言語学書の内容について -言語学書の内容で訳や理解に難儀している箇所があり-

言語学書

こんにちは。長文失礼します。。。言語学書の内容でいまいちどう訳していいかわからないところがあるので、訳や内容、アドバイスなど回答お願いします。 One teaching exercise popular with many English language instructors provides students with a sentence structure or pattern that they must imitate.Here is a typical structure for transitive clauses: Doctors rarely visit patients in their homes at night. Britons normally prefer fish and chips overseas during the summer. Then the students are given lists of forms that can fill the slots.For example,one list might include the following:children,Americans,chefs,customs officials,wrestlers,cats. Any one of these could be inserted into either the subject or direct object slots.Other exercises might have learners suggesting their own items for each slot. The same kind of exercise can be used for other types of clauses such as intransitive clauses.Grammarians looking at such exercises would notice that they exploit the kinds of properties discussed in the last chapter ―linearity,hierarchy,and categoriality.Teachers would need to be aware of the ranges of options available for clause sequences. In this chapter we start to look in more detail at the options for clause structure,not just the linear sequences but the hierarchical structures exploited in English,and the grammatical categories used.We are interested not only in the units employed but also in the grammatical relations between the units.We will be applying tests to check grammatical analyses and to distinguish between clauses that look structurally identical at first glance, yet are not treated as such by native speakers.Those learning English have to acquire these distinctions,and our grammatical analyses must reflect them. Clauses are constructions with one phrase constituent, typically a noun phrase,that bears the subject relation and another constituent,the verb phrase,bearing the predicate relation. アドバイスなど、どんなことでもいいですので、回答よろしくお願いいたします。

言語学について

言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。よろしくお願いします。 Nominative／accusative systems usually seem very reasonable to speakers of Indo-European languages since most of these languages exhibit this kind of system. The following examples from Yup\'ik (alaska) illustrate another system for grouping S, A, and O. In these examples the case marker \"-aq\" occurs on the S argument of an intransitive clause and O argument of a transitive clause. If any morphological case marks A alone, it can be called the ERGATIVE case. Similarly, any morphological case that marks both S and O can be termed the ABSOLUTE case. This arrangement, known as an ERGATIVE ／ABSOLUTIVE system, is sporadic in European and African languages. However, it is common in other areas of the world Ergativity occurs as a basic system for organizing grammatical relations in many languages of Australia, Central Asia,and the Americas. It occurs as a partial case marking system in South Asia and in many other languages of the Americas. Many Austronesian languages have also been claimed to exhibit this system. In addition to morphological case marking on pronouns or full noun phrases, languages may manifest ergative／absolutive or nominative／accusative systems in person marking on verbs, and／or constituent order. We have seen above that Quechua manifests a nominative／accusative system in case marking of noun phrases. Quechua also manifests a nominative／accusative system for organizing grammatical relations in person marking on verbs. In examples 28a, the third-person singular S of an intransitive verb is referred to by the suffix \"-n\". In 28b, first-person S argument is expressed by the suffix \"-a\"(actually length on the final vowel of the root). Examples 28c shows that suffix \"-n\" is also used for third-person A argument of transitive verbs. Hence, A and S are treated morphologically alike by the person-making system of Quechua. The fact that, in 28c, the first-person suffix for O arguments is \"-ma\" rather than \"-a\" illustrates that O and S are treated as different. Again, this way of treating S and A alike and O differently constitutes a nominative／accusative system. As might be expected, languages can also manifest an ergative ／absolutive GR system in person marking on verbs. Yup\'ik will again serve as our example of such a system: In example 29a, the suffix \"-nga\" indicates a first-person singular S argument of an intransitive verc. In 29b, the suffix \"-q\" marks the third-person s. In 29c, the suffix \"-nga\" marks the first-person O argument of a transitive clause. Since this is the same marker that is used for first-person S arguments, this suffix groups S and O together morphologically into an absolutive category. The third-person singular A argument of a transitive clause is expressed by a suffix \"-a\" . Since this suffix is different from the third-person S suffix, it can be said to identify ergative arguments. Again, this treatment of S together with O as distinct from A constitutes an ergative／absolutive system. Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative／absolutive and／or nominative／accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order.

