29

Traditional grammarians going all the way back to Donatus are accused of classifying as adverb any word they couldn't make fit anywhere else in the canonical parts of speech. It's a very old criticism. The Stoic grammarians are suspected of having their tongues skewed into their cheeks when they employed the word pandektes ('all-receiver') for adverb. John ...


16

It is not possible for there to be a human language that does not have a way of referring to entities, or to predicate states and actions of an entity. If that is what you mean by "noun" and "verb", then all languages have nouns and verbs. However, noun, verb, adverb, adjective are typically treated by linguists as "word classes", defined in terms of how ...


12

Short, snappy answer: parts of speech are a lie perpetuated by Big Syntax. Longer, actually useful answer: parts of speech are an abstraction created by linguists to explain how syntax works. There's no universal definition of what it means to be a "noun": some ancient Roman grammarians didn't distinguish between nouns and adjectives, for example, but did ...


11

The problem with this question is that parts of speech are just a construct used for the description of language - not necessarily a real thing in a language. You can see that across languages only nouns and verbs are fairly uncontroversially universal with adjectives being another good but still disputed candidate (See Dixon's Basic Linguistic Theory). So ...


10

Not in only in jargons, but in most languages in general there are more nouns, verbs and adjectives than conjunctions and prepositions. The former are called open word classes and the latter closed class. Open word classes readily admit new members, but closed word classes don't give in so easily - although closed is a bit of an exaggeration, over time they ...


10

As far as I'm aware, "auxiliary noun" is essentially a synonym for "relational noun" (see Wikipedia). These are basically nouns that can be used to fulfil the role of adpositions, postpositions in the case of Kyrgyz (or Turkish). An example from Kyrgyz would be: Үй ич-ин-де мышык уктап жатат. house.NOM inside-POSS-LOC cat.NOM sleeping is ...


8

The most important message is that about one dozen parts of speech seem to be sufficient for part-of-speech (POS) tagging. Additional markers often include things not classically regarded as parts of speech, such as punctuation, symbols (e.g., for Twitter corpora!) and a "residual" container class for everything else. There is some disagreement about the ...


7

The answer C, the one you chose, is somewhat better than answer B. However, passive participles like found straddle two syntactic categories, verb and adjective. They can behave like an adjective with respect to a noun that they modify, i.e. they can be dependent on a noun as if they were a clear adjective, but they clearly maintain their verbal quality with ...


7

I assume, based on the your posts elsewhere, that by 'sentence parts', you are referring to grammatical relations (GRs) like subject, object, etc. In the future, it would be clearer for you to call them that, as this is the standard terminology in English. I think you are confused about argument structures and grammatical relations. Argument structures ...


7

First of all, part-of-speech is not an observable. It is a latent category inferred from the utterances we can analyse. As a latent category, it is dependent on our analysis. There are lots of parameters we can play with: Granularity of the analysis (some part of speech tagsets have more the 500 tags, simple models come with 8 or 10 parts-of-speech), input ...


6

If we step off linguistic terminology to some philosophy, everything becomes more straightforward. Adjectives define properties of "things"; Adverbs define properties of "relations". TL;DR Human logic operates with two fundamental categories, "things" and "relations". Things are linguistically represented with nouns, pronouns, and noun-like entities like ...


6

Determiner is a grammatical category for words like "the" and "a." Some theories claim that possessive 's is also a determiner. Specifier is a grammatical relation in certain theories, such as X-bar theory. Determiners are frequently considered specifiers of nouns, although there are some people who follow the "DP-hypothesis" that the determiners are the ...


5

This answer is based on chapter 2 (section 8: "Infinitival to) of Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English by Andrew Radford (2004), and "Auxiliaries: To's company" (2012) by Robert Levine in Journal of Linguistics. Infinitival to is an auxiliary. It is the same category as the other auxiliaries, but it is considered "defective" in a single ...


5

You've already checked out wikipedia right? "Compound (linguistics)" Have you googled it on Google Scholar at all? Noun compounds: This is common in Germanic languages. For instance, Norwegian "jernbanestasjonsmesterbolig" (jernbane stasjon mester bolig). Not a word you'll find in a dictionary but easily made when needed. The only thing that limits length ...


