1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23




Название1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23
страница1/27
Дата конвертации09.02.2016
Размер1.17 Mb.
ТипДокументы
источникhttp://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~ambridge/Papers/Thesis FINAL.doc
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27


Experimental Investigations of the Formation and Restriction of Abstract Grammatical Constructions in Young Children


A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and Engineering




2004


Ben Ambridge


Department of Psychology


CONTENTS


Title page 1


Contents 2


List of Tables 9


List of Figures 11


Abstract 12


Declaration and Copyright Statement 13


Acknowledgements 14


Chapter 1: Generativist Approaches to Language Acquisition 15


1.0 Thesis Introduction and Outline 15

1.1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18


1.1.1 The X-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20

1.1.2 Functional phrases 23


1.1.3 Minimalism 26

1.1.4 X-bar theory: Conclusion 29



2.0 Generativist Theories of Language Acquisition 29

2.1 Radford’s structure building theory 30



2.2 Full competence accounts 36

2.2.1 Valian’s general performance limitations account 36


2.2.2 Parameter setting accounts 44

2.2.2.1 Wexler’s (1998) agreement/tense omission 45

model (ATOM) and very early parameter setting (VEPS)

2.2.2.2 Hyams’ (1999) pragmatic principle account 53

2.2.3 Semantic bootstrapping and semantic constraints 55

Pinker (1984, 1989)

2.2.3.1 Semantic bootstrapping (Pinker, 1984) 56

2.2.3.2 Semantic constraints on verb 57

argument structure privileges (Pinker 1984, 1989)



3.0 The Generativist Approach: Summary and Conclusion 62

Chapter 2: A Constructivist Approach to Language Acquisition 66



1.0 Background to the Account: Construction Grammar 67


1.1 General principles of and evidence for construction grammar 67


1.2 Radical Construction Grammar 72

1.3 Construction grammar and Tomasello’s (2003) constructivist 75

theory of language acquisition


2.0 Intention Reading and the Acquisition of Early Words and 77

Utterance Wholes


2.1 Acquiring word meanings using skills of intention reading 77


2.2 Segmenting the input stream into words 79


2.3 Acquiring utterance wholes 82


3.0 Schematization: The acquisition of partially productive, lexically 83

specific construction schemas


3.1 The nature of the schemas: Verb islands or verb + other islands 84

3.1.1 Evidence from an experimental study 87

3.1.2 Evidence from a naturalistic data study 88

3.1.3 Evidence from a computer modelling study 91


3.2 Evidence for the lexically specific nature of early construction 95

schemas

3.2.1 Novel verb studies 95

3.2.2 Weird word order studies 99

3.2.3 A syntactic priming study 101

3.2.4 Comprehension studies 102

3.2.5 Cross-linguistic studies 106


3.3 The process of schematization 107

3.3.1 Factors in the process of schematization: Token 109

frequency of the frame in the input

3.3.2 Factors in the process of schematization: Type 112

frequency of the variable item(s) and frame in the input


3.4 Schematization: conclusion 113

4.0 The Process of Analogy and the Formation of Abstract 113

Construction Schemas

4.1 Factors in the formation of abstract construction schemas 118

4.1.1 Token and type frequency of the construction and its 118

variable elements

4.1.2 Semantic generality of the verb and its interaction 119

with token and type frequency of the construction and its

variable elements

4.1.3 Construction conspiracies 124


4.2 The formation of abstract construction schemas: Conclusion 125


5.0 Functionally Based Distributional Analysis and the Formation of 126


6.0 The Appropriate Restriction of Linguistic Generalisations 130


7.0 Challenges for the Constructivist Account and Conclusion 132


7.1 Factors influencing children’s learning of productive 132

construction schemas

7.2 Defining chunks, construction schemas, slots and frames 135


7.3 Methodological factors and age differences 137


7.4 Conclusion 138


Chapter 3: Experiment 1. Children’s Acquisition of Non-subject 140

Wh- Questions as a Test of Movement-Based (Generativist)

and Construction-Based (Constructivist) Accounts of

Language Acquisition


1.0 Introduction: Generativist and Constructivist Approaches to the 141 Acquisition of Non-subject Wh- Questions


1.1 Testing generativist and constructivist accounts 143


1.2 Generativist accounts of non-subject wh- question formation and 144

their predictions

1.2.1 Wh- operator-specific approaches (DeVilliers, 1991; 144

Valian et al., 1992)