言語学について

言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。よろしくお願いします。 Nominative／accusative systems usually seem very reasonable to speakers of Indo-European languages since most of these languages exhibit this kind of system. The following examples from Yup'ik (alaska) illustrate another system for grouping S, A, and O. In these examples the case marker "-aq" occurs on the S argument of an intransitive clause and O argument of a transitive clause. If any morphological case marks A alone, it can be called the ERGATIVE case. Similarly, any morphological case that marks both S and O can be termed the ABSOLUTE case. This arrangement, known as an ERGATIVE ／ABSOLUTIVE system, is sporadic in European and African languages. However, it is common in other areas of the world Ergativity occurs as a basic system for organizing grammatical relations in many languages of Australia, Central Asia,and the Americas. It occurs as a partial case marking system in South Asia and in many other languages of the Americas. Many Austronesian languages have also been claimed to exhibit this system. In addition to morphological case marking on pronouns or full noun phrases, languages may manifest ergative／absolutive or nominative／accusative systems in person marking on verbs, and／or constituent order. We have seen above that Quechua manifests a nominative／accusative system in case marking of noun phrases. Quechua also manifests a nominative／accusative system for organizing grammatical relations in person marking on verbs. In examples 28a, the third-person singular S of an intransitive verb is referred to by the suffix "-n". In 28b, first-person S argument is expressed by the suffix "-a"(actually length on the final vowel of the root). Examples 28c shows that suffix "-n" is also used for third-person A argument of transitive verbs. Hence, A and S are treated morphologically alike by the person-making system of Quechua. The fact that, in 28c, the first-person suffix for O arguments is "-ma" rather than "-a" illustrates that O and S are treated as different. Again, this way of treating S and A alike and O differently constitutes a nominative／accusative system. As might be expected, languages can also manifest an ergative ／absolutive GR system in person marking on verbs. Yup'ik will again serve as our example of such a system: In example 29a, the suffix "-nga" indicates a first-person singular S argument of an intransitive verc. In 29b, the suffix "-q" marks the third-person s. In 29c, the suffix "-nga" marks the first-person O argument of a transitive clause. Since this is the same marker that is used for first-person S arguments, this suffix groups S and O together morphologically into an absolutive category. The third-person singular A argument of a transitive clause is expressed by a suffix "-a" . Since this suffix is different from the third-person S suffix, it can be said to identify ergative arguments. Again, this treatment of S together with O as distinct from A constitutes an ergative／absolutive system. Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative／absolutive and／or nominative／accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order.

言語学書の内容

言語学書をよんでいるのですが、いまいち内容が理解できません。訳し方が間違っているのでしょうか・・・。アドバイスお願いします。 Part of what you know when you know a language is how words can combine to form larger units,such as phrases and clauses. この文は訳せませんでした。。 LINEAR ORDER, CONSTITUENCY(which we will also refer to as SYNTACTIC MERGER, "grouping" or "clumping),and HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE(also referred to as "nesting")are the major features of the SYNTAX of all human languages. 線形性序列、構成要素(これは分類や群れといった統語的融合と言及)また、階層構造(文の中にはめこむ？と言及)、これらは人間言語の統語論の主な特徴。 The basic building blocks of syntactic structure are called SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES.These are two subtypes of syntactic categories;LEXICAL CATEGORIES and PHRASAL CATEGORIES. 統語的構造の基本的なかたまりを統語範疇と呼ぶ。2つの特殊型の統語範疇がある。語彙範疇と句範疇だ。 LEXICAL CATEGORIES consist of units that do not have internal syntactic structure themselves. 語彙範疇は内部の統語構造？そのものをもっていない単位からなる。 For example, a noun may have morphological structure(prefixes,suffixes,etc.)but is not made up of syntactically distinct units. 例えば名詞は形態論的構造(接頭辞や接尾辞など)をもつが、統語的に明瞭な単位？からは構成されない。 Phrasal categories, on the other hand, may have internal syntactic structure.For example, a noun phrase must contain a noun, but may also contain adjectives and many other units that "clump together"with the noun. 一方で句範疇は内部の統語構造？をもつ。例えば、名詞句は名詞を含む。　　　この後が分かりません。。 It is important to note that a phrasal category may consist of only one unit.For example, a noun like Lucretia may also be a noun phrase.This is because it has tha same distributional properties as a noun phrase. 句範疇はたった一つの単位からなるということが重要である。例えばLucretiaというような名詞は名詞句だろう。なぜなら、名詞句と同じ分類特性を持つからだ。以上です。長文ですみません。よろしくお願いします。