5

You wrote about the claim 'that Chinese words can mostly be used as any part of speech.' While the claim is untrue, I can see why people fall for it. The relationship between lexical word class and how they appear as parts of speech is much more opaque than in English. There is nothing close to a one-to-one correspondence between the two, but it would be a ...


5

No. Your rule mostly works, but "in a row" fails to capture constructions like "He has definitely gone", where has is still an auxiliary. In fact, trying to analyse syntax just by considering the surface sequence is usually doomed to failure. Consider I am walking. and I went walking. Both have the same surface structure, but most analyses ...


5

I think I must be interpreting the question differently from Greg Lee, because my answer is that (at least in English) they must be a grammatical category, because they are different in syntax from other verbs. Of course the individual modals are defined lexically, but what allows us to use a collective term like "modal verb" is grammatical.


5

[ If I understand, you ideally want all meaningful phrases even where the head is not a noun, eg "save the day", "ready for action", "fantastically" or "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". ] You must break down the problem. 0. Sentence Segmentation and Tokenisation I'm assuming this is already done. 1. Find named entities You need a first pass to find ...


5

"Can where he went to be revealed?" from: Q (where he went to can be revealed) Q (someone can reveal Q (he went to where)) Schematically, we start with ... can reveal ... [PP to where] which is converted to the passive, ... [PP to where] ... can be revealed the "where" moves out of the way between "to" and "be" because the question word has to ...


5

From a linguistic perspective, there is nothing semantic or functional that distinguishes verbs from other word classes. For example, "tall" is an adjective in English, but in many languages it is a verb which inflects for subject, has tenses and so on. A number of languages have affixation processes that allow words referring to entities to take on the ...


5

What a good question! [sorry, couldn't resist that]. Now seriously, as you said you don't know, neither did I. So I got to do a quick search on my favorite site [wiktionary] for this kind of questions, it gives you easy technical information to basically every word in the english language or any other language that's available there. It's really ...


5

As Greg Lee indicates, participles are commonly considered to remain verbs, despite being used "like adjectives" in many cases. However, the situation is a bit confusing because, as far as I know, all linguists recognize that participle forms sometimes represent actual adjectives, not verbs. Greg Lee's answer mentioned the "very" test, which indicates that ...


5

It turns out, "parts of speech" are one of those formalisms that's taught in all the schools, but isn't always useful when you start looking closer. Fundamentally, "part of speech" is a word's role in the syntax. "Walk" and "run" and "go" and "travel" all act pretty much the same, syntactically, so it makes sense to say "all of these things are Verbs, and ...


4

Since your goal is POS-tagging, looking up the word in a list may not always be helpful, because the same word may act like one of many classes, depending on its context. (See "set", for example.) However, unsupervised (i.e. without using annotated data to train a model) POS tagging is a well-researched topic. The paper, "Two Decades of Unsupervised POS ...


4

I think you are talking about joint POS tagging and parsing. If you do not limit yourself to the neural network framework. The following paper can help: graph-based parser: Joint models for Chinese POS tagging and dependency parsing: http://ir.hit.edu.cn/~car/papers/emnlp11.pdf transition-based parser: Incremental Joint POS Tagging and Dependency Parsing ...


4

The number of people who speak English as their native language will decline. The string as their native comprises three separate items: the preposition "as", the genitive pronoun "their" and the adjective "native". It is not itself a constituent, but part of the preposition phrase as their native language headed by the preposition "as".


4

I'm assuming you're talking about derivational morphology: adding prefixes and suffixes to words to change their part of speech. The answer is: because it gives you more words! Take the word "dependency" for example. This is a noun derived from the adjective "dependent", which is derived from the verb "depend". So learning the one word "depend" and its ...


4

Nothing. The premise of the question seems to be that the part of speech of a word is somehow deducible from observable facts. This general empiricist view was probably prevalent in American "structuralist" linguistics in the early part of the last century. It is no longer prevalent, and many linguists (including me) do not subscribe to it. "Word", "...


4

Prof. Lee and user6726 have given excellent answers above. Though I think the OP's use of semantic criterion isn't completely wrong: The problem is, as Prof. Lee has pointed out above, that he assumes there must be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that allow us to deduce what a 'verb' is like, and such conditions don't exist. But semantic ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible