PHRASE INTERNAL MOVEMENT
(Examples)
 ○ Exploring the status of noun phrase internal movement in Italian:

N-to-D movement in Italian (cf. Longobardi 1994)
1. a. [_DP [_D la ] [_NP [_AP mia ] [_N Maria ] ] ]
   b. * [_DP [_D ∅ ] [_NP [_AP mia ] [_N Maria ] ] ]
   c. [_DP [_N-D Maria ]_i [_NP [_AP mia ] t_i ] ]

German
1. a. Je unverschämter man den Staatsrat angeht, desto gefügiger wird sein Sinn.
   b. Den Staatsrat_i, je unverschämter man den_i angeht, desto gefügiger wird sein Sinn.
     'The more brazenly one approaches the State Council, the more compliant its mind becomes.'

1. Închipuiți-vă numai: el vrea să-s̆i bată joc de un autor care într-un mod cam greoi imitează stilul francez de foiletoane [...] (Maiorescu T.)
   'Just imagine: he wants to make fun of an author who, in a rather clumsy way, imitates the French style of feuilletons.'

PHRASE STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS FOR COMP
(Syntax)

The Phrase Structure Hypothesis for COMP (Bresnan 1972)
According to the phrase-structure hypothesis, complementizers are specified in deep structure by means of a phrase-structure rule. The rule for English would look like:

S̄ → COMP S
... that, WH (="Q"), and for

PHRASEOLOGICAL TEDDY BEAR

1. (Acquisition) Ringbom (1998) shows that the frequencies of individual word forms tend to differ between learners and native speakers of English, with learners having a tendency to overuse vocabulary items that have high frequencies in general corpora of English. The overuse can be related to a core vocabulary that the learners have acquired early and know well. Hasselgren (1994) compares such familiar lexical favorites to children's toys: "Stripped of the confidence and ease we take for granted in our first language flow, we regularly clutch for the words we feel safe with: our 'lexical teddy bears'."
    A hypothesis of the present study is that the same tendency will be visible in the use of lexical bundles: some bundles will seem familiar and unobjectionable to learners, who will resort to them frequently as their "phraseological teddy bears". This idea is not novel; Nesselhauf (2005) suggests that learners' occasional overuse of "certain native-speaker-like chunks" may partly result "from learners using some of them as lexical teddy bears". | Hilde Hasselgård, 2019
2. (Acquisition) L2 users seem to be less confident when writing in a foreign language, and as a result they "regularly clutch for the words [they] feel safe with" (Hasselgren 1994). Hasselgren uses the teddy bear metaphor to describe the situation in which L2 learners tend to overuse familiar words. She proposes that it is especially direct L1 transfer that gives rise to lexical teddy bears. Secondly, some teddy bears arise from perceived equivalence between L1 and L2. A third type of teddy bears is represented by expressions used in a context where native speakers would opt for another, synonymous expression. The metaphor of teddy bear was later transferred to multi-word expressions by Ellis (2012), who explains that phrasal teddy bears are formulaic expressions with routine functional purposes. Hasselgård (2019) labels these multi-word units as phraseological teddy bears and defines them as expressions which "learners use more frequently and in more contexts than native speakers do". She also explores their use in the context and points out for example that "the learners may have a tendency to over-express contrastive relations when the discourse moves from one topic to another". | Gabriela Brůhová and Kateřina Vašků, 2021

PHRASEOLOGISM

1. (Grammar) Phraseological combinations are such phrases in which there are words, both with free and associated usage, for example, in Uzbek (macrolanguage; Uzbekistan): qiyomatli doʼst 'true friend', tishini oqini koʼrsatmoq 'to smile'.
    In English, these three types include the following phraseological units.
   1. Phraseological adhesions have the greatest cohesion of components that lose their lexical meaning, which is absorbed by the meaning of the entire phraseologism. These units, such as spik and span, to cut off with a shilling, to talk through one's hat, make up the most common group.
   2. Phraseological units make up a larger group. They differ in terms of their mobility, and their meaning is determined by the meaning of their components. Such phraseological units can include the following examples: to take (lay) hold of, as busy as a bee, to draw the line.
   3. Phraseological combinations differ from the units in that one of the constituent components is used in its direct meaning. Combinations make up the most numerous group. These include expressions such as to strike (to deal, to inflict) a blow, to break a promise (an agreement, a rule). The components of phraseological combinations are more independent than with adhesions.
   
