| { |
| "paper_id": "Y95-1008", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:38:57.469731Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "A CONSTRAINT-BASED LEXICAL APPROACH TO \"FLOATING\" QUANTIFIERS'", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Byung-Soo", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Park", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Kyung Hee University Seoul", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "130-701", |
| "country": "Korea" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "byspark@nms.kyunghee.ac.kr" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y95-1008", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "In classical transformational grammar, FQs like all, both or each in (1-3) below are originated from subject NPs, and so (1), (2) and 3are derived by a movement rule from (4a), (5a) and (6a) respectively. (See [3] (291-321) for an earlier formalization of this approach.) (1) The boys all left the girls. The movement rule should move the quantifier, which is the head noun of the subject NP, and place it at some place in the VP, and subsequently the preposition of should be erased. This kind of structure-destroying movement rule will not be theoretically permissible in any framework today including even the GB theory. Thus more recently, [4] , among others, presented a GB account of the problem. On this account, it is the subject NP, not the quantifier, that moves and the movement direction is leftward, in contrast to the rightward direction in the classical transformational account. The subject NP (the boys in (4a), for example) originates from an NP consisting of the Q all and the subject NP the boys which is followed by the predicate verb. After the subject NP moves leftward to the SPEC (=subject) position, leaving the Q and its trace, the surface order 'Subject-FQ-VP' is obtained. Although this approach does not seem to destroy structures in the same way as the classical transformational approach does, it is still structure-destroying for a different reason. The problem is whether or not the preposition of is present in the D-structure. In the case of all or both, it will do either way: if it is assumed to be present, of-deletion would have to take place after the subject movement in order to obtain (1) and (4b) or (2) and (5b), and if it is not, (1) or (2) would be directly derived, whereas (4a) or (5a) would be obtained only after of-insertion applies. However, in the case of each in (3), the preposition would have to be present in the D-Structure; otherwise, sentences like (3) would have to be derived from unacceptable structures like (6b). In any way, there seems to be no way of preserving the structure \"Q-of-NP\". [5] show that it is sometimes impossible to postulate a GB-style underlying structure because of a semantic anomaly, e.g. \"all (of) none of the classes\", which is also syntactically inadmissible: Secondly, the movement rule does not generally apply to quantifiers, but only to the three quantifiers all, both, and each. It does not apply to all the other quantifiers some, many, much, few, a few, little, one, two etc. as shown in (9) below. Whatever way the movement rule may be formulated to capture floating quantifiers, it would be a rule only for the three exceptional quantifiers. This suggests that the solution should be sought after elsewhere: in the lexicon. I will pursue this direction in the next section. (9) a. Many/Some/Few/Three of the boys left her b. *The boys many/some/few/three left her.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 126, |
| "end": 129, |
| "text": "(2)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 210, |
| "end": 213, |
| "text": "[3]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 272, |
| "end": 275, |
| "text": "(1)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 644, |
| "end": 647, |
| "text": "[4]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1629, |
| "end": 1632, |
| "text": "(1)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1645, |
| "end": 1648, |
| "text": "(2)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1677, |
| "end": 1680, |
| "text": "(1)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 2056, |
| "end": 2059, |
| "text": "[5]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Derivational Approaches", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Rejecting the derivational account, I argue for a nonderivational, constraint-based lexical approach to FQs on the basis of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar ( [6] , [5] ). My solution is in part a development of the old idea that FQs are adverbs modifying a VP, which has long been suggested both in the derivational ( [7] , [4] and [8] , for example) and in the nonderivation framework ( [1] and [5] ). Theoretically, my account utilizes the proposal by [9] that English and French negative, not and pas, are two-faced: a VP modifying adverb from one perspective and a complement NP from another. I will show that English FQs are adverb adjuncts, whereas Korean FQs are complement NPs.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 163, |
