OK, this is improved but still not ready to go out.
There are some ridiculously long sentences that obscure the argument being made, e.g the "within the continuum" sentence.
- it needs to fit on one page. get rid of this double spacing stuff. - don't label your Figure as appendix material. becomes an excuse not to look at it - explain what each of the symbols Crel, CIT, CPass, V_CAUSE etc mean. If you can't explain it succinctly, take it out. put in a note saying that the numbers on the arcs have something to do with BNC - no need to re-cite S & M after the data after they are already cited in the first para - the thing in Figure 1 is not obviously a PCFG, so probably better to avoid the acronym altogether and call it a probabilistic grammar - put your awesome title back in - verify that there is a real transition between the antepenultimate para and the penultimate para, i.e with the word "scale" as suggested below - use gb4e to make the examples into just 1a and 1b and put the UNACC marker underneath the verb
\begin{exe} \ex \begin{xlist} \ex \gll The butter melted in the \ldots \\ {} {} UNACC {} {} {} \\
\ex \gll The horse raced past the barn fell \\ {} {} UNERG {} {} {} {} \end{xlist} \end{exe}
split up this sentence:
Inspired by Dowty 91 we argue that butter is uniformly Theme but that "the horse" is prematurely realized as Agent **PERIOD.** After reanalysis, the parser is left with an unintegrated rept in which....
In our account, the effect follows from the information-processing difficulty of transitioning between these parses. The account uses information theory to relate the markedness of particular verbal morphemes to reanalysis difficulty.
This is made precise in a probabilistic grammar (Fig 1) whose parameters reflect alternation ratios in the British National Corpus [provide citation giving credit for the corpus].
[ I would then move the sentence about animacy requirements into the separate paragraph where you talk about animacy requirements ]
By recognizing degrees of proto-Agentivity, the grammar locates different verbs' garden-pathing difficulty on a scale where unacc and unerg are extremes.
The results of an acceptability study confirm the location of causative unergatives on this scale. On a five-point scale, participants rated transitive unergatives with *animate* direct~objects as good as unaccusatives. (2.27 vs 2.38 non significant, if indeed that is true).
....not as a difference in grammaticality but as a difference between alternative sequences of grammatical but unequally costly morphemes. The grammar in our model employs only head-movement thus avoiding any special appeal to a distinction between syntactic vs. lexical operations.
1 comment:
OK, this is improved but still not ready to go out.
There are some ridiculously long sentences that obscure the argument being made, e.g the "within the continuum" sentence.
- it needs to fit on one page. get rid of this double spacing stuff.
- don't label your Figure as appendix material. becomes an excuse not to look at it
- explain what each of the symbols Crel, CIT, CPass, V_CAUSE etc mean. If you can't explain it succinctly, take it out.
put in a note saying that the numbers on the arcs have something to do with BNC
- no need to re-cite S & M after the data after they are already cited in the first para
- the thing in Figure 1 is not obviously a PCFG, so probably better to avoid the acronym altogether and call it a probabilistic grammar
- put your awesome title back in
- verify that there is a real transition between the antepenultimate para and the penultimate para, i.e with the word "scale" as suggested below
- use gb4e to make the examples into just 1a and 1b and put the UNACC marker underneath the verb
\begin{exe}
\ex \begin{xlist}
\ex \gll The butter melted in the \ldots \\
{} {} UNACC {} {} {} \\
\ex \gll The horse raced past the barn fell \\
{} {} UNERG {} {} {} {}
\end{xlist}
\end{exe}
split up this sentence:
Inspired by Dowty 91 we argue that butter is uniformly Theme
but that "the horse" is prematurely realized as Agent **PERIOD.**
After reanalysis, the parser is left with an unintegrated rept in which....
In our account, the effect follows from the information-processing difficulty of
transitioning between these parses. The account uses information theory to relate
the markedness of particular verbal morphemes to reanalysis difficulty.
This is made precise in a probabilistic grammar (Fig 1) whose parameters reflect
alternation ratios in the British National Corpus [provide citation giving credit for the corpus].
[ I would then move the sentence about animacy requirements into the separate paragraph where you talk about animacy requirements ]
By recognizing degrees of proto-Agentivity, the grammar locates different verbs'
garden-pathing difficulty on a scale where unacc and unerg are extremes.
The results of an acceptability study confirm the location of causative unergatives on this scale.
On a five-point scale, participants rated transitive unergatives with *animate* direct~objects
as good as unaccusatives. (2.27 vs 2.38 non significant, if indeed that is true).
....not as a difference in grammaticality but as a difference between alternative sequences of grammatical but unequally costly morphemes. The grammar in our model employs only head-movement thus avoiding any special appeal to a distinction between syntactic vs. lexical operations.
Post a Comment