    | Berdiev Sharif Jizzakh, 2020
2. (Grammar) Phraseology is a unique treasure of any language. Being highly informative language units, phraseologisms / idioms, constant combination of words with holistic meaning, reflect the history of people, the uniqueness of people's culture, the events which once happened. As a result, the question of phraseologism / idiom translation into other languages is of particular importance in the science and practice of translation. Moreover, there is a tendency to use phraseologisms not only in belles-lettres but in technical texts, as well. | Begali Khudoymurodovich Jumaev, 2021
3. (Grammar) Phraseological units have socio-cultural significance and are a language tool that shows the general image of the society, way of life, customs. In linguistics, phraseology appears as a lexical layer that reflects the language's incomparable wealth, unlimited possibilities, and its specific historical-developmental stages. It is the most freely used level of vocabulary, and its basis goes back to the oldest folk oral works (Ashurov and Shukurova 2020).
    Phraseological units in their semantics reflect the long-term cultural development processes of the people, record the knowledge of that people, as well as language and speech patterns, and transmit them from generation to generation. Buslaev calls phraseologisms a kind of microcosm. They reflect the moral rules and common sense left by the ancestors to the next generations in the form of short and concise phrases. Phraseologisms are considered the heart of any national language, and the spirit and identity of the nation are uniquely expressed in them (Buslaev 1954). For this reason, almost all phraseology has a trace of national culture.
    Phraseologism is a unit related to language and speech as a linguistic phenomenon. A linguistic unit consisting of the combination of more than one independent lexeme and having a figurative and spiritual nature is called a phraseologism. In the Uzbek language, phraseologism is also referred to as phrase, phraseological unit, stable compound, phraseological compound (Sayfullaeva 2009). | Primova Munisa Majlim qizi, 2023
    ○ The number in the second column denotes the position of the phrase in the list "100 best-known Estonian phrases", compiled by Arvo Krikmann (1994). The third column of the table shows the consolidated number of affirmative responses, i.e. the total number of respondents from both schools who knew the particular expression.

   Phraseologisms, According to the Level of Respondents' Knowledge

   teeb sääsest elevandi (lit. 'makes an elephant out of a mosquito')	52.	147
   ei lausu musta ega valget (lit. 'doesn't say black or white')		137
   süda kukkus saapasäärde (lit. 'the heart fell in the bootleg')	95.	131
   elavad nagu koer ja kass (lit. 'they live like a cat and dog')	99.	127
   nüüd on vesi ahjus (lit. 'now there is water in the stove')	13.	117
   vaatab läbi sõormede (lit. 'looks through the fingers')		114
   ei näe sõrmegi suhu pista (lit. 'can't see enough to put a finger in the mouth')		109
   käib nagu kass ümber palava pudru (lit. 'walks like a cat around hot porridge')	31.	102
   nagu juudi jõulupuu (lit. 'like a Jew's Christmas tree')		102
   hunt lambanahas (lit. 'a wolf in sheepskin')		100

    | Anneli Baran, 2011

PHRASEOLOGY

1. (Grammar) The study of phraseological units of the language, as the branch of linguistics appeared in the 1940s. The object of phraseology is phraseological units, their nature, and the way they function in speech. However, there is a problem of terminology in linguistics connected with phraseology, since there are the following terms which are used in this branch of linguistics:
   • Set expression or word-equivalent.
   • Idiom.
   • Set phrase.
   • Fixed word-groups.
   • Phraseological combinations.
   • Phraseological fusions.
   • Phraseological unit.
   
    The above-mentioned terms are used by scholars differently, and sometimes they express one and the same notion. | Kamala Vasif Guliyeva, 2016
2. (Grammar) While the notion of phraseology is very widespread, just as with other linguistic concepts, different authors have defined it differently, sometimes not providing a clear-cut definition, or conflating several terms that many scholars prefer to distinguish. However, a closer comparative look at the vast majority of studies that exist allows us to identify a set of parameters that are typically implicated in phraseological research. I believe a rigorous definition of co-occurrence phenomena in general, and phraseology in particular, needs to take a stand regarding at least the following six parameters (cf. Howarth 1998 for a similar critique of the absence of defining criteria and an alternative proposal).
   1.  The nature of the elements involved in a phraseologism.
   2.  The number of elements involved in a phraseologism.
   3.  The number of times an expression must be observed before it counts as a phraseologism.
   4.  The permissible distance between the elements involved in a phraseologism.
   5.  The degree of lexical and syntactic flexibility of the elements involved.
   6.  The role that semantic unity and semantic non-compositionality / non-predictability play in the definition.
   
