mirror of
https://github.com/nottinghamtec/PyRIGS.git
synced 2026-01-23 16:32:15 +00:00
578 lines
24 KiB
XML
578 lines
24 KiB
XML
<?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>
|