X-BAR SCHEMA
(Syntax) 

1.  The elementary tree for ate

   
            VP
            /\
           /  \
     NounPhr   V′
              / \
             /   \
            V   NounPhr
            |
            |
           ate
   		  
   

2.  The X-bar schema

   
            XP
            /\
           /  \
          ZP   X′
              / \
             /   \
            X     YP
            |
            |
        some-word
   		  
   

• X ( = X⁰) is the lexical projection of the vocabulary item that it dominates.
• X′ is the intermediate projection.
• XP ( = X′′) is the maximal projection (sometimes also called phrasal projection).

X-BAR THEORY

1. (Syntax) A generative theory of language conceived by Noam A. Chomsky. It is a theory about the internal structure of syntactic constituents which was originally intended to place constraints on the power of phrase structure rules. X-bar theory captures the insight that all phrases share some essential structural properties. Its main tenet is that all phrase structure (hence the X) can be reduced to recursive specifier-head configurations.
    The structures in (1) have in common that the head (noun, verb, adjective, or preposition) has an element to its right, which can be construed as its complement.
    
   1. a. look_V [for you]
      b. the search_N [for you]
      c. angry_A [with you]
      d. on_P [with you]
   
    These structural properties are conventionally represented as in (2).
    
   2. 
            X′′
          ╱╲
         ╱   ╲
       specifier    X′
              ╱╲
            ╱    ╲
           X   complement
       
    In (2), X is called the head of the phrase. X′ and X'′′ are called projections of X. Typographically, these projections are marked by one or more primes (X′ and X′′), called bars. Thus, X′ is pronounced "X-bar"; X′′, "X-double-bar", etc. The head is called the zero projection (also written as X⁰). The topnode X′′ (or XP) is called the maximal projection of X. All other projections between the head and the maximal projection are called intermediate projections. The sister(s) of X are called the complements of the head), and the sister(s) of X′ is/are the specifier(s) (of the phrase). (Abney 1987; Chomsky 1970, 1986, 1986, 1993, 1994; Jackendoff 1977) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
2. (Syntax) Six conditions encapsulate the claims of X-bar theory:
   • Lexicality: Each nonterminal is a projection of a preterminal.
   • Succession: Each X ⁿ⁺¹ dominates an X ⁿ for all n ≥ 0.
   • Uniformity: All maximal projections have the same bar-level.
   • Maximality: All non-heads are maximal projections.
   • Centrality: The start symbol is a maximal projection.
   • Optionality: All and only non-heads are optional.
    | András Kornai and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1990

