![]() And the now-available explanatory materials are certainly not suitable for use by high-school or even university students. My point is that this framework is stable and descriptively well-established, and has become a widely-accepted basis for computational and historical work. There are translations back and forth with a number of alternative representational formats, including dependency grammar, tree-adjoining grammar, categorial grammar, etc. there could perfectly well in principle be translations to and from Reed-Kellogg diagrams, if those were somewhat better formalized. There are relatively good parsers - and better ones every year. So if we accept the premise that some fraction of educated people ought to learn "grammar", in some sense of that word, then some version of the treebank framework is the obvious candidate for the kind of grammar that they should learn.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |