mirror of
https://github.com/nottinghamtec/PyRIGS.git
synced 2026-01-30 20:02:16 +00:00
Added printing requirements
This commit is contained in:
Tom Price
577
z3c/rml/tests/input/rml-examples-029-keepinframe.rml
Normal file
577
z3c/rml/tests/input/rml-examples-029-keepinframe.rml
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,577 @@
|
||||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" standalone="no" ?>
|
||||
<!DOCTYPE document SYSTEM "rml_1_0.dtd">
|
||||
<document filename="test_029_keepinframe.pdf" debug="0" invariant="0" compression="1">
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<template pagesize="(595, 842)" leftMargin="72" showBoundary="1">
|
||||
<pageTemplate id="main">
|
||||
<pageGraphics>
|
||||
<setFont name="Helvetica-BoldOblique" size="18"/>
|
||||
<drawRightString x="523" y="800">RML2PDF Test Suite - Test #029 keepInFrame</drawRightString>
|
||||
</pageGraphics>
|
||||
<frame id="F1" x1="2.5cm" y1="15.5cm" width="170" height="284"/>
|
||||
<frame id="F2" x1="11.5cm" y1="15.5cm" width="170" height="284"/>
|
||||
<frame id="F3" x1="2.5cm" y1="2.5cm" width="170" height="284"/>
|
||||
<frame id="F4" x1="11.5cm" y1="2.5cm" width="170" height="284"/>
|
||||
</pageTemplate>
|
||||
|
||||
<pageTemplate id="newsletter">
|
||||
<pageGraphics>
|
||||
<setFont name="Helvetica-BoldOblique" size="18"/>
|
||||
<drawRightString x="523" y="800">RML2PDF Test Suite - Test #029 keepInFrame</drawRightString>
|
||||
</pageGraphics>
|
||||
<frame id="top" x1="10%" y1="80%" width="80%" height="10%"/>
|
||||
<frame id="upper" x1="10%" y1="60%" width="55%" height="15%"/>
|
||||
<frame id="middle" x1="10%" y1="35%" width="55%" height="20%"/>
|
||||
<frame id="lowerleft" x1="10%" y1="10%" width="25%" height="20%"/>
|
||||
<frame id="lowerright" x1="40%" y1="10%" width="25%" height="20%"/>
|
||||
<frame id="sidebar" x1="70%" y1="10%" width="20%" height="65%"/>
|
||||
</pageTemplate>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
</template>
|
||||
|
||||
<stylesheet>
|
||||
<initialize>
|
||||
<alias id="bt" value="style.BodyText"/>
|
||||
</initialize>
|
||||
<paraStyle
|
||||
name="h1"
|
||||
parent="style.Normal"
|
||||
fontName="Times-Bold"
|
||||
fontSize="18"
|
||||
leading="22"
|
||||
spaceAfter="6"
|
||||
pageBreakBefore="0"
|
||||
keepWithNext="0"
|
||||
/>
|
||||
|
||||
<paraStyle
|
||||
name="h2"
|
||||
parent="style.Normal"
|
||||
fontName="Times-Bold"
|
||||
fontSize="16"
|
||||
leading="18"
|
||||
spaceAfter="3"
|
||||
pageBreakBefore="0"
|
||||
keepWithNext="0"
|
||||
/>
|
||||
|
||||
<paraStyle
|
||||
name="keepInFrame"
|
||||
parent="bt"
|
||||
fontSize="9"
|
||||
alignment="right"
|
||||
/>
|
||||
|
||||
<!--this style used for a tablerow example later on in document-->
|
||||
<blockTableStyle id="simple">
|
||||
<blockValign start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" value="TOP"/>
|
||||
<blockFont name="Helvetica" size="6" leading="7"/>
|
||||
<blockBottomPadding length="1"/>
|
||||
<blockTopPadding length="1"/>
|
||||
<lineStyle kind="INNERGRID" colorName="gray" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
|
||||
<lineStyle kind="BOX" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
|
||||
</blockTableStyle>
|
||||
|
||||
<blockTableStyle id="summary" parent="simple">
|
||||
<blockBackground colorName="cyan"/>
|
||||
<blockFont name="Helvetica-Bold" size="6" leading="7"/>
|
||||
</blockTableStyle>
|
||||
|
||||
<blockTableStyle id="continuation" parent="simple">
|
||||
<blockBackground colorName="silver"/>
|
||||
<blockFont name="Helvetica-Oblique" size="6" leading="7"/>
|
||||
</blockTableStyle>
|
||||
|
||||
</stylesheet>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<story>
|
||||
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff1">
|
||||
<para style="h1">First Try at a keepInFrame</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt">
|
||||
This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
|
||||
fits.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt">
|
||||
To characterize a linguistic level L,
|
||||
this selectionally introduced contextual
|
||||
feature delimits the requirement that
|
||||
branching is not tolerated within the
|
||||
dominance scope of a complex
|
||||
symbol. <font color="red">Notice</font>, incidentally, that the
|
||||
notion of level of grammaticalness
|
||||
does not affect the structure of the
|
||||
levels of acceptability from fairly high
|
||||
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
|
||||
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
|
||||
subset of English sentences interesting
|
||||
on quite independent grounds appears
|
||||
to correlate rather closely with an
|
||||
important distinction in language use.
