<DIV>Hi Peetm,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>After reading your last message, I tried to register for your 'CL forum' at <A href="http://www.clg.ox.ac.uk">www.clg.ox.ac.uk</A>. I was told that I couldn't however, because I have "banned" email address (Yahoo). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That is annoying.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joe</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>peetm <peet.morris@comlab.ox.ac.uk></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Just want to say a MASSIVE and heartfelt 'thanks' to everyone that responded<BR>to my plea earlier today! You guys/gals/profs/... are just so helpful (fab<BR>even!) - thank you very very much indeed. I can now make some progress!<BR><BR>Just wish you were all a little happier about signing up to our 'CL Forums'<BR>on www.clg.ox.ac.uk (we really don't bite) - makes asking/chatting/learning<BR>via majordomo look, um, a little outdated (in my humble opinion anyway).<BR><BR>Thanks again,<BR><BR>peetm<BR><BR>================================================<BR><BR>Important: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s)<BR>named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or<BR>unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of<BR>humour or irrational religious beliefs.<BR><BR>If you are not the intended recipient, then social
etiquette demands that<BR>you fully appropriate the message without trace of the former sender and<BR>triumphantly claim it as your own. Leaving a former sender's signature on a<BR>"forwarded" email is very bad form and, while being only a technical breach<BR>of the Olympic ideal, does in fact constitute an irritating social faux pas.<BR><BR>Further, sending this email to a colleague does not appear to breach the<BR>provisions of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 of the<BR>Commonwealth, because chances are none of the thoughts contained in this<BR>email are in any sense original...<BR><BR>Finally, if you have received this email in error, shred it immediately,<BR>then add it to some nutmeg, egg whites and caster sugar. Whisk until stiff<BR>peaks form, then place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Remove promptly and<BR>let it stand for 2 hours before adding the decorative kiwi fruit and cream.<BR>Then notify me immediately by return email and eat the original
message.<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: owner-corpora@lists.uib.no [mailto:owner-corpora@lists.uib.no] On<BR>Behalf Of Chris Brew<BR>Sent: 18 June 2003 17:59<BR>To: peetm<BR>Cc: corpora@uib.no<BR>Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] Subcat Questions<BR><BR>On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:19:06PM +0100, peetm wrote:<BR>> <BR>> Sorry, if this would have been better asked elsewhere - but I thought I'd<BR>> give it a go here.<BR>> <BR>> Subcategorisation Frames - can anyone point me a 'The Dummy's Guide to' -<BR>or<BR>> provide an explanation of them, which contains only plain and simple<BR>English<BR>> please?<BR>> <BR><BR>OK I'll try. If this is too simple, sorry. If too complex,<BR>ask. Subcategorization frames are a component of a system of ideas<BR>designed to describe verbs in such a way as to bring out interesting<BR>commonalities. They are based on notions such as<BR>transitive/intransitive that you may have been taught at school, but<BR>go
further.<BR><BR><BR><BR>1) Some verbs must (or nearly must) be intransitive<BR><BR>John faints<BR><BR>we might say the subcategorization frame for this is <BR><BR>np _<BR><BR>where np means noun phrase. The np is the only thing<BR>needed to fill in all the crucial roles of the event<BR>of fainting. In predicate calculus one might write<BR><BR>faints(john)<BR><BR>2) Other verbs must (or nearly must) be transitive<BR><BR>John likes pizza<BR>(The old men) like (the dark green trees)<BR><BR>the brackets mark the phrases. Linguists<BR>have decided for independent reasons that the<BR>phrases "the old men" "the dark green trees" can<BR>function in the same way as the individual words<BR>"John" and "pizza". If this is news to you, you<BR>probably want to read the first chapter of a good<BR>introduction to linguistics.<BR><BR>the frame for both "likes" sentences would be<BR><BR>np _ np<BR><BR>If you say just "John likes" it feels as if something<BR>has been left out. So there are two
obligatory things (complements)<BR>that<BR>needed to be added to complete "likes". In predicate<BR>calculus one might write<BR><BR>likes(john, pizza)<BR><BR>3) Some verbs can be either transitive or intransitive<BR><BR>John moves<BR><BR>np _<BR><BR>John moves the books<BR><BR>np _ pp<BR><BR>3) Some verbs are yet more complicated<BR><BR>John gives Mary (the books)<BR>np _ np np<BR><BR>John gives (the books) (to Mary)<BR><BR>np _ np pp<BR><BR>(here pp is prepositional phrase, another kind of phrase,<BR>since "to" is a preposition)<BR><BR>John promises Mary (the books)<BR>np _ np np<BR><BR>John promises Mary (that he will return the books)<BR>np _ np s<BR><BR>(Here s stands for sentence. Quite why "that he will<BR>return the books" should be a sentence is beyond the<BR>current scope, but this is broadly accepted)<BR><BR>4) There don't seem to be frames with more than four<BR>elements, and the only common one with that many is<BR><BR>John bet Mary (half a crown) (that he would return
the books)<BR><BR>np _ np np s<BR><BR>5) Arguments and adjuncts.<BR>For purposes of counting, we don't include things that<BR>are inessential to the meaning of the verb, so<BR><BR>John likes pizza (on Tuesdays)<BR><BR>is given the frame<BR><BR>np _ np<BR><BR>and nobody worries about the "on Tuesdays". The reason is (loosely)<BR>that "on Tuesdays" could be added to almost any sentence, and so<BR>shouldn't count as part of the description of the verb. Things that<BR>are part of the frame get called "arguments" and things that are not<BR>get called "adjuncts". There is much debate about this distinction,<BR>from discussion of whether a particular thing is better analysed as<BR>argument or adjunct, through studies of whether machines (or indeed<BR>humans) can reliably distinguish arguments from adjuncts to<BR>philosophical diatribes on whether such a distinction is meaningful in<BR>the first place. If this part strikes you as flaky, you're in very<BR>good company. To really understand
the motivations behind this you<BR>probably need a whole course in linguistics.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/">SBC Yahoo! DSL</a> - Now only $29.95 per month!