| "end": 166, |
| "text": "[6]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 169, |
| "end": 172, |
| "text": "[5]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 323, |
| "end": 326, |
| "text": "[7]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 329, |
| "end": 332, |
| "text": "[4]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 337, |
| "end": 340, |
| "text": "[8]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 393, |
| "end": 396, |
| "text": "[1]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 401, |
| "end": 404, |
| "text": "[5]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 459, |
| "end": 462, |
| "text": "[9]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There are some similarities between frequency adverbs and FQs. First, FQs occupy the same positions in a VP as frequency adverbs: (8) a. His wounds were all bleeding.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. His wounds were often/sometimes/rarely bleeding. (9) a. We must appear to have each told a different story.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. We must appear to have often/sometimes/rarely told a different story.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Secondly, just as VP-Ellipsis cannot apply immediately after an adverb, it cannot apply immediately after a floating quantifier. This problem was originally discussed by [10] .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 170, |
| "end": 174, |
| "text": "[10]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(10) a. *Kim has never studied French, but Lee has always. b. Kim has never studied French, but Lee always has. (11) a. *Most of them were Socialists, and perhaps they were all.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. Most of them were Socialists, and perhaps they all were.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Under the assumption that FQs are adverbs, the VP-Ellipsis phenomenon observed in (10) and (11) may be accounted for by one obvious generalization: An adverb must have a modifiee immediately following it. Both the adverb always and the FQ all in (10) and (11) All and each may not occur if the subject NP is singular. When the subject NP is a conjunction, both may, but all and each may not, occur if the conjunction is binary. And all may, but each and both may not, occur if the subject NP conjunction is ternary or more. Given the different constraints for different FQs, it is not possible to draw a generalization which would explain all the three FQs in the same way. Rather, it is more adequate to recognize the particular lexical property of each of the FQs and treat it separately on its own.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 82, |
| "end": 86, |
| "text": "(10)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 246, |
| "end": 250, |
| "text": "(10)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 255, |
| "end": 259, |
| "text": "(11)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A simple way of accounting for such constraints of the FQs is to specify each of their lexical properties in the lexicon. For example, the FQ all is a VP modifier with two constraints: first, the subject NP of the modified VP is plural and secondly, it is a universal quantifier whose domain is restricted to the index of the subject NP. These syntactic and semantic constraints can be stated in the following attribute-value matrix: The propery of the FQ both and each will be specified in a similar way, paying attetion to the fact that both is limited to binary conjuncts and each cannot be used with any conjuncts.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(16) n \u2022 nn\u2022", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Given this lexical information, the structure of grammatical sentence (12a) is roughly shown in (17) and all the relevant constraints are satisfied here: The ungrammatical (12b), for example, violates the plural requirement imposed on the MODIFIER attribute. The ellipsis sentence (11a) is ungrammatical simply because there is no VP for the FQ to modify, while (11b) is grammatical because there is such a VP after the FQ all. (Note that were is VP.)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(17) / \\ [2]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Semantically, the information specified in the attributes CONTENT and INDEX in (16) guarantees the correct binding relation of the quantifiers shown in (FORALL,I{boy(x)})(EXIS Ty I {girl(y)})1eft(x,y) and thus the universal quantifier all is is correctly associated with the subject NP, not with the object.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A Lexical Approach to English FQs", |