1.2.1.1 De Villiers’ (1991) adjunct analysis 144

1.2.1.2 Valian et al.’s (1992) optional inversion rule. 145

1.2.2 Auxiliary-specific approaches (Stromswold, 1990; 146

Santelmann et al. 2002)


1.3 A constructivist account of wh- question formation and 149

its predictions: A lexical learning (wh- operator + lexical auxiliary

subtype- specific) approach (Rowland & Pine, 2000)


1.4 Summary of the predictions of the different accounts 151


2.0 Method 152


2.1 Participants 152


2.2 Materials 154

2.3 Design 154


2.4 Procedure 155


2.5 Scoring 159


3.0 Results and Discussion. 160


3.1 Uninversion errors 162

3.1.1 Uninversion errors by wh- operator 163

3.1.2 Uninversion errors by auxiliary 164

3.1.3 Uninversion errors by wh- operator + auxiliary combination 165

3.1.4 Uninversion errors by lexical auxiliary subtype 166


3.2 Correct questions 168

3.2.1 Correct questions by wh- operator 168

3.2.2 Correct questions by auxiliary 169

3.2.3 Correct questions by number 170

3.2.4 Correct questions by wh- operator + auxiliary combination 171

3.2.5 Correct questions by wh- operator + lexical auxiliary 172

subtype combination (i.e., by wh- operator x auxiliary x number)

3.2.6 Correct questions and the role of input frequency 174


4.0 General Discussion 179


4.1 Generativist accounts 179


4.2 Constructivist accounts 180


4.3 Comparing experimental and naturalistic data 181

4.3.1 Wh- operator-specific approaches 182

4.3.2 Auxiliary-specific approaches 183

4.3.3 The constructivist approach 186

4.3.4 Comparing naturalistic and experimental data: Conclusion 186

5.0 Conclusion 187


Chapter 4: Experiments 2 & 3. The Formation of Abstract 189

Syntactic Construction Schemas: An experimental investigation

of the effects of temporally distributed input and verb type

frequency


1.0 Experiment 2: Formation of Partially Abstract Construction: 189

Massed vs distributed pairs


1.1 Introduction: The distributed learning effect 189

1.1.1 Temporally distributed presentations of instantiations 193

of a grammatical construction: Help or hindrance?


1.2. Method 196

1.2.1 Participants 196

1.2.2 Materials 197

1.2.3 Design and procedure 198

1.2.4 Scoring 201

1.2.5 Inter-rater reliability 203


1.3 Results 204

1.3.1 Analysis of target responses 204

1.3.2 Analysis of non-target utterances 206

1.3.3 Analysis of training schedule 207


2.0 Experiment 3: Formation of a Partially Abstract Construction: 208

Massed vs distributed pairs vs distributed x type frequency


2.1 Introduction 208

2.1.1 The role of type frequency in the formation of abstract 209

constructions


2.2 Method 213

2.2.1 Participants 213

2.2.2 Design 213

2.2.3 Procedure 214

2.3 Results 214 2.3.1 Analysis of target responses 215

2.3.2 Analysis of non-target utterances 217

2.3.3 Analysis of training schedule 218


3.0 Experiments 2 & 3: Discussion 218


Chapter 5: Experiments 4-6. Restricting Linguistic 223

Generalizations: An Experimental Investigation of the

Entrenchment Hypothesis


1.0 Introduction: The Formation and Restriction of Linguistic 223

Generalizations


1.1 The no-negative-evidence problem 225


1.2 Early attempted solutions and their limitations 226

1.2.1 Implicit negative evidence 226

1.2.2 Innate constraints 228

1.2.3 Principles of UG 229


1.3 More successful proposals 232

1.3.1 Entrenchment 232

1.3.2 Pre-emption 239

1.3.3 Problems for a pre-emption account 242

1.3.4 The formation of semantic verb classes 245

1.3.5 Entrenchment, pre-emption and the formation of 247

(semantic) verb classes: ‘Three sides of the same coin’?