言語学について

言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。よろしくお願いします。 System for organizing grammatical relations In order to insightfully discuss systems of grammatical relations within a clause, it is convenient to identify three basic "semantico-syntactic roles" termed S, A and O. Similar terms are used by Comrie and Silverstein. These terms assume two prototypical clause types. The S is defined as the only nominal argument of a single-argument clause. This quite different from the S used by Greeberg in his characterization of constituent order typology, as discussed in chapter 7, or the S used in earlier versions of generative grammar to refer to the highest node in constituent structure. While the term S often reminds us of the grammatical relation subject, S as used in this chapter refers informally to the "Single" argument of a single-argument clause. Sometimes this type of clause is referred to as INTRANSITIVE clause. The A is defined as the most AGENT-like argument of a multi-argument clause. Sometimes this type of clause is referred to as a TRANSITIVE clause. If there is no argument that is a very good agent, the A is the argument that is treated morphosyntactically in the same manner as prototypical agents are treated. Usually there will be one argument in every verbal clause that exhibits this property, though there may not be.More complex systems are described below. O is the most PATIENT-like argument of a multi-argument clause (see chapter 4). While the term O often reminds us of the grammatical relation "object", O refers informally to the "Other" argument of a multi-argument clause. Again, if none of the arguments is very much like a PATIENT, then the argument that is treated like a prototype patient is considered to be the O. In this schema, the grammatical relation of SUBJECT can be defined universally(fo all languages, rather than for one particular language) as S together with A, while DIRECT OBJECT, or simply "object" can be defined as O alone. Some languages pay more grammatical attention to these notions than do others. In the following extended discussion, we will discuss the various morphosyntactic systems for expressing S, A and O. Languages may treat S and A the same morphosyntactically, and O differently. The following English examples illustrate this system with pronominal case forms-one form, "he" is used for third-person singular masculine pronouns in both the S and the A roles. A different form, "him", is used for third-person masculine singular pronouns in the O role. The extended circle around S and A in this diagram indicates that S and A are treated by the grammar of English as "the same", as demonstrated by the subject properties discuss above (use of the subject case form, "he", in 24, immediately before the verb). The distinct circle around O indicates that O is treated differently, insofar as a different pronominal form, "him", is used to refer to it. "Him" also appears in a different position in the clause, namely after the verb. This system is often referred to as a NOMINATIVE／ACCUSATIVE system. The morphosyntactic grouping of S and A together can be called the NOMINATIVE case, while the distinct morphosyntactic treatment of the O role is the ACCUSATIVE case. The Quechuan languages (a group of languages spoken throughout the Andes mountains in South America) employ the same arrangement. However, in addition to pronominal forms and constituent order, the Quecha languages express this system in morphological case marking on free noun phrases. In the following examples from Huallaga Quechua the same case marker 0(zero), occurs on noun phrases in both the S and A roles. A dis tinct case marker, "-ta", occurs on noun phrases in the O role (all Quechua examples courtesy of David Weber, p.c.)