X-PHEMISM

1. (Pragmatics) The combination set of euphemism and (its opposite) dysphemism. | Omar Ahmed Shihab, Mohammad Salman Mansoor, and Imad Rifaat Midhat, 2017
2. (Pragmatics) People usually use direct or indirect expressions; they are sometimes formal, normal, polite or informal in their daily conversations. They often use one of the X-phemism expressions in their conversations. These expressions include
   • Orthophemisms to be normal and formal.
   • Euphemisms to be polite, positive or indirect.
   • Dysphemisms to be direct and negative.
    The choice of using each one depends on several factors, such as the conversation situation, time, place, the speaker, the hearer, and the topic of the conversation.
    For example, in using indirect expressions or what are called euphemisms as one of these X-phemism expressions, people deliberately avoid being direct and try to hide the truth in different ways and by employing different expressions. This phenomenon is naturally used in different fields and in all languages of the world. These expressions are used in monolingual, bilingual or multilingual situations. By using X-phemism expressions people try to be formal, positive, direct or indirect, or they avoid being impolite, negative, vulgar or not well-mannered with others.
    There are several examples of these X-phemism expressions used in different fields and all languages in the public and professional world. For example, in the public field one may say:
   • Senior citizen, or experienced or well experienced person in place of 'old' person.
   • Not quite clean instead of 'really dirty'.
   • Using the facilities/WC instead of 'going to the toilet'.
   • Reducing costs as opposed to 'cutting peoples' salaries'.
   • Pre-owned as opposed to 'used'.
   • Detainee for a 'prisoner of war'.
   • Enhanced interrogation in place of 'torture'.
   • Capital punishment instead of 'the death penalty'.
   • Take down in military language instead of saying 'killing someone'.
   • A bit shaky as opposed to 'really poor quality'.
   • The underworld instead of 'hell'.
   • I advise in place of 'highly thought against' or 'a very bad idea'.
    X-phemism is "the union set of euphemisms, orthophemisms and dysphemisms" (Allan 2005). By analogy, as euphemization is used to refer to the process of using euphemisms (Rahimi and Sahragard 2006, James 2011, a.o.), we can use the term X-phemization to refer to the process of using euphemism, dysphemism and orthophemism locutions in different situations. In accordance with that, terms like dysphemization, orthophemization could also be used. | Hussein Abdo Rababah, 2014
3. (Pragmatics) Allan and Burridge (1991) call the combination of both euphemism and dysphemism as x-phemism. The term X-phemism is used to replace one expression with another that carries positive or negative associations. Euphemism is used for making something sound better while dysphemism is used for making something sound worse. Dysphemism then is, roughly speaking, the opposite of euphemism. Grant (1977) uses the term malphemism instead of dysphemism and explains that such an expression is used to be offensive and indicates negative discernment. He mentions that one man's euphemism may be regarded as another man's malphemism or obscenity.
    Other scholars believe that euphemism can be divided into three major categories: euphemism, dysphemism, and doublespeak. Doublespeak is a similar entity to both euphemism and dysphemism, but it contains stronger intentions to interchange or confuse the truth of the issue and deceive the audiences (Lutz 1987, 1990, Hasegawa 2003). Allan (2006) adds another category of euphemism called orthophemism which means straight talking.
    Finally, there are three antonyms of euphemism: dysphemism, cacophemism, and power word. The first as mentioned above can be either offensive or merely humorously deprecating with. The second one is generally used more often in the sense of something deliberately offensive. The last is mainly used in arguments to make a point seem more correct (Wikipedia 2006). | Hashim Alhussaini, 2007

YANG'S VARIATIONAL MODEL
(Language Acquisition) Yang (2002) proposes that "child language consists of a collection of potential adult languages" as opposed to its reflecting "a unique potential adult language". Yang develops the Variational Model of Language Acquisition (VMLA), which has its conceptual foundation in the Darwinian view of biological evolution. In this model, all UG-defined grammars are accessible to the learner from the start, and language acquisition is metaphorically the process of competition among these grammars. The proposed learning algorithm can be schematically shown as follows:

Under the presentation of an input datum s, the child
a. selects a grammar G_i with the probability p_i,
b. analyzes s with G_i
c. • if successful, reward G_i by increasing p_i
c. • otherwise, punish G_i by decreasing p_i

YNGVE SCORE

1. (Syntax) A metric of syntactic complexity using unlabeled tree structures to measure deviation from right-branching trees. Related to the size of a "first in/last out" stack at each word in a top-down, left-to-right parse derivation. | ?
2. (Syntax) A measure (Yngve 1960) of syntactic complexity that is based on cognitive load (Mayer and Moreno 2003, Sweller and Chandler 1991), specifically on the limited capabilities of the working memory (Baddeley 1998, 2003; Miller 1956). The Yngve score is computed using the tree representation of a sentence obtained by syntactically parsing the sentence. The tree is scanned using a pushdown stack in a top-down, right-to-left order. For every level of the tree, branches are labeled starting with 0 for the rightmost branch and incrementing by 1 as the parse progresses toward the left branch. Each word is then assigned a word score by summing up the labels for each branch in the path from the root node to the word (leaf node). | Nuthan Munaiah, Benjamin S. Meyers, et al., 2017

ZERO ANAPHORA

1. (Syntax) Relation in which a phonetically null element is seen as linked by anaphora to an antecedent. | Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2007
2. (Semantics) In so-called "pro-drop" languages such as Japanese and many Romance languages including Italian, phonetic realization is not required for anaphoric references in contexts in which English noncontrastive pronouns are used: e.g., the subjects of Italian and Japanese translations of buy in (2) and (3) are not explicitly realized. We call these nonrealized mandatory arguments "zero anaphors".
   1. [EN] [John]_i went to visit some friends. On the way, [he]_i bought some wine.
   2. [IT] [Giovanni]_i andò a far visita a degli amici. Per via, φ_i comprò del vino.
   3. [JA] [John]_i-wa yujin-o houmon-sita. Tochu-de φ_i wain-o ka-tta.
    | Ryu Iida and Massimo Poesio, 2011