    | Stefan Th. Gries, 2008

PHYLOGENETICS

1. (Diachronic) Linguistic phylogenetics incorporates the whole approach of the phylogenetic comparative method—using language phylogenies as the historical backbone to quantitative models of language change in order to test hypotheses about human dispersals, processes of cultural change, and the evolution of other linguistic subsystems. In this sense phylogenetic linguistics is broader in its ambitions than historical linguistics: historical linguistics seeks to illuminate the history of languages, and only secondarily seeks to say something about the speakers of those languages. | Michael Dunn, 2013
2. (Example)
    ○ A brief Science paper (Dunn et al. 2005) outlined the possibilities of using computational phylogenetic methods applied purely to structural properties of languages, as opposed to lexical items, to extract likely patterns of ancient relatedness. In the current article we set out to explain those methods in more detail, show how they can be extended and refined, and push the analysis further to explore how a phylogenetic signal can be distinguished from relatedness through propinquity and possible contact. The whole approach here, though similar to that in McMahon and McMahon 2005, for example, has a number of special advantages: first, in not depending on vocabulary matches, it promises to extend the range of historical linguistics further back in time, and thus suggest deep-time relations between independent well-established language families as well as connections between known families and languages currently considered isolates. Second, it promises to connect linguistic typology and historical linguistics—two fields that have pursued independent paths, even though typological patterns are bound to have at least a partially historical explanation. | Michael Dunn, Stephen C. Levinson, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink, and Angela Terrill, 2008

PHYLOGENY

1. (Diachronic) The application of this general term in linguistics refers to the historical (or diachronic) development and decay of language in speech communities, or as represented in historical texts; also referred to as phylogenesis. Phylogenetic study contrasts with ontogeny, for the study of development in the individual, as carried on in language acquisition. | David Crystal, 2008

Π-GESTURE

1. (Prosody) The π-gesture model provides an account of the properties of prosodic boundaries. While various other conceptualizations of prosodic boundaries have been proposed, the π-gesture model is discussed here because it clearly defines prosodic boundaries. Furthermore, it has explicit temporal properties and allows the examination of the coordination of prosodic events. Finally, the model allows for a structurally more gradient prosodic hierarchy, which is in line with experimental evidence.
    The π-gesture model has been developed within the Articulatory Phonology framework, where the basic phonological unit is a gesture, which specifies a constriction target as its goal (e.g. for alveolar consonants, a tongue tip constriction constitutes the constriction target). Gestures in Articulatory Phonology are both units of information, specifying lexical contrast, and units of action, with specified temporal and spatial information. That is, gestures are lexical units parametrized both phonetically and phonologically, such that there is no need for a translational component that traditionally might be posited as mediating between phonology and phonetics. | Jelena Krivokapić, 2014
2. (Prosody) Byrd, Kaun, Narayanan, and Saltzman (2000) and Byrd (2000) described a conceptual approach to boundary-adjacent slowing. They proposed that phrase boundaries are instantiated by a pi-gesture (or prosodic-gesture), which functions to slow all simultaneously active constriction gestures in proportion to the activation level of the pi-gesture. Like articulatory gestures, which have durational properties and are temporally coordinated and can overlap with other gestures, pi-gestures also have durations and overlap with vocal tract constriction gestures.
    These studies show that when speech is discretely divided into a pattern of dynamically controlled actions, each of which achieves a goal defined in an abstract task space, then it is clear that the ensemble of actions exhibits systematic slowing in proximity to prosodic boundaries. In addition, the kinematics of this slowing can be accurately modeled by modulation gestures whose goal is to slow down the (internal) clock used to activate the production of actions. | Martha E. Tyrone, Hosung Nam, Elliot Saltzman, Gaurav Mathur, and Louis Goldstein, 2010
3. (Example)
    ○ Prosodic boundary gestures or pi-gestures (Byrd and Saltzman 2003) have been introduced to model the local slowing or lengthening of articulatory gestures in the vicinity of phrase boundaries. Computational modeling of articulatory dynamics is an important tool in assessing the predicted effects of pi-gestures of varying boundary strength on constriction gestures in varying contexts. We simulate pi-gestures within the TaDA task dynamics computational model (Nam and Kim 2004) and examine how functional data analysis can provide a tool for connecting articulatory lengthening with underlying pi-gesture activation strength. Specifically, the model is applied to the articulatory synthesis of two sequences: [CV#CV] and [CVC#CV], where C is bilabial or alveolar. The pi-gesture's midpoint is coordinated synchronously with the midpoint of following consonant's constriction gesture, and pi-gesture activation strength and duration are manipulated. Results indicate that pi-gesture activation strength has a much stronger effect on slowing than its duration. The slowing effect is asymmetrical, skewed earlier than the midpoint in the pi-gesture interval. After removing linear-time slowing effect (i.e., after length normalization), the slowing effect is slightly stronger in [CV#CV] than in [CVC#CV]. The strength of pi-gesture also affects spatial articulatory characteristics depending on constriction location and sequential context. | Sungbok Lee, Benjamin Parrell, and Dani Byrd, 2009