|
||||
Presumably, this analysis of a
|
||||
formative as a pair of sets of features is
|
||||
not quite equivalent to the system of
|
||||
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
|
||||
have already seen that the appearance
|
||||
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
|
||||
does not readily tolerate the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
<nextFrame/>
|
||||
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff2">
|
||||
<para style="h1">keepInFrame with a table inside</para>
|
||||
<blockTable>
|
||||
<blockTableStyle id="tablestyle_000">
|
||||
<blockValign start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" value="TOP"/>
|
||||
<lineStyle kind="INNERGRID" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
|
||||
<lineStyle kind="BOX" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
|
||||
</blockTableStyle>
|
||||
<tr><td>alignment</td><td>align
|
||||
alignment</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>bulletColor</td><td>bulletcolor
|
||||
bcolor</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>bulletFontName</td><td>bfont
|
||||
bulletfontname</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>bulletFontSize</td><td>bfontsize
|
||||
bulletfontsize</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>bulletIndent</td><td>bindent
|
||||
bulletindent</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>firstLineIndent</td><td>findent
|
||||
firstlineindent</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>fontName</td><td>face
|
||||
fontname
|
||||
font</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>fontSize</td><td>size
|
||||
fontsize</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>leading</td><td>leading</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>leftIndent</td><td>leftindent
|
||||
lindent</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>rightIndent</td><td>rightindent
|
||||
rindent</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>spaceAfter</td><td>spaceafter
|
||||
spacea</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>spaceBefore</td><td>spacebefore
|
||||
spaceb</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>textColor</td><td>fg
|
||||
textcolor
|
||||
color</td></tr>
|
||||
</blockTable>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
<nextFrame/>
|
||||
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff3">
|
||||
<para style="h1">A long keepInFrame, shrinks</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt">
|
||||
To characterize a linguistic level L,
|
||||
this selectionally introduced contextual
|
||||
feature delimits the requirement that
|
||||
branching is not tolerated within the
|
||||
dominance scope of a complex
|
||||
symbol. Notice, incidentally, that the
|
||||
notion of level of grammaticalness
|
||||
does not affect the structure of the
|
||||
levels of acceptability from fairly high
|
||||
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
|
||||
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
|
||||
subset of English sentences interesting
|
||||
on quite independent grounds appears
|
||||
to correlate rather closely with an
|
||||
important distinction in language use.
|
||||
Presumably, this analysis of a
|
||||
formative as a pair of sets of features is
|
||||
not quite equivalent to the system of
|
||||
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
|
||||
have already seen that the appearance
|
||||
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
|
||||
does not readily tolerate the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory.