ZERO-FORM

1. (Morphology) A morpheme that doesn't change the word at all, typically in spelling or pronunciation.
2. (Morphology) Take the following sentences:
   1. I love looking at the sheep in the meadow.
   2. I hit them with a giant baseball bat.
   These sentences illustrate the remarkable concept known as the "zero-form morpheme"—a morpheme that doesn't change the word at all, typically in spelling or pronunciation.
     In the examples provided, so long as the sentences are independent from each other, there is no real way to know what the morphology of the italicized word actually is.
     In (1), sheep could be singular or plural. If there's a field of sheep outside my house, I can enjoy looking at them. If I have a painting of one sheep in a meadow, I love looking at it. In (2), tomorrow, when the sheep annoy me, I will hit them with a bat. Or, yesterday, when the sheep annoyed me, I hit them with a bat.
     Put another way, words that have zero-form morphemes in them require additional information (from context in the sentence or, if unavailable, from surrounding sentences) in order to understand what the semantic meaning is. | "wordnerd", 2004

ZERO-PERSON CONSTRUCTION

1. (Grammar) Standard Finnish has no overt generic pronoun like English one or you, and uses third-person singular verbs with phonologically null subjects to convey generic human reference in the "zero person" construction (e.g. Hakulinen and Karttunen 1973, Holmberg 2010, Vilkuna 1992). The zero person (1,2) is unacceptable in non-generic, episodic contexts like (3). (The underscore __ denotes the zero.) (1,2) are generic and cannot receive a referential (anaphoric) interpretation, as Finnish does not have third-person pro-drop in main clauses.
   1. Suomessa __ joutuu usein saunaan. (adapted from Laitinen 2006)
      Finland-INE __ end-up-3SG often sauna-ILL
      'In Finland you/one often end(s) up in the sauna'
   2. Jos __ asuu Kaliforniassa, __ pääsee nauttimaan merestä.
      If __ live-3SG California-INE, __ gets-to-PRS-3SG enjoy ocean-ELA
      If you/one live(s) in California, you/one get(s) to enjoy the ocean.'
   3. * Nyt ___ löysi kaksi leppäkerttua. (Hakulinen and Karttunen 1973)
      Now ___ find-PST.3SG two ladybug-PAR
      'Now one/you found two ladybugs.'
     The zero person being phonologically null raises the question of whether it is syntactically realized. However, the zero patterns just like overt arguments for purposes of case assignment.
     The zero person occurs with third person singular agreement on the verb.
     The zero can bind third person reflexive anaphors and possessive suffixes.
     A key property of the Finnish zero person is that it is not acceptable in all semantics contexts or with all kinds of verbs. The zero person frequently occurs with verbs that involve some kind of modality (Hakulinen and Karttunen 1973, Laitinen 1995, Löflund 1998), including the modals täytyy 'must', saa 'be able to' / 'may' / 'be allowed to', voi 'be able to' / 'may'). In addition, the zero person also occurs with some experiencer verbs like ikvystyä 'to become bored' and hermostua 'to become annoyed', as well as other verbs with low agentivity and intentionality like nukahtaa 'to fall asleep' and mahtua 'to fit somewhere'. The zero person can also occur with some verbs of perception and emotion (e.g. Jokela 2012). | Elsi Kaiser, 2019
2. (Grammar) In his paper "Indefinite zero subjects in Latvian" (1995), Alex Holvoet clearly distinguishes two types of zero-person constructions in Latvian, formally, by number. The notional difference between the two types lies in referentiality: the plural version refers to a non-identified group of persons (possibly having only one member, similar to English indefinite they), while the singular zero subject is never referential—it has a hypothetical or generalized meaning. Holvoet further points out that the singular type is typical for Latvian and hardly attested in Lithuanian, but has parallels in Finnic languages (see also Holvoet 2001). | Nicole Nau, 2021

Page Created By Split July 6, 2024

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x