| "sec_num": "2.1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "An interesting consequence of the VP modifier analysis can be seen in the contrast shown between Tough and Raising or EQUI constructions, pointed out originally by [3] The FQ all may occur before the infinitive VP in a Raising or EQUI sentence like (18), but it may not in a Tough sentence as in (19). This contrast can be accounted for as a natural consequence of the combination of the lexical properties of all and the Raising or EQUI predicate on the one hand and the Tough adjective on the other. The FQ all requires, as its modfiee, an unsaturated VP whose SUBJECT value is a plural NP as is represented in (16). It is required that the unrealized subject of the infinitive complement be identical to the subject of the main verb in the Raising predicate likely and to the direct object of the main verb in the case of the EQUI predicate forced in (18). The two constraints are both satisfied in (18). In contrast, the Tough sentence (19) does not meet the requirement of all because there is no plural NP which could serve as the subject of the unsaturated infinitive VP to talk to. Note that the subject The men refers to the referent of the object NP of the preposition to. Such lexical characteristics of a Tough predicate like stubborn or of a Raising predicate like likely or an EQUI predicate like force are all specified as its lexical properties in HPSG . We may predict that if an expression is added to (19) which could serve as the subject of the infinitive VP, (19) will turn out grammatical. This prediction is borne out as shown in the following sentence in which the for phrase is the subject of the infinitive VP (Cf. [6] (124-128) for the treatment of the complementizer for).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 164, |
| "end": 167, |
| "text": "[3]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1641, |
| "end": 1644, |
| "text": "[6]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(20) The men are stubborn for the girls all to talk to.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Notice, in (20), that the for phrase supplies the plural NP which FQ all requires. Then the RESTRICTED INDEX of the FQ all is identical to the INDEX of the subject NP the girls of the unsaturated VP to talk to, and therefore all the constraints imposed on the FQ are met in (21). (See the feature structure (16).) 3. \"Floating\" Quantifiers and Numeral Classifiers in Korean I argue that all Korean (and Japanese) numeral FQs are basically complement NPs, not adjuncts as in English, and that in addition to the basic type, there are a host of variations resulting from two pragmatic operations: omission and scrambling.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Besides FQs, there are \"nonfloating\" quantifiers occurring before nouns just as nonpredicative nominal adjectives do. These quantifiers do not occur anywhere else; in other words, they do not \"float\" as shown in (21a). The \"nonfloating\" quantifier motun 'all' is distributed in the same way as ordinary nonpredicative adjectives, and its morphological structure is just like ordinary nonpredicative adjectives. The \"floating\" counterpart of motun is motwu appearing in (21c), but this is a noun, which may occur with or without nominal case marker, and we will focus on this type of quantifiers in this section, excluding constructions like (21a) from consideration because they are not FQs. (The type of sentences like (21c) will shortly be taken up in (23).) [1] begins his discussion of FQs in Japanese citing the following type of sentences: It seems to me that this starting point is somewhat misleading because a construction like (22a) is not a typical use of the numeral classifier san-nin 'three-classifier(person), the Korean counterpart of which is sam-in, sam-myeng, or sey-myeng. I think that San-nin gakusei 'three students' in (22a) is either a nominal compound or the result of omitting the particle no 'of' from San-nin-no 'three-persons-of'. In either way, there is a problem. Although it is acceptable as a nominal compound, (22a) cannot be associated with (22b) in such a way that the latter is a syntactic variation of the former. If we claimed that (22b) was a syntactic variation of (22a), we would be forced to admit that compounds may be disintegrated. This would argue against the well-known assumption that compounds are \"islands\" so that their internal parts may not be moved. (Cf. Gakusei kaikan-ga .... 'The student union is ...' vs. *Kaikan-ga gakusei....) The possible alternative view of omission of particle no is also a problem. The particle no may be omitted in informal style, but only rarely in formal style, and since the classifier construction with the particle is a formal style, the particle is not usually omitted. (We will come to this matter of omission shortly.)", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 761, |
| "end": 764, |
