次范畴化Subcategorization

在语言学中，一个词的次范畴化框架（通常是一个动词）被定义为语法参数的数量和类型，它的合作发生（即数量和种类，换句话说，它选择在一个句子中出现时）。[1]次范畴的概念是类似的动词价的概。在语言学，动词价或价是指以口头谓词控制参数的数量。据相关，虽然不尽相同，动词及物性，其中重要的口头谓词的唯一对象参数。 Subcategorization is a concept by which differences in syntactic valency between words is expressed. subcategorization of heads (in particular V) in terms of the phrasal categories (NP, PP, etc.) which they select as a complement. Sometimes strict subcategorization is equated with c-selection. Example a transitive verb has to be followed by a direct object NP contrary to intransitive verbs. We can say that transitive verbs form a subcategory of the category of verbs, by virtue of the fact that they must be followed by an NP complement. It is the obligatory presence of the object which gives rise to the subcategory of transitive verbs. The object subcategorizes the verb, or the verb is subcategorized by the object. Tree Families and Subcategorization Frames Elementary trees for predicative words4.2 are used to represent the linguistic notion of subcategorization. The anchor of the elementary tree subcategorizes for the other elements that appear in the tree, forming a clausal or sentential structure. Tree families group together trees that belong to the same subcategorization frame. Consider the following uses of the verb buy: (0)0(0 (1) Srini bought a book.  (1)0(1 (2) Srini bought Beth a book.  In sentence ((1)), the verb buy subcategorizes for a direct object NP. The elementary tree anchored by buy is shown in Figure 4.1(a) and includes nodes for the NP complement of buy and for the NP subject. In addition to this declarative tree structure, the tree family also contains the trees that would be related to each other transformationally in a movement based approach, i.e passivization, imperatives, wh-questions, relative clauses, and so forth. Each tree family selected by its anchor represents all the various syntactic environments that it can appear in. Sentence ((2)) shows that buy also subcategorizes for a double NP object. This means that buy also selects the double NP object subcategorization frame, or tree family, with its own set of transformationally related sentence structures. Figure 4.1(b) shows the declarative structure for this set of sentence structures. 0.5in (a) 0.5in (b) {Different subcategorization frames for the verb buy Entire classes of anchors select a tree family. All the transitive verbs form a class which selects the transitive tree family. Recall that a tree family is a group of trees related by some syntactic transformations. Since an entire class of anchors are selecting this tree family, the assumption is that these syntactic transformations are valid for each member of this class. For instance, wh- extraction is a syntactic transformation that will apply regardless of any idiosyncratic properties of any particular anchor of the tree family. Chapter 6 contains more information about the different tree families in the grammar. There are some syntactic transformations, however, that are sensitive to the properties of a particular anchor within the same subcategorization frame. The ergative (or transitive-inchoative) alternation for transitive verbs is one such transformation. Only a subset of the transitive verbs can undergo this transformation. A more rigorous definition of tree family that accounts for such lexical idiosyncrasies within an otherwise homogeneous family is discussed in detail in Appendix B. Subcategorization frames are sets of rules used to generate syntactic structures out of the base form. What are subcategorization frames ? Subcategorization frames are sets of subcategorization rules that apply for a wide range of cases, i.e., that are regular. When to use subcategorization frames Subcategorization frames are used in case of valent words whose syntactic needs follow a general rule, i.e., whenever there can be stated a regular pattern for generating constituents linked to the base form, such as specifiers, complements and adjuncts. When not to use subcategorization frames Subcategorization frames are not used in case of avalent words or in case of irregular behaviour, which is described by subcategorization rules. Reference The subcategorization frames are referred as follows: by its common name (such as "intransitive", "direct transitive"), in case of well-established reference; by the rule itself, in case of single-rule frames; by the most distinctive rule, if any; or by a "leading form", i.e., a typical example (a prototype) representative of the whole category, otherwise. There are two predefined frames in the UNLarium: AVALENT If the word has valency equal to 0, i.e., if it does not require any argument. IRREGULAR If the word requires an argument but does not follow any existing frame. Syntax Subcategorization frames are expressed by S-rules, a special formalism for representing the syntactic structure of phrases. (); Where: is the Syntactic roles (VA, VC, VS, VH, etc) of the term required by the base form; and is the term required by the base form to saturate its syntactic structure. It is a maximal projection (NP, VP, JP, AP, PP, DP), a head or a combination of both. Subcategorization In linguistics, subcategorization denotes the ability/necessity for lexical items (usually verbs) to require/allow the presence and types of the syntactic arguments with which they co-occur.[1] The notion of subcategorization is similar to the notion of valency,[2] although the two concepts (subcategorization and valency) stem from different traditions in the study of syntax and grammar. Examples The following sentences are employed to illustrate the concept of subcategorization: Luke worked. Indiana Jones ate chilled monkey brain. Tom waited for us. The verb worked/work is intransitive and thus subcategorizes for a single argument (here Luke), which is the subject; therefore its subcategorization frame contains just a subject argument. The verb ate/eat is transitive, so it subcategorizes for two arguments (here Indiana Jones and chilled monkey brain), a subject and an object, which means that its subcategorization frame contains two arguments. And the verb waited/wait subcategorizes for two arguments as well, although the second of these is a prepositional argument associated with the preposition for. In this regard, we see that the subcategorization frame of verbs can contain specific words. Subcategorization frames are sometimes schematized in the following manner: work [NP __ ] eat [NP __ NP] wait [NP __ for] These examples demonstrate that subcategorization frames are specifications of the number and types of arguments of a word (usually a verb), and they are believed to be listed as lexical information (that is, they are thought of as part of a speaker's knowledge of the word in the vocabulary of the language). Dozens of distinct subcategorization frames are needed to accommodate the full combinatory potential of the verbs of any given language. Finally, subcategorization frames are associated most closely with verbs, although the concept can also be applied to other word categories. Subcategorization frames are essential parts of a number of phrase structure grammars, e.g. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Lexical Functional Grammar, and Minimalism. The status of subjects The subcategorization notion is similar to the notion of valency, although subcategorization originates with phrase structure grammars in the Chomskyan tradition,[3] whereas valency originates with Lucien Tesnière of the dependency grammar tradition.[4] The primary difference between the two concepts concerns the status of the subject. As it was originally conceived of, subcategorization did not include the subject, that is, a verb subcategorized for its complement(s) (=object and oblique arguments) but not for its subject.[5] Many modern theories now include the subject in the subcategorization frame, however.[6] Valency, in contrast, included the subject from the start.[7] In this regard, subcategorization is moving in the direction of valency, since many phrase structure grammars now see verbs subcategorizing for their subject as well as for their object(s). See also Argument Complement Dependency grammar Lexical item Lucien Tesnière Phrase structure grammar Transitivity Valency