PIED-PIPING

1. (Syntax) The term pied-piping is used by linguists to refer to structures where a movement operation applies to a constituent that is in some sense "larger than expected". More precisely, pied-piping occurs when a movement operation that usually targets expressions of a particular type (e.g. wh-words) instead targets a phrase that contains an expression of that type. Pied-piping structures have long been a deep and difficult puzzle for formal syntactic theory. | Seth Cable, 2012
2. (Syntax) The notion of pied-piping has been an integral part of all versions of the theory of generative grammar that assume transformational movements since it was first introduced by Ross (1967). The term itself—attributed by Ross to Robin Lakoff—refers to the phenomenon whereby some particular movement operation T, designated to displace an element A, in fact displaces additional elements together with A. More specifically, pied-piping is involved when an application of T ends up moving some constituent B that properly contains A. Ross' Pied-Piping Convention was originally meant, for instance, to extend the application of the Relative Clause Formation transformation, so that it is able to move more than just the NP immediately dominating the relative pronoun in cases such as shown in (1)–(5), where (2), (3), and (4) represent, according to Ross (1986), instances of pied-piping by the relative wh-pronoun.
   1.  reports which the government prescribes the height of the lettering on ...
   2.  reports the covers of which the government prescribes the height of the lettering on ...
   3.  reports the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes the height of ...
   4.  the boy whose guardian's employer we elected president
   5.  * the boy whose we elected guardian's employer president
   
    From their inception until now the existence of pied-piping effects has uniformly been assumed in the literature, and the assumed pied-piping mechanism has provided a useful descriptive tool. | Julia Horvath, 2006
3. (Syntax) The phenomenon that when a wh-phrase is moved, it can optionally "drag along" a larger NP or PP in which it is contained.
    E.g., next to (1a), the examples (1b) and (1c) are also possible:
   1. a. This is the book [ _NP which ] I have designed [ _NP the covers [ _PP of t ] ]
      b. This is the book [ _PP of which ] I have designed [ _NP the covers t ]
      c. This is the book [ _NP the covers of which ] I have designed t
   
    In some cases, pied-piping is obligatory, due to the Left Branch Condition. (Ross 1967) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
4. (Syntax) The phenomenon of pied piping is well known to linguists, and various analyses have been proposed to account for it. Ross (1967) formulates the Pied Piping Convention so that relative clauses such as those in (1) may be derived.
   1. a. This is [_NP the box in which the money was hidden.]
      b. [_NP The plane, pieces of which were scattered around the field,] had crashed during the thunderstorm.
   
    In effect, the Pied Piping Convention gives the rule of Wh Movement the option of fronting either the wh-word or any NP or PP dominating the wh-word. In (1a) a PP, [_PP in which], has been fronted, and in (1b) an NP, [_NP pieces of which], has been fronted.
    Subsequent analyses of pied piping (for example, Chomsky 1973, Bresnan 1976) have made the introduction of a convention unnecessary, in that pied piping is postulated to follow from other, more general, processes and conditions. These analyses do, however, have the same general effect as Ross's Pied Piping Convention: they permit Wh Movement to apply to an NP or PP dominating a wh-word. | Debbie L. Nanni and Justine T. Stillings, 1978
5. (Examples)
    ○ The Word Grammar framework combines cognitive linguistics with dependency grammar, so it assumes that the full power of domain-general cognition is available for syntax, and that syntactic structure can be conceived as a network of relations between individual words. In this network, words are related by at least two kinds of link: dependencies and landmark links that determine word order. To handle the special characteristics of pied-piping, the analysis also includes a single special relation, pipee, which links the piper (the wh-type word) to the word which replaces it in the landmark structure. The analysis is applied in detail to English, and then compared with previous analyses and extended to accommodate both the pied-piping with inversion found in Meso-American languages, and the boundary markers found in other languages. | Richard Hudson, 2017
    ○ Under my analysis, Predicate-Topic order in Malagasy (macrolanguage; Madagascar) is derived through pied-piping of the Predicate to the specifier of a functional category in COMP, located above the surface position of the Topic.
    Cross-linguistic word order variation can be accounted for without assuming a directionality parameter on phrase structure, if we assume that large XP constituents can undergo "heavy" pied-piping to the specifiers of functional projections (Nkemnji 1995 offers a recent example of this approach to word order). | Matthew Pearson, 1997
    ○ Even wh-elements within pied piped constituents must reorder so that they are "closer" to [Spec,C] than they would have been without reordering. | Judith Aissen, 1996

Page Created By Split April 11, 2026

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x