| "text": "[1]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In Korean, the omission of the uy, the Korean equivalent of no, leads to almost unacceptable utterances like (23a), whereas the Korean version of (22b), which is allegedly an FQ version of (23a), is perfectly acceptable:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(23) a. ?*Sey-myeng haksayng-i chayk-ul sensayng-eykey ponayssta. three-cl(person) student-NOM book-ACC teacher-DAT sent 'Three students sent a book to the teacher.' b. Haksayng-i sey-myeng chayk-ul sensayng-eykey ponayssta.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For this reason, I argue against Fukushima's view that there is a syntactic relation between (22a) and (22b) or between (23a) and (23b). Viewing that they are two different constructions, I propose that the numeral classifier with no case marker sey-myeng 'three persons' in (23b) or san-nin 'three persons' in the Japanese sentence (22b) is the omitted version of the numeral classifier with a case marker sey-myeng-i and sin-nin-ga respectively.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Consider the following further examples:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(24) a. Haksayng-i onul motwu-ka ttenassta. NOM NOM 'The students all left today.' b. Haksayng-i onul sey-myeng-i ttenassta.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "'The three students left.' c. Haksayng-i chayk-ul onul twu-kwen-ul sassta.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "ACC two-classifier-ACC bought 'The students bought two books today.' d. Haksayng-i onul chayk-ul sey-myeng-i twu-kwen-ul sassta.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "'The three students bought two books today.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Notice that all the numeral classifiers occur with a case marker here unlike (23b) where the numeral classifier occurs with no case marker. To account for these cases, I argue that numeral classifiers are \"converted\" complements. By \"complements\" here, I mean subject NPs as well as direct and indirect object NPs. There is one more subject motwu-ka 'all-NOM' in (24a), and sey-myeng-i 'three persons-NOM' in (24b). In (24c) the transitive verb sassta 'bought' has an additional direct object twu-kwen-ul 'two-copy-ACC' beside the \"original\" direct object chayk-ul 'book-ACC' and furthermore in (24d) it has both an additional classifier subject and an additional classifier direct object, each specifying the number. I consider this kind of double nominative or accusative constructions as a realization of a lexical possibility of possessing additional complements by converting numeral classifiers into complements. 5 We can account for this conversion phenomenon by setting up a conversion lexical rule of the kind that [9] In the lexical rule above, Qi designates a numeral classifier or \"floating\" quantifier whose INDEX value is structure-shared (or coindexed) with the INDEX of the first argument specified as i6 and (Q;,(Q.)) is intended to mean that if there are more than two complements, one or more quantifiers of them may optionally be converted into complements.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 919, |
| "end": 920, |
| "text": "5", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1024, |
| "end": 1027, |
| "text": "[9]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Applying (25) to (26), the unmarked subcategorization requirement of the intransitive ttenata 'leave' and the transitive sata 'buy', we obtain the converted SUBCAT list (27). The sentences in (24) are all the realization of the converted SUBCAT lists (27a and b). The converted complements must have the same case markers as their \"host\" complements. This is guaranteed by the Lexical Rule (25): the first numeral classifier Qi becomes the value of the SUBJECT attribute, and the second one becomes the first value of the COMPS value, and so on. Once numeral classifiers are placed in the appropriate positions in the SUBJECT and COMPS value list, they will be assigned correct case markers automatically.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Subsequently, one may omit case markers insofar as there is no danger of misunderstanding or confusion. Call such a pragmatic operation the Omission Tactics. Apply this, and we will have sentences shown below, and (23b) (and the Japanese sentence (22b) for that matter) are all accounted for in the same way. 'The three students sent a book to the teacher.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We now have come to the point where we discuss the question of \"scrambling\". As is well known in the field of Korean and Japanese syntax, there has long been a controversy over the issue. I consider the issue of scrambling as a pragmatic matter, which is a similar position to my position concerning the omission phenomena that we discussed short while ago. One may scramble \"almost\" any complements for some pragmatic purposes, and certain scrambling is prohibited, but this for some pragmatic reasons, too. (See [2] for an extensive treatment of word order variation in Korean.) We call this pragmatic operation a Scrambling Tactics. Applying this, we obtain a further variety of sentences resulting from word order variation. Note that the Scrambling Tactics may apply