2.0 Experiment 4: Investigating the Entrenchment Hypothesis 252


2.1 Introduction 252


2.2 Method 253

2.2.1 Participants 253

2.2.2 Materials 253

2.2.3 Design and procedure 254

2.2.4 Scoring 256


2.3 Results 258


2.4 Discussion 258


3.0 Experiment 5 259


3.1 Method 259

3.1.1 Participants 259

3.1.2 Materials, design and procedure 259


3.2 Results 260


3.3 Discussion 261


4.0 Experiment 6 262


4.1 Method 262

4.1.1 Participants 262

4.1.2 Materials 263

4.1.3 Design and procedure 263

4.2 Results 267


4.3 Discussion 268


5.0 Conclusion 271


Chapter 6: Discussion 273


1.0 Experiment 1: Wh- Questions 274


1.1 Conclusions and theoretical implications 274


1.2 Potential problems and refinements 276


1.3 Additional future work 283


2.0 Experiments 2 & 3: Distributed Learning and the Formation 285

of an Abstract Construction Schema


2.1 Conclusions and theoretical implications 285

2.1.1 Implications for maturational and other 286

generativist accounts

2.1.2 Implications for a construction-based account of 288

language acquisition and the effect of construction

token frequency

2.1.3 Implications for theories of word-learning 290

2.1.4 Implications for a construction conspiracy account 291

of language acquisition (Abbot-Smith & Behrens, submitted):

Children’s production of non-target constructions

2.1.5 Implications of the null effect for verb type frequency 293

2.1.6 Implications for the wider distributed learning literature 295


2.2 Practical and methodological Implications 298


2.3 Potential problems and refinements 300


2.4 Additional future work 304


3.0 Experiments 4-6: Restricting Linguistic Generalizations: 306

The entrenchment hypothesis


3.1 Conclusions and theoretical implications 306


3.2 Refinements and future work 307


4.0 Conclusion 310


References 315


Appendices 331


A. Experimenter prompts for Experiment 1 (Wh- questions) 332


B. Verbs used in Experiments 2 and 3 (Distributed learning) and 333

frequencies in the British National Corpus (spoken texts section)


C. Scoring criteria for Experiments 2 and 3 334


D. Sample parent’s letter (Experiment 1) 335


E. Sample parent information sheet (Experiment 1) 336

LIST OF TABLES


Table 3.1 Predictions Made by Different Theories of Non-subject 153

Wh- Question Acquisition


Table 3.2. Sample Experimenter Prompts Illustrating the Use 157

of the Appropriate Pronominal Subject, Wh- Operator and

Lexical Auxiliary form in Uninverted Order


Table 3.3 Proportion of Correct and Erroneous Questions by 161

Wh- Operator + Auxiliary + Number Combination, and

Corresponding Standard Deviations


Table 3.4 Significantly Different Uninversion Rates for Particular 165

Wh- Operator + Auxiliary Combinations


Table 3.5Significantly Different Uninversion Rates for Particular 167

Lexical Auxiliary Forms (auxiliary + number combinations)


Table 3.6 Significantly Different Rates of Correct Question 172

Production for Particular Wh- Operator + Auxiliary Combinations


Table 3.7 Significantly Different Rates of Correct Question 173

Production for Individual Wh- Operator + Lexical Auxiliary

Forms (i.e., wh- operator + auxiliary + number combinations)

Table 3.8 Frequency of Each Wh- Operator + Lexical Auxiliary 177

Combination in the Sample Input Corpus, and Number of

Correct Questions and Uninversion Errors for Each Combination

in the Experimental Study


Table 3.9 Proportion of Utterances Using Contracted Form of 184

Auxiliary is


Table 4.1 Experiment 2, Number of Children in Each Experimental 206

Group Producing at Least one Novel Utterance Using a Target

Object Cleft Construction


Table 4.2 Experiment 2. Mean Proportions of Non-Target Utterances 207

as a Function of Each Child’s Total Number of Utterances


Table 4.3 Experiment 3. Mean Proportion of Target Object Cleft 215

Utterances as a Function of Each Child’s Total Number of Utterances


Table 4.4 Experiment 3. Number of Children in Each Training 217

Schedule Group Producing at Least One Novel Utterance

Using a Target Object Cleft Construction (collapsed across verb types)


