scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Head (linguistics)

About: Head (linguistics) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2540 publications have been published within this topic receiving 29023 citations. The topic is also known as: nucleus.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Results are consistent with the hypothesis that the level of locomotor activity provides a state-dependent modulation of the response magnitude of AD HD cells, and could result from diffusely projecting neuromodulatory systems associated with motor state.
Abstract: Head direction (HD) cells discharge selectively in macaques, rats, and mice when they orient their head in a specific (“preferred”) direction. Preferred directions are influenced by visual cues as ...

64 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The structural status of MNs in this broader sense is far from straightforward and most grammatical reference works of English are either hesitant or silent with regard to the issue as discussed by the authors, and two main analytical options seem to suggest themselves: either the MN is interpreted as constituting the head of the NP, with the of-phrase as a qualifier to this head, or the noun is analysed as a modifier, more specifically a quantifier, to the head, which in this case is the noun in the ofphrase.
Abstract: In a narrow sense, the term ‘Measure Noun' (MN) refers to such nouns as acre and kilo, which typically measure off a well-established and specific portion of the mass or entity specified in a following of-phrase, e.g. a kilo of apples. When used like this, the MN is generally considered to constitute the lexical head of the bi-nominal noun phrase. However, the notion of ‘MN' can be extended to include such expressions as a bunch of and heaps of, which, strictly speaking, do not designate a ‘measure', but display a more nebulous potential for quantification.The structural status of MNs in this broader sense then is far from straightforward and most grammatical reference works of English are either hesitant or silent with regard to the issue. Two main analytical options seem to suggest themselves. Either the MN is interpreted as constituting the head of the NP, with the of-phrase as a qualifier to this head, or the MN is analysed as a modifier, more specifically a quantifier, to the head, which in this case is the noun in the of-phrase.Starting from the structural analyses of MN-constructions offered by such linguists as Halliday and Langacker, my paper goes on to discuss a corpus study aimed at charting and elucidating the structural ambivalence observed in MN-constructions. The framework eventually opted for is that of ‘grammaticalization', since it provides the most comprehensive account for the developments displayed by MN-constructions, in that it brings to the fore the very intricate interplay between the lexical and the grammatical status of the MN. In addition, it also does justice to the diachronic dimension implied in the mechanisms of delexicalization and grammaticalization.

64 citations

BookDOI
03 Mar 2011

63 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
25 Sep 1965-BMJ

62 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, a simplified head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) was proposed by integrating constituent and dependency formal representations into HPSG, and two parsing algorithms were respectively proposed for two converted tree representations, division span and joint span.
Abstract: Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) enjoys a uniform formalism representing rich contextual syntactic and even semantic meanings. This paper makes the first attempt to formulate a simplified HPSG by integrating constituent and dependency formal representations into head-driven phrase structure. Then two parsing algorithms are respectively proposed for two converted tree representations, division span and joint span. As HPSG encodes both constituent and dependency structure information, the proposed HPSG parsers may be regarded as a sort of joint decoder for both types of structures and thus are evaluated in terms of extracted or converted constituent and dependency parsing trees. Our parser achieves new state-of-the-art performance for both parsing tasks on Penn Treebank (PTB) and Chinese Penn Treebank, verifying the effectiveness of joint learning constituent and dependency structures. In details, we report 96.33 F1 of constituent parsing and 97.20\% UAS of dependency parsing on PTB.

62 citations


Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
20222
202168
202090
201986
201890
201790