言語学について

言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。よろしくお願いします。 Since constituent order is universally one major means of expressing grammatical relations, one might ask whether ergative／absolutive and／or nominative／accusative systems can be manifested in constituent order. Of course, the answer is "yes". English, consistent with its strong nominative／accusative orientation, treats S and A alike in that the S of intransitive verbs and the \a of transitive verbs most neutrally occur in preverbal position. The O of transitive verbs, on the other hand, is treated differently in that it occurs in post-verbal position. In some verb-medial languages the verb and the O argument from a "tight" constituent in transitive clauses. In Kuikuro, a Cariban language of Brazil, SV(intransitive) and OV(transitive) are very rigid structures. The most neutral position for the A argument is following the OV complex(example 30a). In 30a, the S argument of an intransitive verb occurs in preverbal position. In 30b, O argument of antransitive verb occurs in preverbal position, and the A argument occurs in post-verbal position. since both S and O occur in the same position, we can say that this language manifests an ergative／absolutive system in constituent order. One language, Sanuma(a variety of Yanomami spoken in Brazil and Venezuela), is a verb-final language, SV and OV form tight constituents. In transitive clauses A precedes O and V, but if there is any other constituent, call it X, it must occur after A. Thus the orders are AXOV and XSV. Since A is treated distinctly by being separate from the OV complex, this pattern can be considered to be a kind of constituent order ergativity. In summary, any system that treats S and A alike as opposed to O is a nominative-accusative system fir organizing grammatical relations. Any system that treats S and O alike as opposed to A is an ergative／absolutive system. The following section will provide some suggestions to how to approach the analysis of grammatical relations.

言語学

以前、言語学書の内容がいまいち読み取れずに質問したのですが、また分からないところが出てきたので、アドバイス等お願いします。以下SYNTAXの話です The largest category in phrase structure is a special category, sometimes symbolized by the letter S. 句構造の中で最も大きな範疇は、時たまSという文字で表される特別範疇(？)だ。 In earlier versions of Generative Grammar this was a mnemonic for "Sentence"; however, we will continue to refer to it as "clause", or "the clause level." 生成文法の初期の解釈では、、、その後が分かりません。 mnemonicはどう訳せばいいのでしょうか？ It is generally assumed in Generative Grammar that linguistic structure above the S level is not amenable to phrase structure analysis. 生成文法においては、Sレベルより上の(？)言語構造は句構造分析には左右されないと一般的に仮定されます。 More recent versions of Generative Grammar have eliminated the need for this special category altogether, having subsumed it under the phrasal category labels. 生成文法のもっと最近の見解は、句範疇ラベル下に包括させたので、完全にこの特別範疇の必要性を取り除いている。 We can consider a clause to be the grammatical expression of a PROPOSITION. 私たちは節を命題の文法上の表現とみなす。 A proposition has to do with entities in the message world and semantic relations among them, whereas a clause has to do with syntactic categories and the syntactic relations among them. この文は訳せませんでした。。 We can informally think of a proposition as consisting of a "complete thought." 私たちは非公式に(？)「完全な考え」から成るとして命題について考えることができる。以下LINEAR　ORDERの話です Linear order is just too strong and obvious a structural variable for languages not to use it in some way to accomplish important communicative work. この文もうまく訳せませんでした。 One characteristic that seems to distinguish human languages from other natural communicative system is that human language exhibits constituency and hierarchical structure. 他の自然なコミュニケーションのシステムと人間言語を区別するように思える１つの特性は、人間の言語が構成要素と階層構造を示すということです。　seems to がうまく訳せません Constituency means that linguistic units "clump together",or "merge"　(Chomsky 1995) in discourse. 構成要素は「群れ？」や「融合」といった統語的単位を意味する。 in discourseはどう訳すのでしょうか。。 Linear order and constituency are two important variable that any syntactic analysis of a language must be able to describe. 線形順序と階層構造は、言語のどんな構造分析も説明できなければならない２つの重要な変動要因です。以上です。長文ですみません。どんなことでもいいですので何かアドバイスお願いします。

以下の英文の和訳をお願いします。

Indeed, such is the demand to learn language that are now more students of English in China than there are people in the United States.