Table 4.5 Experiment 3. Mean Proportions of Non-Target 218

Utterances as a Function of Each Child’s Total Number of Utterances


Table 5.1 Experiment 4. Mean Number of Productive Transitive 258

Utterances Using the Novel Verb


Table 5.2 Experiment 5. Mean Number of Productive Transitive 261

Utterances Using the Novel Verb

Table 5.3 Training procedure for Experiment 6 266



Table 5.4 Experiment 6. Mean Number of Productive Transitive 267

Utterances Using the Novel Verb (max=2)


Table 5.5 Mean Number of Utterances for Each of the Non-Target 268

Categories (max = 2). Standard deviations are shown in brackets


LIST OF FIGURES




Figure 3.1 Uninversion rates (as a proportion of all Reponses) 163

by wh- operator


Figure 3.2 Uninversion rates (as a proportion of all responses) 164

by auxiliary


Figure 3.3 Uninversion rates (as a proportion of all responses) 165

for each wh- operator + auxiliary combination


Figure 3.4. Uninversion rates (as a proportion of all responses) 167

for each lexical auxiliary form (auxiliary + number combination)


Figure 3.5. Correct questions (as a proportion of all responses) 169

by wh- operator


Figure 3.6. Correct questions (as a proportion of all responses) 170

by auxiliary


Figure 3.7 Correct questions (as a proportion of all responses) 171

by wh- operator + auxiliary combination

Figure 4.1. Experiment 2. Mean proportion of target object cleft 205

utterances as a function of each child’s total number of utterances

by age-group and condition


Figure 4.2. Experiment 3. Mean proportion of target object cleft 216

utterances as a function of each child’s total number of utterances

by condition

ABSTRACT



Under traditional generativist accounts, children acquire language (a system of formal rules acting on variables such as NOUN, VERB and TENSE) with the help of some innate knowledge of syntax. Recently, these generativist accounts (e.g., Pinker, 1989; Radford, 1990; Wexler, 1998) have been challenged by functionalist accounts (e.g., Pine, Lieven & Rowland, 1998; Bybee, 1995, Bates & Goodman, 2001) under which children acquire an inventory of meaningful chunks of linguistic material of various sizes, that become increasingly abstract as development proceeds (e.g., I want X  [SUBJECT] [VERB] [OBJECT]). Tomasello (2003) draws together many different strands of research to present a relatively complete constructivist account of language acquisition. The goals of this thesis are (1) to test the predictions of this account, and competing generativist accounts; and (2) to investigate aspects of this account that currently remain somewhat underspecified.

Chapters 1 and 2 outline generativist and constructivist accounts of language acquisition respectively, and present evidence in support of the claim that only constructivist approaches can potentially explain the pattern of child language acquisition observed.

Experiment 1 (Chapter 3) tested the predictions of these two approaches with respect to children’s acquisition of non-subject wh- questions (e.g., Who is Mickey hitting?). Questions using each of 4 wh- operators (what, who, how and why), and 4 auxiliaries (copula BE, auxiliary BE, DO and CAN) in 3sg and 3pl form were elicited from 28 children aged 3;6-4;6. Generativist theories claim that uninversion errors (e.g., Who Mickey is hitting?) will pattern by wh- operator (De Villiers, 1991; Valian et al., 1992) or auxiliary (Stromswold, 1990; Santelmann et al., 2002). Although errors did show some tendency to pattern by auxiliary, interactions between the variables of wh- operator, auxiliary and number suggest that Rowland and Pine’s (2000) constructivist model, under which children acquire frequent wh- operator+lexical auxiliary combinations from the input, can potentially provide the best fit for the data.