to the sentences containing classifiers with or without case markers: Although some sentences are less acceptable than others, none of them can simply be characterized as ungrammatical; they all could be used under some suitable circumstances. It is worth noting that the least acceptable cases come about whenever numeral classifiers precede their coindexed complement NPs as in (30e), (31e), (32e), or (33k). Such oddness seems to be due to certain processing difficulty, of which I cannot discuss in detail here. So we can say that any kind of scrambled complement order is permissible unless classifier complements come before their coindexed complements. It is for this reason that I consider both word order variation and case marker omission to be a pragmatic matter, rather than a syntactic problem.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 514, |
| "end": 517, |
| "text": "[2]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "FQs in Tough and Raising or EQUI Constructions", |
| "sec_num": "2.2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "From what we have discussed so far, an important difference between English and Korean FQs is emerging: Korean FQs are converted complements, while English FQs are adjuncts modifying VPs. In Korean, various possible positions of FQs in a sentence are a consequence of the two pragmatic operations \"omission\" and \"scrambling.\" In English, on the other hand, various possible positions of FQs are tantamount to various possible positions of VP-modifying adverbs.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Before concluding this paper, I examine an alternative view of FQs in both languages: Korean FQs are adjuncts and English FQs are complements. The former view was actually argued for in [1] and [2] . However, this view is questionable from a morphological point of view. Typical adverbs are characterized by particular adverbial suffixes like -key, -hi, -i as in nuli-key 'slowly', chenchen-hi 'slowly', ppall-i 'fast' etc. Numeral classifiers cannot be followed by such suffixes: *sey-myeng-hi, *tuw-kwen-key. Moreover, an adverbial phrase is composed of a noun followed by a postposition: yeki-ey 'here-in (here)', ku-ttay-ey 'that-time-at (then)'. And numeral classifiers can also be followed by postpositions: tuw-kos-ey 'two-place(classifier)-at (at two places)', sey-kwen-ulo 'three-copy-into, or (into three books, as three books)'. This is good evidence showing that numeral classifiers are nouns, not adverbs. There are a few exceptions to this generalization, words that function as adverbs without having adverbial suffixes or postpositions: nayil 'tomorrow', meyngil 'tomorrow', cikum 'now'. Since these words are all Sino-Korean, they do not conform to the typical Korean morphology. Notice that Pure Korean time expressions like ecey 'yesterday' or eckecekkey 'the day before yesterday' may all be analyzable as nouns plus postpositions; ecey=ec-ey, eckecekkey = ec-kecekk-ey, where the final element is a postposition ey 'at'. Therefore, I maintain that these exceptions are only apparent and they do not affect the view that numeral classifiers, which have neither adverbial suffixes nor postpositions attached, are not adverbs. 7 Next, consider the alternative view that English FQs are complements. I point out one problem in this view with regard to word order. In English, the complements of a verb are always preceded by their lexical head. Now, if FQs are complements, they would be the only kind of complements that are followed by their lexical head V as shown in the tree (34a):", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 186, |
| "end": 189, |
| "text": "[1]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 194, |
| "end": 197, |
| "text": "[2]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1645, |
| "end": 1646, |
| "text": "7", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(34) (a) VP (b) VP / I \\ \\ FQ V NP FQ VP 1 I I I", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "all left the girls all left the girls On the complement view, FQs would be an exception to the generalization on the linear order of complements of a verb. On our adverbial view of FQs, however, no such exception need to be recognized. The tree (34b) illustrates that FQ all which is the adverbial adjunct, is placed before the VP left the girls., which the FQ modifies. 8 Thus in order not to give up the word order generalization, we abandon the complement view in favor of the adverbial view.