英語の和訳ですっ

英語の和訳がどうしても苦手です… 中２なんですが上手に和訳できませんよかったらこの和訳教えてください About six thousand languages are spoken in the world. These languages are different. However, they share a common characteristic. They are built from sounds. These sounds are combined to make syllables. These syllables can be combined make words. The words are then combined to　form sentences. Writing systems are a little different. There are seven major writing systems in the world : Chinese (kanji), English (Latin), Russian (Cyrillic), Arabic, Indic (Devanagari), Korean (Hangul), and Japanese (katakana and hiragana). Some writing systems are read from left to right. Other are read from right to left, or up to down. These writing systems can be organized into three categories. (1)Logographic In a logographic writing system, each character has meaning. Often, the character contains a picture that represents its meaning. Chinese kanji and Egyptian hieroglyphs are both logographic systems. In this system, the sound of the word is not represented in the character. (2)Syllabic In the syllabic writing system, each character forms one syllable. Each written symbol represents a vowel sound, with or without surrounding consonants. Most writing systems of East and South Asia are syllabic. Japanese hiragana and katakana are two examples of syllabic writing systems. (3)Alphabetic In an alphabetic writing system, each character represents a sound. In English, for example, each of the three letters in the word top represents a different sound. The three sounds combine to make one syllable. In the word thanks, the letters t and h are used together to represent the th sound. The Latin and Cyrillic systems, which are used in the major European languages, are in this category. なのですが、お願いします！！

至急和訳お願い致します！内容が難しく理解に苦しんでおります。分かる範囲

至急和訳お願い致します！内容が難しく理解に苦しんでおります。分かる範囲で結構です、よろしくお願いします。 A theory of grammar which posits that grammatical operations are constrained by innate principles of UG offers the important advantage that it minimizes the burden of grammatical learning imposed on the child (in the sense that children do not have to learn, for example, that auxiliary inversion affects the first auxiliary in a sentence, or that wh-movement likewise affects the first wh-expression ). This is an important consideration, since we saw earlier that learnability is a criterion of adequacy for any theory of grammar ? i.e. any adequate theory of grammar must be able to explain how children come to learn the grammar of their native language(s) in such a rapid and uniform fashion. The UG theory developed by Chomsky provides a straightforward account of the rapidity of the childs grammatical development , since it posits that there are a universal set of innately endowed grammatical principles which determine how grammatical operations apply in natural language grammars. Since UG principles which are innately endowed are wired into the language faculty and so do not have to be learned by the child, this minimizes the learning load placed on the child, and thereby maximises the learnability of natural language grammars

脳神経科学と言語に関する英文で

ある英文読解問題集にある次の英文についての設問に関して尋ねいたします。（問い）次の英文の最終文にある”making associations”（(2)とします）と同じ内容が述べられている箇所を抜き出せ。（他の設問は省略しました） From both the point of view of neuroscience and linguistics, two related questions about words and grammar are especially germane in relation to the main themes of this chapter. First, what is the nature of the neural machinery that allows us to learn language? And second, why do we have such a profound drive to learn language? The major twentieth-century figure who has grappled with these questions is linguist Noam Chomsky, who, while not interested in brain structure, has argued that the complexity of language is such that it cannot simply be learned. Chomsky therefore proposed that language must be predicated on a “universal grammar” laid down in the evolution of our species. Whereas this argument is undoubtedly correct (the basic language machinery, like all aspects of brain circuitry that support adult behavior, is indeed constructed during the normal development of each individual as a result of inheritance), Chomsky's eschewing of neurobiology avoids the central question of how, in evolutionary or developmental terms, this machinery comes to be and how it actually encodes words and grammar. Whatever the mechanisms eventually prove to be, much of the language we use is obviously learned by making neuronal linkages between arbitrary symbols and the objects, concepts, and interrelationships they signify in the real world. As such, human language provides a rich source for understanding how the relevant parts of the human cortex and their constituent neurons work to produce the enormous facility for making associations, which appears to be a fundamental aspect of all cortical functions. （http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.1892の第２段落）解答はその前の文（最後から２つ目の文）にある” making neuronal linkages between arbitrary symbols and the objects, concepts, and interrelationships they signify in the real world”（(1)とします）となっていました。しかし、私はこの解釈は正しくないのではないかという気がします。それは、(1)と(2)は同じく大脳皮質におけるニューロン間の「結合」のことを言っているものの、 (1) は言語活動を支える言語プロパーのものであって、恣意的な記号とモノなどとの間での結合である、のに対して、 (2) は言語活動を含め、認知・記憶・学習・思考・問題解決など多岐にわたる高次認知機能一般を支えるものとしてであり、一般に「連合」と訳されるものをさしている、と私には思えるからです。私の読みとりは間違っていますでしょうか、ご教示ください。

