Ad
related to: semantic bootstrapping vs ergativity in writing sample examples for graduate school- Free Writing Assistant
Improve grammar, punctuation,
conciseness, and more.
- Free Plagiarism Checker
Compare text to billions of web
pages and major content databases.
- Free Essay Checker
Proofread your essay with ease.
Writing that makes the grade.
- Free Citation Generator
Get citations within seconds.
Never lose points over formatting.
- Free Spell Checker
Improve your spelling in seconds.
Avoid simple spelling errors.
- Free Sentence Checker
Free online proofreading tool.
Find and fix errors quickly.
- Free Writing Assistant
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Semantic bootstrapping is a linguistic theory of child language acquisition which proposes that children can acquire the syntax of a language by first learning and recognizing semantic elements and building upon, or bootstrapping from, that knowledge. [1]
Syntactic ergativity is quite rare, and while all languages that exhibit it also feature morphological ergativity, few morphologically ergative languages have ergative syntax. As with morphology, syntactic ergativity can be placed on a continuum, whereby certain syntactic operations may pattern accusatively and others ergatively.
Semantic bootstrapping is a linguistic theory of language acquisition which proposes that children can acquire the syntax of a language by first learning and recognizing semantic elements and building upon, or bootstrapping from, that knowledge. [8] According to Pinker, [8] semantic bootstrapping requires two critical assumptions to hold true:
For example, under semantic bootstrapping, learning word meanings to understand the difference between physical objects, agents and actions is used to acquire the syntax of a language. [3] However, prosodic bootstrapping also attempts to explain how children acquire the syntax of their language, but through prosodic cues. [ 4 ]
In linguistic typology, active–stative alignment (also split intransitive alignment or semantic alignment) is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the sole argument ("subject") of an intransitive clause (often symbolized as S) is sometimes marked in the same way as an agent of a transitive verb (that is, like a subject such as "I" or "she" in English) but other times in the same way ...
In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.
This idea underlies early notions of ‘deep’ vs. ‘surface’ (or ‘syntactic’ vs. ‘morphological’) ergativity (e.g. Comrie 1978; [2] Dixon 1994 [1]): many languages have surface ergativity only (ergative alignments only in their coding constructions, like case or agreement) but not in their behavioral constructions or at least not ...
Often there is a semantic difference between the intransitive and transitive forms of a verb: the water is boiling versus I boiled the water; the grapes grew versus I grew the grapes. In these examples, known as ergative verbs, the role of the subject differs between intransitive and transitive verbs.