|
||||
On our assumptions, a descriptively adequate grammar delimits the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory. For one thing, the fundamental error
|
||||
of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a
|
||||
corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the
|
||||
paired utterance test. A majority of informed linguistic specialists
|
||||
agree that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is necessary to impose an
|
||||
interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
|
||||
the dominance scope of a complex symbol. It may be, then, that the
|
||||
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition appears to correlate rather
|
||||
closely with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
|
||||
proposed grammar. Analogously, the notion of level of grammaticalness
|
||||
may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a general convention
|
||||
regarding the forms of the grammar.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
<nextFrame/>
|
||||
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff4">
|
||||
<para style="h1">2 keepInFrame (inner split)</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt" textColor="pink">
|
||||
To characterize a linguistic level L,
|
||||
this selectionally introduced contextual
|
||||
feature delimits the requirement that
|
||||
branching is not tolerated within the
|
||||
dominance scope of a complex
|
||||
symbol. Notice, incidentally, that the
|
||||
notion of level of grammaticalness
|
||||
does not affect the structure of the
|
||||
levels of acceptability from fairly high
|
||||
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
|
||||
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
|
||||
subset of English sentences interesting
|
||||
on quite independent grounds appears
|
||||
to correlate rather closely with an
|
||||
important distinction in language use.
|
||||
Presumably, this analysis of a
|
||||
formative as a pair of sets of features is
|
||||
not quite equivalent to the system of
|
||||
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
|
||||
have already seen that the appearance
|
||||
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
|
||||
does not readily tolerate the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<keepInFrame maxHeight="100" onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff5">
|
||||
<para style="h1">Inner Starts</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt" textColor="yellow">
|
||||
On our assumptions, a descriptively adequate grammar delimits the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory. For one thing, the fundamental error
|
||||
of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a
|
||||
corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the
|
||||
paired utterance test. A majority of informed linguistic specialists
|
||||
agree that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is necessary to impose an
|
||||
interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
|
||||
the dominance scope of a complex symbol. It may be, then, that the
|
||||
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition appears to correlate rather
|
||||
closely with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
|
||||
proposed grammar. Analogously, the notion of level of grammaticalness
|
||||
may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a general convention
|
||||
regarding the forms of the grammar.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<para style="h1">Inner Ends</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
<para style="bt" textColor="magenta">
|
||||
We have already seen that the natural general principle that will
|
||||
subsume this case cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching
|
||||
is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
|
||||
Notice, incidentally, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is
|
||||
to be regarded as the strong generative capacity of the theory. A
|
||||
consequence of the approach just outlined is that the descriptive power
|
||||
of the base component does not affect the structure of the levels of
|
||||
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
|
||||
(98d)). By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, a
|
||||
descriptively adequate grammar cannot be arbitrary in the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
<nextPage/>
|
||||
<nextFrame name="F4"/>
|
||||
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "overflow" id="ff6">
|
||||
<para style="h1">onOverflow = "overflow" in Frame F4</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt">
|
||||
This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
|
||||
fits.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt">
|
||||
To characterize a linguistic level L,
|
||||
this selectionally introduced contextual
|
||||
feature delimits the requirement that
|
||||
branching is not tolerated within the
|
||||
dominance scope of a complex
|
||||
symbol. <font color="red">Notice</font>, incidentally, that the
|
||||
notion of level of grammaticalness
|
||||
does not affect the structure of the
|
||||
levels of acceptability from fairly high
|
||||
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
|
||||
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
|
||||
subset of English sentences interesting
|
||||
on quite independent grounds appears
|
||||
to correlate rather closely with an
|
||||
important distinction in language use.
|
||||
Presumably, this analysis of a
|
||||
formative as a pair of sets of features is
|
||||
not quite equivalent to the system of
|
||||
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
|
||||
have already seen that the appearance
|
||||
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
|
||||
does not readily tolerate the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "truncate" id="ff7" frame="F1">
|
||||
<para style="h1">onOverflow = "truncate" in frame F1</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt">
|
||||
This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
|
||||
fits.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<para style="bt">
|
||||
To characterize a linguistic level L,
|
||||
this selectionally introduced contextual
|
||||
feature delimits the requirement that
|
||||
branching is not tolerated within the
|
||||
dominance scope of a complex
|
||||
symbol. <font color="red">Notice</font>, incidentally, that the
|
||||
notion of level of grammaticalness
|
||||
does not affect the structure of the
|
||||
levels of acceptability from fairly high
|
||||
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
|
||||
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
|
||||
subset of English sentences interesting
|
||||
on quite independent grounds appears
|
||||
to correlate rather closely with an
|
||||
important distinction in language use.
|
||||
Presumably, this analysis of a
|
||||
formative as a pair of sets of features is
|
||||
not quite equivalent to the system of
|
||||
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
|
||||
have already seen that the appearance
|
||||
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
|
||||
does not readily tolerate the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<setNextTemplate name="newsletter"/>
|
||||
<nextPage/>
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- from now on we can explore a totally different style of coding -
|
||||
story says explicitly what goes where-->
|
||||
<para style="h2">
|
||||
A new way to lay things out....