言語学について

言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。よろしくお願いします。 Noun phrases are not the only constituents of made of up of various combinations of phrases and even clauses. The verb phrase also allows a range of combinations. Thus, clauses are categorized as intransitive, transitive, copular, and ditransitive, depending on how many argument noun phrases or clauses, if any, follow the verb. 　 Dogs bark. A wolf howled mournfully. The lonely ploughman talked to the cows. None of these three contain a verb directly followed by an object. Here is a constituent tree for the sentence about the cow: Clauses like these, in which the verbs do not take objects, are called "intransitive clauses ".The verbs are said to be used intransitively. Transitive are clauses in which lowing are all examples of transitive clauses: The panther climbed the tree. The mayor rejected the petitions. Dr. Faustus knew that Helen was unreliable. But not all clauses with a sequence of a verb followed by a noun phrase are transitive clauses. Consider this clause in which the verb is followed by a noun phrase: Esmeralda arrived the next day. The noun phrase "the next day" is a time noun phrase that could be shifted to the beginning of the clause. It is not part of a verb phrase whose head is "arrived", and it is not an argument of the predicate ARRIVE. It is thus not a daughter of the verb phrase. The clause is an intransitive clause and there is no sister slot for an object. Transitive clauses, however, have an object position after the main verb. The noun phrases verbs "climbed" and "rejected" in the previous two examples are objects of their verb phrases. One useful way to test whether a clause is transitive is to see whether it has a passive counterpart. Look at these pairs of examples: The panther climbed the tree. The tree was climbed by the panther. The mayor rejected the petitions. The petitions were rejected by the mayor. The first clause in each pair is a transitive clause. Only transitive clauses have passive voice counterparts. See what happens when we try to form a passive voice clause corresponding to the intransitive clause with the time noun phrase: Esmeralda arrived the next day. The next day was arrived by Esmeralda. Unlike the noun phrase objects in the other examples, "the next day" cannot be the subject of the passive voice clause. In the active voice clause it isn't the object of the verb phrase. Phrases like "the next day" are optional constituents known as "adjuncts". Adjuncts are more freely moved than are required constituents. Thus the next day can be shifted to the front of the clause: The next day Esmeralda arrived. The passive voice test is probably the most reliable way to check whether an active voice clause is transitive or intransitive. In the next section we'll examine another kind of clause that looks like a transitive clause but isn't. Again we'll apply the passive test.

構文把握なのですが

Among the most interesting cases of this sort of code switching are those in which a speaker mixes distinct languages, a situation that often arises in bilingual or multilingual areas such as the American Southwest. まず（，）までなのですが、これは倒置が起こっておりthose以下がＳ、areがＶ、Among～switchingはＣ（厳密には違うかもしれないですが）なのでしょうか？そうなると（，）以下a situationはthoseと同格ですか？細かいですが、よろしくお願いします。

