside, and put,In other words,for an action word like "put" the vocabulary must indicate what constituents tail it. by
put = V (pursued ) NP,PP
In this way in the event that we overlook either the NP or the PP after "put",we will create a linguistically not well framed sentence.For model :
(12) * I put on the table. (Here the NP following the V has been forgotten.
(13)* I put on the table (Here PP following the NP after the V has been forgotten )
Presently think about the accompanying sentence:
(14) What did I put [ - ] on the table?
In this sentences, "put" isn't trailed by a NP.However,we recently begun that "put" is subcategorized in the dictionary just like an action word pursued by a NP and a PP.These subcategorized actualities are constant.Thus,what has happened is that the NP after put has truth that it has moved away should imply that there was a unique position for it to move away from.Thus,we accept that there is a profound dimension at which it was there,and that certains T-rules have the sentence.In short,rules move portions of expressions starting with one spot then onto the next in sentences.We will endeavor to comprehend this in more detail later..!
Comments
Post a Comment