Experiments 2 and 3 (Chapter 4) investigated two factors thought to influence the process by which children form abstract grammatical constructions: (1) temporal distribution of instantiations of the construction and (2) type frequency of the variable element in the construction. 48 children aged 3;6-5;10 and 72 children aged 4;0-5;0 were given 10 exposures to the construction it was the [OBJECT] that the [SUBJECT] [VERB]ed all in one session (massed), or on a schedule of 2 trials per day for 5 days (distributed pairs), or 1 trial per day for 10 days (distributed). Children in both the distributed conditions learned the construction better than children in the massed condition, as evidenced by productive use of this construction with a verb that had not been presented during training, though a VERB type frequency manipulation was found to have no effect.

Experiments 4-6 investigated a specific aspect of Tomsello’s account: the hypothesis that repeated presentation of a particular verb (e.g., kick) in a particular argument structure construction (e.g., John kicked the ball) leads to the inference that the use of that verb in non-attested constructions (e.g., *the ball kicked) is not permitted (the entrenchment hypothesis). These studies did not demonstrate an entrenchment effect, but remain a work in progress.

In Chapter 6, I conclude that the findings of Experiments 1-6 are broadly consistent with Tomasello’s (2003) account, but argue that specific aspects of the constructivist account require much more detailed investigation, and present several suggestions as to how this might be accomplished.

DECLARATION


I declare that no portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning


COPYRIGHT STATEMENT





  1. Copyright in text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author and lodged in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the Author.

  2. The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this thesis is vested in the University of Manchester, subject to any prior agreement to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement.

  3. Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may take place is available from the Head of the Department of Psychology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


My greatest thanks are, of course, due to my supervisors, Professor Elena Lieven, Dr. Anna Theakston and Professor Mike Tomasello, who have made this thesis possible.


I would also like to thank my fellow students in Manchester, both past and present for their many helpful discussions. They are Rob Maslen, Danielle Matthews, Ceri Savage and Thea Cameron-Faulkner. Several members of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig have also provided help with methodology and statistics, in particular Daniel Stahl, Franklin Chang and Kirsten Abbot-Smith.


Thanks must go also to my long-suffering co-experimenters for Experiments 2 and 3: primarily Victoria Hulks and Ellie O’ Malley but also (on occasions) Anna Roby and Evan Kidd. Thank you, and may you never have to hear that construction again in your lifetime!


I have enjoyed being a (somewhat occasional) member of the Chester reading group, and would like to single out for particular thanks Virginia Gathercole, who made a helpful methodological contribution to Experiments 4-6, and Bill Croft, who has radically changed the way I see language.


Special thanks go to Caroline Rowland, for help with the wh- questions literature, and Julian Pine, whose lectures at the University of Nottingham inspired me to undertake this doctorate. Thanks to you both, and I look forward to working with you in Liverpool.


Finally, I thank the University of Manchester and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. This research was supported by a studentship from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Chapter 1: Generativist Approaches to Language Acquisition


1.0 Thesis Introduction and Outline


Do children learn their native language, or can we only say that they acquire it? One’s answer to this question seems to be inextricably linked to one’s view of precisely what language is. Under the generativist (nativist, UG, formalist) view, a language consists of a lexicon – analogous to a mental dictionary – and a grammar; an abstract, infinite, recursive, formal system, analogous to that of propositional logic. Those who favour this view of language generally believe that the grammar cannot be learned from a finite set of utterances generated by it, and that language can only be acquired with the help of some innate knowledge of syntax. Under the constructivist (socio-pragmatic, functionalist, usage-based) view, which draws no sharp distinction between the grammar and the lexicon, language is an inventory of meaningful chunks of linguistic material of various sizes, and various levels of abstraction, which serve some communicative or socio-pragmatic function. Those who favour this view generally believe that humans’ general cognitive abilities can be used to learn units of meaningful material, and to abstract across and generate links between them.

In the present thesis, having argued that the generativist position is untenable, I present a series of six experiments designed to test and extend an alternative constructivist account. The structure of this thesis is as follows.

In Chapter 1, five leading generativist theories of language acquisition1 (Radford, 1990,1996; Valian, 1991; Wexler, 1998, Hyams, 1999; Pinker, 1984, 1989) are outlined and evaluated. It is argued that none of these theories can explain the pattern of child language acquisition data found in either naturalistic or experimental studies.