英訳お願いします

Anyone who sets out to describe the role played by language in the development of our spesies is at once confronted by an apparent paradox, the Paradox of Continuity.Ifsuch aperson accepts the theory of evolution, that person must accept also that language is no more than an evolutionary adaptation - one of an unusual kind, perhaps, yet formed by the same prosesses that have formed countless other adaptations.If that is the case, when language cannot as novel as ot seems, for evolutionary adaptations do not emerge out of the blue. There are two ways in which evolution can produce novel elements:by the recombination of existing genes inthe course of of normal breeding, or by mutations that affect genes directly. Even in the second case, absolute novelties are impossible.What happens in mutation is that the instructions for producing part of a particular type of creature are altered.Instructions for producing a new part cannot simply be added to the old recipe.Specific instructions that are capable of being altered must already exist to a greater or lesser extent.What this means is that language cannot be wholelly without antecedents of some kind. But what kind of antecedents could language have?Since language is so widely regarded as a means of communication, the answer seems obvious:earlier systems of animal communication.It has long been known that many species communicate with one another.Some, like fireflies have blinking lights, others, like crickets, rub legs or wingcases together, while many exude chemical signals known as phenomenones.Of course such means are limited in their range of potential meaning and may signal nothing more complex than the presense of a potential mate.But the more sophisticated the creature, the more sophisticated themeans - from the dances of honeybees, through the posturing of sea gulls, to the sonar of dolphins - hence, the more complex the information that can be conveyed. Could not human language be just a supersophisticated variant of these? The trouble is that the difference between language and the most sophisticated systems of animal communication that we are so far aware of are qualitative rather than quantitative.All such systems have a fixed and finite number of topics on which information can be excahnged, whereas in langage the list is is open-ended, indeed infinite.all such systems have a finite and indeed strictly limited number of ways in which message components can be combined, if they can be combined at all.IN language the possibilities of combination, while governedby strict principles, are (potentially at least) infinite, limited for pactical purposes only by the finiteness of the you immediate memory store. You do not get from a finite number to infinity merely by adding numbers.And there are subtler but equally far-reaching differences between language and animalcommunication that make it impossible to regard the one as antecedent to the other. But the net result of all this is the Paradox of Continuity:language must have evolved out of some prior system, and yet there does not seems to be any such system out of which it could have evolved.

言語学について

言語学の専門書を読んでいるのですが、いまひとつ内容が掴めません。できればパラグラフ毎の要約を教えてください。よろしくお願いします。 Ditransitive Clauses Ditransitive clauses have to argument constituents in the verb phrase. The first noun phrase immediately following the verb normally refers to a living creature, the second to something nonliving. We'll describe here the two major classes of ditransitive clause. "Goal ditransitive clauses" have immediately following the verb an object noun phrase with the goal role. This object is called the "indirect object": ・・・ The second object argument is assigned the theme role. For most sentences like these, there are counterparts in which the first object has switched places with the second object must be introduced by the preposition "to". The noun phrase that was the indirect object is now the object of a prepositional phase headed by the preposition "to". Lool at these examples: ・・・ These noun phrases are no longer indirect objects of the verbs but instead are objects of the preposition "to". However, they are still arguments in their clause and cannot be omitted unless the context makes their mention unnecessary. We referred earlier to such noun phrases as oblique arguments, abbreviating the term as OBL-to. Some goal ditransitive clauses are idioms. These typically have "give" as their predicate, but allow other predicates such as "show" and "sell". Examples are "give the house a coat of paint, give the child a scolding, give the school a bad reputation, show the visitors a good time"(meaning "arrange for visitors to enjoy themselves"), and "sell them a bill of goods"(meaning "deceive them"). These have no counterparts with the goal proposition following "to". The same is true when the direct object is a clause rather than a noun phrase, as in these next examples: ・・・ There are no grammatical counterparts with "to": ・・・ The second class of ditransitive clause, "benefactive ditransitive clauses", contains predicates which assign the thematic role benefactive to the second object. In such clauses the second object, which is called the "benefactive object", refers to who the action was done "for" rather than who is was done "to". Not surprisingly, the preposition counterpart uses "for" rather than "to" before the oblique object: ・・・ There are, in addition to the two major classes of ditransitive clauses, clauses that cannot be so neatly classified because of special properties of their verbs. for instance, ditransitive clauses, it has no counterpart with a preposition: ・・・ The verb "cost" is also unusual in that it has no passive counterpart: You may be cost a lot of money (by that party). Other ditransitive do have passive counterparts: Angelica was told (by them) to arrive early for the award. The club was baked a guava-chiffon cake (by　Craig). Since the verb may have two objects, we might expect there to be passive counterparts. After all, the object of a transitive clause is the unit that functions as suject for the counterpart passive clause. Two objects in the active voice should correspond to two subjects in the passive voice. but this is not the case. Only the noun phrase that functions as the first object (i.e., as the indirect object) can be subject of a passive counterpart. Following is an active voice example along with two candidates for its passive counterpart: The group awarded the college two special scholarships. The college was awarded two special scholarships (by the group). Two special scholarships were awarded the college (by the group). Actually, the noun phrase "two special scholarships" can be the subject of a passive, but only in the counterparts of the examples with "to": Two special scholarships will be awarded to the college (by the group).