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Using the HPSG framework, I have shown that FQs in English do not actually have to \"float\" anywhere, but occur before a VP and modify it like adverbs do. In Korean, FQs are complements of a verb, and these phenomena are dealt with by a Conversion Lexical Rule. In either language, any peculiar behavior of each of the FQs is to be specified as its lexical constraint, and it will interact with the lexical properties of other relevant words in the sentence. No movement rule needs to be stipulated. No grammatical processes need to be posited that move FQs from one \"host\" place to other places. This characterizes what we call a constraint-based lexical approach to FQs. This paper is an attempt to demonstrate that the constraint-based lexical approach is adequate enough even when it deals with \"floating\" quantifiers, which have been known to be one of the strongest evidence for the existence of a movement rule. Notes 1. Part of the ideas in this paper was presented for the first LERI Linguistics Colloquim at Kyung Hee University in the spring of 1995 and also at a workshop organized by the Language Institute of Chonnam National University in the summer of 1995. I thank Ivan Sag for his valuable comments on my second presentation. I also thank Chan Chung, who read the entire draft and gave me many critical comments and Jong-Bok Kim, who influenced the early developments of my ideas about FQs. Thanks are also due to Seung-Chul Moon, Dae-Young Soh, Hwan-Mook Lee and Kyung-Goo Shin. I am solely responsible for all remaining errors.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "I use the term \"floating\" not in its literal sense, but only to designate the phenomenon under discussion for the sole purpose of convenience. 3. I assume that the value PLURAL subsumes three or more conjuncts so that such conjuncts as in (15c) may be taken to be PLURAL, excluding binary conjuncts, in the sense of 'subsumption' used by [11] and [6] . 4. The noun form motuw 'all' may occur in various positions in a sentence, but it will be shown shortly that this is an omitted variant of motuw-ka 'all-NOM or motuw-lul' all-ACC'. 5. Such converted complements are distinguished from \"normal\" complements. For example, numeral classifier complements are not passivized (*Twu-kwen-i haksayng-eykey chayk-ul phal-li-ess-ta '*Two copies were sold the books by students.') and they cannot be relativized (*Haksayng-i chayk-ul sa-n twu-kwen... 'The two copies which the students bought the books...'). These peculiarities are also seen in other double accusative constructions as in Suni-ka ai-lul son-ul cap-ass-ta. `Suni caught the child by the hand.' vs. *Son-i Suni-eykey ai-lul cap-hi-ess-ta. *Suni-ka ai-lul cap-un son... 'the hand that Suni caught the child...'. There seem to be certain semantic constraints involved in these constructions, but I have no specific explanation at the moment. 6. The notion \"coindex\" hereafter is understood as \"structure-shared\" in the sense of the term as used in HPSG. Thus to say that the index of the subject is identical with that of the floating quantifier does not mean that they refer to the same thing, which would be a nonsensical interpretation. It means that the index in the floating quantifer is restricted to the index of the subject so that it may decide the scope of the quantifier. 7. It seems to me that numeral classifiers appear to function like VP modifiers because of some similar constructions which do contain adverbs like ta 'totally, wholly, entirely' as in (i) below. (i) Haksayng-i onul sey-myeng(-i) (ta) ttenassta.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 338, |
| "end": 342, |
| "text": "[11]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 347, |
| "end": 350, |
| "text": "[6]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "'The three students left (entirely or completely) today.' =All the three students left today.\" (ii) = (24b) Haksayng-i onul sey-myeng ttenassta.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "'The three students left today.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Interestingly enough, this adverb ta, while is semantically redundant, may always be omitted. After it is omitted as in (1), its meaning, i.e., the meaning of universal quantifier, still remains there: \"The three students left\" and \"All the three students left\" are logically equivalent. For this semantic reason, the numeral classifier in (i) looks as if it modified the verb ttenassta 'left', and yet this is only apparent. The modification relation is not due to any adverbial function of the numeral classifier, but due to the adverb ta 'entirely, completely' which has been omitted. Once the role of the Omission Tactics is recognized, it is not necessary to assume that classifiers act like adverbs. 8. One particular word order constraint needs to be stipulated which prevents FQs from occurring after VP (Cf. *The boys left the girls all). This constraint applies to many frequency adverbs: *They have studied French always.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Phrase Structure Grammar, Montague Semantics, and Floating Quantifiers in Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Kazuhiko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Fukushima", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", |