Chapter 2 presents a recent constructivist account (Tomasello, 2003) and argues that such an approach is, at least potentially, compatible with the available data. The remainder of the thesis then endeavours to test and extend this theory.

In Chapter 3 I report the results of an experiment (Experiment 1) designed to mediate between generativist and constructivist accounts of language acquisition with respect to children’s acquisition of non-subject wh- questions. These structures represent a particularly good test case for both constructivist and (especially) generativist accounts, as both make specific predictions with regard to the pattern of acquisition and errors. It is argued that the pattern of results observed is compatible with only the constructivist approach.

Having provided a further demonstration that constructivist approaches are most compatible with the data, I then return to Tomasello’s (2003) specific account and seek to extend this account by investigating, in some detail, the nature of the processes by which the abstract grammatical constructions that are taken to underlie adult linguistic competence may be (1) abstracted from the input (Chapter 4) and (2) appropriately restricted, in order to avoid overgeneralization errors (Chapter 5).

Experiments 2 and 3 (Chapter 4) investigate two factors which are hypothesised to influence the formation of abstract syntactic construction schemas: (1) the temporal distribution of substantive instantiations of the construction in the input and (2) the type frequency of the variable element in the construction, in this case the verb. This study shows a distributed learning effect such that acquisition of the construction is facilitated by temporally distributed (over several days) as opposed to massed (in one session) exposure. It is argued that this pattern of results is compatible with Tomasello’s (2003) approach, under which grammatical constructions, words and non-linguistic stimuli are all acquired via domain-general cognitive processes, but not with domain-specific generativist accounts under which the grammar, but not the lexicon, is acquired with the help of processes such as parameter setting and biologically determined maturation.

Experiments 4-6 (Chapter 5) investigate an account of one process by which Tomasello (2003) argues that children learn to appropriately restrict their linguistic abstractions or generalisations. The entrenchment hypothesis states that repeated presentation of a particular item in a particular construction (for example a particular verb such as giggle, in a particular argument construction such as [SUBJECT] giggle) leads to the inference that the use of this item in non-attested constructions (e.g., *[SUBJECT] giggle [OBJECT]) is not permitted. In its present form this study has failed to demonstrate an entrenchment effect. However, this series of experiments remains a “work-in-progress”.

Chapter 6 concludes the thesis with a discussion of the implications of the findings of the experiments reported for constructivist and generativist approaches to language acquisition, and suggests further investigations which are required in order to move towards a fully comprehensive account of language acquisition.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27

Похожие:

1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 icon“An idiom is an expression peculiar to a language and not explainable by principles of logic or the ordinary meaning of the individual words. Why do we say that

1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconProject-based Learning as clil approach to Teaching Language

1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconSystem of standards on information, librianship and publishing. The research report. Structure and rules of presentations
Изменением n 1, введенным в действие приказом Федерального агентства по техническому регулированию и метрологии от 7 сентября 2005...
1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconAdvanced Level English Language: Language and society – language and power

1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconSystem of standards on information, librarianship and publishing. Bibliographic record. Bibliographic description. General requirements and rules
Система стандартов по информации, библиотечному и издательскому делу. Библиографическая запись. Библиографическое описание. Общие...
1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconWhich is More Prevalent Worldwide Income Approach or Territorial Income Approach for Federal Income Tax?

1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconStricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law

1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconUnit I. English language as a world language
Сборник предназначен для эффективной организации самостоятельной работы студентов языковых вузов, а также для всех желающих усовершенствовать...
1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconEmotions Idioms Phrases To Sort

1. 1 The generativist approach to language: “Words and rules” 18 1 The x-bar theory of phrase structure: General principles 20 2 Functional phrases 23 iconKyoko koma list of publications / publikacijų SĄRAŠAS
«Mechanism of the Formation of the Fashion in Articles of Current Fashion Magazines» in Journal of Language and Culture 11, Society...
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Документы


База данных защищена авторским правом ©kzdocs.docdat.com 2012
обратиться к администрации
Документы
Главная страница