英語の訳をお願いします!!

We don't know for sure when a series of weights and measures based on accurate units appeared instead of the rough measurements of the earlies times.We know that the ancient Egyptians had such a system and that similar system were used in other ancient countries.Unfortunately, different regions adopted different measures.When the Romans established their empire, they decided to set up a series of units that would be the same all over the empire.As a result, many features of customary systems in use in modern times reflect the Roman system.For example, 'lb.' is short for the Latin libra or pound.

英語の和訳です。お願いします！！

For example, one of the major differences between the American educational system and systems in a majority of other countries is that education in the United States is intended for everyone-not just for a privileged few. Schools are expected to meet the needs of every child,regardless of his or her ability,and also the needs of society itself. This means that tax-supported public schools offer more than academic subjects. It surprises many people when they come here to find high schools offering such courses as typing, sewing, radio repair, computer programming, or driver training, along with traditional academic subjects such as mathematics,history, and language. Students can choose among a great variety of subjects depending on their interests, future plans, and level of ability. The primary purposes of American education are to develop every child's abilities, however great or small these may be, and to give each child a sense of citizenship.

英訳で困っています、カンマの後のthat.

下の英文のカンマの後のthat と、whichの構造がつかめません。 There is something very curious in semantics, that the word "meaning"is probably, in the whole language, the word the meaning of which is the most difficult to find. that と　which の解説をしていただけると嬉しいです(^^)　お願いいたします。

英語

(1)～(3)まで教えてください。 According to researchers from the University of Manchester, 90% of the world's language are ((1)) to disappear by 2050. One such tongue is Tofa, spoken by only about 60 people who keep reindeer on the empty land in Siberia. One of the researchers speaks the language, and says that he can speak fluently enough to be able to express anything he wants to say. The researchers have been trying to keep records of endangered languages or videos. They have done fieldwork across the globe to investigate languages ranging from Faroese (50,000 speakers) to Banawa, one of 300 languages spoken in the Amazon basin. At a recent meeting, Yaron Matras, who speaks 13 languages, played a recording of a British Romani speaker made in the 1950s. He said that British Romani is now ((2)) at the level of extinction, and he is ((3)) looking for the alleged four or five families in Wales who still speak it. There is no shortage of languages. At the last count there were about 6,000 , but only 4% of them are spoken by 96% of the people in the world. About 10 languages, including English, Arabic, and Hindi, are spoken by more than 100 million people each. No one needs to worry about them. But the little languages with little chance of survival need help. According to a professor at the University of Manchester, people are aware of threats to ecology and of species dying out, but they don't realize that we are leaving languages to die out. It is true that every languages is the repository of the culture of the people who speak it. When we lose the last speaker, we lose the people's cultural memory.

英訳をお願いします

よろしくお願いいたします。 Language is an instrument of power (those who know a language are empowered in a way that those who do not are not). 特に括弧の中のin a way that をどう訳すのか悩んでいます。よろしくお願いいたします。

言語学書の内容について

言語学書の内容について

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

お礼 2009/11/28 01:32

関連するQ&A

言語学書

言語学について

言語学について

言語学書の内容

言語学について

言語学について

言語学

以下の英文の和訳をお願いします。

英語の和訳ですっ

至急和訳お願い致します！内容が難しく理解に苦しんでおります。分かる範囲

脳神経科学と言語に関する英文で

言語学について

構文把握なのですが

英訳お願いします

言語学について

英語の訳をお願いします!!

英語の和訳です。お願いします！！

英訳で困っています、カンマの後のthat.

英語

英訳をお願いします

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVE セレクト

専門家に質問してみよう