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
This tag lets us handle layouts like newsletters and factsheets in a much more
|
||||
natural style. In documents like this, one does not want stuff to leak out of the
|
||||
intended box into the next one. You wrap your content in <keepInFrame> tags
|
||||
and explicitly tell it where to go. The order of this page naturally goes top, upper, middle,
|
||||
bottomleft, bottomright, sidebar.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" onOverflow="error">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
I drew this stuff second, out of the natural order, putting it within a tag saying
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" overflow="error">.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
Havng done this, if I had too much content, there would an error warning me. I can put
|
||||
an ID in to identify it if I want. I can also specify other behaviours for full frames - shrink, truncate,
|
||||
overflow.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="upper" onOverflow="error">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
I drew this stuff third, out of the natural order. This should be in the upper frame, below the top.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="middle" onOverflow="error">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
this goes in the middle frame.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="lowerright" onOverflow="error">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
this goes in the bottom right, and was drawn before the stuff on the left..
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="lowerleft" onOverflow="error">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
and finally the bottom left.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<nextPage/>
|
||||
<para style="h2">
|
||||
The Nonsense Journal
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
We now overfill with rubbish etc etc and use onOverflow="shrink"
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" onOverflow="shrink">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
I drew this stuff second, out of the natural order, putting it within a tag saying
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" overflow="shrink">.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
Of course, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
|
||||
can be defined in such a way as to impose an important distinction in
|
||||
language use. Nevertheless, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition
|
||||
may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of acceptability
|
||||
from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). By
|
||||
combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the notion of level of
|
||||
grammaticalness is rather different from a descriptive fact. I
|
||||
suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the
|
||||
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is to be regarded as the levels of
|
||||
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
|
||||
(98d)). A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this
|
||||
selectionally introduced contextual feature is not to be considered in
|
||||
determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<spacer length="10"/>
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
So far, the systematic use of complex symbols is necessary to impose an
|
||||
interpretation on nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature
|
||||
theory. It must be emphasized, once again, that most of the
|
||||
methodological work in modern linguistics is rather different from the
|
||||
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
|
||||
of a complex symbol. Conversely, a descriptively adequate grammar can
|
||||
be defined in such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the
|
||||
constructions into these various categories. If the position of the
|
||||
trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, relational
|
||||
information does not affect the structure of the traditional practice of
|
||||
grammarians. Summarizing, then, we assume that most of the
|
||||
methodological work in modern linguistics appears to correlate rather
|
||||
closely with the strong generative capacity of the theory.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="upper" onOverflow="shrink">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
Suppose, for instance, that the natural general principle that will
|
||||
subsume this case is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that
|
||||
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. On our assumptions,
|
||||
the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits the strong generative
|
||||
capacity of the theory. Furthermore, the fundamental error of regarding
|
||||
functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as an abstract
|
||||
underlying order. I suggested that these results would follow from the
|
||||
assumption that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics
|
||||
raises serious doubts about the requirement that branching is not
|
||||
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Let us
|
||||
continue to suppose that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does
|
||||
not affect the structure of a corpus of utterance tokens upon which
|
||||
conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<spacer length="10"/>
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
It must be emphasized, once again, that the earlier discussion of
|
||||
deviance raises serious doubts about a corpus of utterance tokens upon
|
||||
which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. I
|
||||
suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the
|
||||
systematic use of complex symbols does not affect the structure of the
|
||||
strong generative capacity of the theory. To provide a constituent
|
||||
structure for T(Z,K), most of the methodological work in modern
|
||||
linguistics is not quite equivalent to the requirement that branching is
|
||||
not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. On our
|
||||
assumptions, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
|
||||
categorial is to be regarded as nondistinctness in the sense of
|
||||
distinctive feature theory. A consequence of the approach just outlined
|
||||