| "volume": "14", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Fukushima, Kazuhiko (1991) \"Phrase Structure Grammar, Montague Semantics, and Floating Quantifiers in Japanese.\" Linguistics and Philosophy 14.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "A Lexical Approach to Word Order Variation in Korean", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Chan", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chung", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chung, Chan (1995) A Lexical Approach to Word Order Variation in Korean. Ohio State University Ph.D. Dissertation.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Beginning English Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Samuel", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Keyser", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Paul", |
| "middle": [ |
| "M" |
| ], |
| "last": "Jay", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Postal", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1976, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Keyser, Samuel Jay and Paul M. Postal (1976). Beginning English Grammar. Harper & Row.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Dominique", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Sportiche", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Sportiche, Dominique 1988. A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Extraction without Traces. WCCFL 13", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ivan", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Sag", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Janet", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Fodor", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Sag, Ivan A. and Janet Fodor (1994). Extraction without Traces. WCCFL 13.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Head-Driven Phrase Structure. Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Carl", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pollard", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Ivan", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Sag", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure. Grammar. University of Chicago Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "The Semantics of \"floated", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "D", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dowty", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "B", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Brodie", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1984, |
| "venue": "Quantifiers in Transformational Grammar. WCCFL", |
| "volume": "4", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dowty, D. and B. Brodie (1984) \"The Semantics of \"floated\" Quantifiers in Transformational Grammar. WCCFL 4.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Floating Quantifiers, Scrambling, and Configurationality", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Giuliana", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Giusti", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "21", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Giusti, Giuliana (1990). Floating Quantifiers, Scrambling, and Configurationality. Linguistic Inquiry 21.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "The Parametric Variation of French and English Negation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Jong-Bok", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kim", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Ivan", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Sag", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kim, Jong-Bok and Ivan A. Sag (1995). The Parametric Variation of French and English Negation. WCCFL 14.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "Floated Quantifiers, Adverbs, and Extraction Sites", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ivan", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Sag", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1978, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "9", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Sag, Ivan A (1978). Floated Quantifiers, Adverbs, and Extraction Sites. Linguistic Inquiry 9.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Gerald", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Gazdar", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Ewan", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Klein", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Geoffrey", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pullum", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Ivan", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Sag", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Theory of Distributivity. Doctoral Dissertation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Jaewoong", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Choe", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Choe, Jaewoong (1986). Theory of Distributivity. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusettes.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Complementation vs. Relativization: An HPSG Analysis of Internally-Headed Relative Clauses", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Byung-Soo", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Park", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 1994 Kyoto Conference: A Festschrift for Professor Akira Ikeya Tokyo: The Logico-Linguistic Society of Japan", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Park, Byung-Soo (1995) Complementation vs. Relativization: An HPSG Analysis of Internally-Headed Relative Clauses. Proceedings of the 1994 Kyoto Conference: A Festschrift for Professor Akira Ikeya Tokyo: The Logico-Linguistic Society of Japan.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "The boys both left the girls. (3) The boys each left the girls. (4) a. All of the boys left the girls. b. All the boys left the girls. (5) a. Both of the boys left the girls. b. Both the boys left the girls. (6) a. Each of the boys left the girls. b. *Each the boys left the girls." |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "D-Structure: [SPEC [vp all (of) the boys left] S-Structure: The boys [vp all ti left]" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "D-structure: *Cs pEc [vp all (of) none of the classes have finished the exam] ==> a. *All (of) none of the classes have finished the exam. b. None of the classes have all finished the exam." |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "a. The men are likely all to leave. b. Bill forced the men all to leave. (19) *The men are stubborn all to talk to." |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "(21) a. Motun haksayng-i ttenassta. all student-NOM left 'All students left.' b. *Haksayng-i motun ttenassta. c. Haksayng-i motuw(-ka) ttenassta.4 all" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "22) a. San-nin gakusei-ga hon-o sensei-ni okutta. three-cl(person) student-NOM book-ACC teacher-DAT sent 'Three students sent a book to a teacher.' b. Gakusei-ga san-nin hon-o sensei-ni okutta. c. *Gakusei hon-o san-nin sensei-ni okutta. d. *Gakusei hon-o sensei-ni san-nin okutta." |
| }, |
| "FIGREF6": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "(26) a. ttena-ta 'leave': SUBCAT <NP[NOM]> b. sa-ta 'buy': SUBCAT <NP[NOM], NP[ACC]> (27) a. ttena-ta: SUBCAT <NP[NOWI] i, Qi> b. sa-ta: SUBCAT <NP[NOM] i, NP[ACC];, Q i, Qi>" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF7": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "28) a. Haksayng-i onul motwu ttenasst. b. Haksayng-i onul sey-myeng ttenassta. c. Haksayng-i chayk-ul onul twu-kwen sassta. d. ?Haksayng-i chayk-ul onul sey-myeng twu-kwen sassta. (29)=(22b) Haksayng-i sey-myeng chayk-ul sensayng-eykey ponayssta." |
| }, |
| "FIGREF8": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "30) a. Haksayng-i motwu-ka onul ttenassta. (by NCCCLR) b. Haksayng-i onul motwu-ka ttenassta. (by Scrambling) c. Haksayng-i motwu onul ttenassta. (by Omission) d. Haksayng-i onul motwu ttenassta. (by Omission and Scrambling) e.??Motwu(-ka) haksayng-i onul ttenassta. (31) a. Haksayng-i sey-myeng-i onul ttenassta. b. Haksayng-i onul sey-myeng-i ttenassta. c. Haksayng-i sey-myeng onul ttenassta. d. Haksayng-i onul sey-myeng ttenassta. e.??Sey-myeng(-0 haksayng-i onul ttenassta. (32) a. Haksayng-i chayk-ul twu-kwen-ul onul sassta. b. Haksayng-i chayk-ul onul twu-kwen-ul sassta. c. Haksayng-i chayk-ul twu-kwen onul sassta. d. Haksayng-i chayk-ul onul twu-kwen sassta. e. ??Haksayng-i twu-kwen(-ul) chayk-ul onul sassta. (33) a. Haksayng-i chayk-ul sey-myeng-i twu-kwen-ul onul sassta. b. Haksayng-i sey-myeng-i chayk-ul twu-kwen-ul onul sassta. c. Haksayng-i chayk-ul sey-myeng-i onul twu-kwen-ul sassta. d. Haksayng-i chayk-ul onul sey-myeng-i tuw-kwen-ul sassta. e. Haksayng-i onul chayk-ul sey-myeng-i twu-kwen-ul sassta. f. Haksayng-i onul chayk-ul sey-myeng twu-kwen sassta. g. Haksayng-i onul sey-myeng chayk-ul twu-kwen sassta. h. Haksayng-i sey-myeng onul chayk-ul twu-kwen sassta. i. Haksayng-i onul chayk-ul twu-kwen sey-myeng sassta. j. Haksayng-i onul chayk-ul twu-kwen sey-myeng-i sassta. k. ?*sey-myeng haksayng-i onul twu-kwen chayk-ul sassta." |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "have utilized when they treat English not and French pas functioning as a complement. Given the SUBCAT list <NP[NOM], NP[ACC]> of a transitive verb, for example, the Classifier Complement Conversion Lexical Rule may give rise to another SUBCAT list <NP[NOM] 1, NP[ACC]i, CLASSIFIER-NP[NOML, CLASSIFIER-NP[ACC];> for the same verb. More generally, we can formulate the rule as follows: (25) Numeral Classifier Complement Conversion Lexical Rule (NCCCLR)", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>SUBJECT <[1]></td><td>E</td><td>SUBJECT <[1], Qi></td><td>\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022</td></tr><tr><td>COMPS <[2], ... [3D</td><td>= = ></td><td>COMPS <[2],...,[3], (Cli,(Q.))></td><td/></tr><tr><td>SUBCAT <[1])(1, [2]Yi, [3]Zn></td><td colspan=\"3\">SUBCAR[1]Xl, [2]Y3, d.. , [3]Z., Qi, (Q.) )></td></tr></table>", |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