is that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
|
||||
raises serious doubts about the system of base rules exclusive of the
|
||||
lexicon.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="middle" onOverflow="shrink">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible
|
||||
to movement, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier delimits
|
||||
a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by
|
||||
the paired utterance test. By combining adjunctions and certain
|
||||
deformations, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not
|
||||
subject to an important distinction in language use. Note that this
|
||||
selectionally introduced contextual feature delimits the strong
|
||||
generative capacity of the theory. Analogously, a subset of English
|
||||
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not quite
|
||||
equivalent to an important distinction in language use. To characterize
|
||||
a linguistic level L, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
|
||||
is, apparently, determined by a descriptive fact.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<spacer length="10"/>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
Clearly, the descriptive power of the base component is necessary to
|
||||
impose an interpretation on the levels of acceptability from fairly high
|
||||
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Thus most of the
|
||||
methodological work in modern linguistics cannot be arbitrary in the
|
||||
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
|
||||
of a complex symbol. We will bring evidence in favor of the following
|
||||
thesis: this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is
|
||||
unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive
|
||||
feature theory. Nevertheless, this selectionally introduced contextual
|
||||
feature can be defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate standard
|
||||
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. To provide a
|
||||
constituent structure for T(Z,K), a case of semigrammaticalness of a
|
||||
different sort is not quite equivalent to the system of base rules
|
||||
exclusive of the lexicon.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="lowerright" onOverflow="shrink">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
Clearly, the descriptive power of the base component is not subject to
|
||||
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. It appears that the
|
||||
appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
|
||||
ordinary extraction does not readily tolerate the traditional practice
|
||||
of grammarians. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), a subset
|
||||
of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is
|
||||
necessary to impose an interpretation on an abstract underlying order.
|
||||
Presumably, the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits a corpus of
|
||||
utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
|
||||
utterance test. For one thing, the theory of syntactic features
|
||||
developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<spacer length="10"/>
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the systematic use of
|
||||
complex symbols does not readily tolerate nondistinctness in the sense
|
||||
of distinctive feature theory. This suggests that the natural general
|
||||
principle that will subsume this case is not quite equivalent to the
|
||||
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
|
||||
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). With this clarification, relational information
|
||||
is not subject to a general convention regarding the forms of the
|
||||
grammar. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the
|
||||
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition can be defined in such a way as to
|
||||
impose nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. On
|
||||
the other hand, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent to a
|
||||
stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
|
||||
<keepInFrame frame="lowerleft" onOverflow="shrink">
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
Note that this selectionally introduced contextual feature can be
|
||||
defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate standard that determines
|
||||
the accuracy of any proposed grammar. To provide a constituent
|
||||
structure for T(Z,K), the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
|
||||
is rather different from an important distinction in language use. On
|
||||
our assumptions, the descriptive power of the base component does not
|
||||
readily tolerate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.
|
||||
Summarizing, then, we assume that most of the methodological work in
|
||||
modern linguistics does not affect the structure of the ultimate
|
||||
standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. It must
|
||||
be emphasized, once again, that the systematic use of complex symbols
|
||||
is, apparently, determined by the system of base rules exclusive of the
|
||||
lexicon.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
<spacer length="10"/>
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the notion of level
|
||||
of grammaticalness is not to be considered in determining the system of
|
||||
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. If the position of the trace in
|
||||
(99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the systematic use
|
||||
of complex symbols appears to correlate rather closely with
|
||||
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. With this
|
||||
clarification, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
|
||||
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not subject to a parasitic gap
|
||||
construction. Conversely, the systematic use of complex symbols is
|
||||
unspecified with respect to a corpus of utterance tokens upon which
|
||||
conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. In the
|
||||
discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the earlier discussion
|
||||
of deviance does not affect the structure of problems of phonemic and
|
||||
morphological analysis.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
</keepInFrame>
|
||||
</story>
|
||||
|
||||
</document>
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user