A noun phrase or nominal phrase is a phrase that has a noun as its head or shows the same grammatical function as such a phrase. Noun phrases are common cross-linguistically, they may be the most occurring phrase type. Noun phrases function as verb subjects and objects, as predicative expressions, as the complements of prepositions. Noun phrases can be embedded inside each other. In some more modern theories of grammar, noun phrases with determiners are analyzed as having the determiner as the head of the phrase, see for instance Chomsky and Hudson; some examples of noun phrases are underlined in the sentences below. The head noun appears in bold; the election-year politics are annoying for many people. Every sentence contains at least one noun phrase. Current economic weakness may be a result of high energy prices. Noun phrases can be identified by the possibility of pronoun substitution, as is illustrated in the examples below. A; this sentence contains two noun phrases. B, it contains them. A; the subject noun phrase, present in this sentence is long.
B. It is long. A. Noun phrases can be embedded in other noun phrases. B, they can be embedded in them. A string of words that can be replaced by a single pronoun without rendering the sentence grammatically unacceptable is a noun phrase; as to whether the string must contain at least two words, see the following section. Traditionally, a phrase is understood to contain two or more words; the traditional progression in the size of syntactic units is word < phrase < clause, in this approach a single word would not be referred to as a phrase. However, many modern schools of syntax – those that have been influenced by X-bar theory – make no such restriction. Here many single words are judged to be phrases based on a desire for theory-internal consistency. A phrase is deemed to be a word or a combination of words that appears in a set syntactic position, for instance in subject position or object position. On this understanding of phrases, the nouns and pronouns in bold in the following sentences are noun phrases: He saw someone.
Milk is good. They spoke about corruption; the words in bold are called phrases since they appear in the syntactic positions where multiple-word phrases can appear. This practice takes the constellation to be primitive rather than the words themselves; the word he, for instance, functions as a pronoun, but within the sentence it functions as a noun phrase. The phrase structure grammars of the Chomskyan tradition are primary examples of theories that apply this understanding of phrases. Other grammars, for instance dependency grammars, are to reject this approach to phrases, since they take the words themselves to be primitive. For them, phrases must contain two or more words. A typical noun phrase consists of more dependents of various types; the chief types of these dependents are: determiners, such as the, this, my, Jane's attributive adjectives, such as large, sweeter adjective phrases and participial phrases, such as large, hard as nails, made of wood, sitting on the step noun adjuncts, such as college in the noun phrase a college student nouns in certain oblique cases, in languages which have them, such as German des Mannes prepositional phrases, such as in the drawing room, of his aunt adnominal adverbs and adverbials, such as there in the noun phrase the man there relative clauses, such as which we noticed other clauses serving as complements to the noun, such as that God exists in the noun phrase the belief that God exists infinitive phrases, such as to sing well and to beat in the noun phrases a desire to sing well and the man to beatThe allowability and position of these elements depend on the syntax of the language in question.
In English, determiners and noun modifiers precede the head noun, whereas the heavier units – phrases and clauses – follow it. This is part of a strong tendency in English to place heavier constituents to the right, making English more of a head-initial language. Head-final languages are more to place all modifiers before the head noun. Other languages, such as French place single-word adjectives after the noun. Noun phrases can take different forms than that described above, for example when the head is a pronoun rather than a noun, or when elements are linked with a coordinating conjunction such as and, or, but. For more information about the structure of noun phrases in English, see English grammar § Noun phrases. Noun phrases bear argument functions; that is, the syntactic functions that they fulfill are those of the arguments of the main clause predicate those of subject and predicative expression. They function as arguments in such constructs as participial phrases and prepositional phrases.
For example: For us the news is a concern. – the news is the subject argumentHave you heard the news? – the news is the object argumentThat is the news. -- the news is the predicative expression following the copula isThey. – the news is the argument in the prepositional phrase about the newsThe man reading the news is tall. – the news is the object argument in the participial phrase reading the newsSometimes a noun phrase can function as an adjunct of the main clause predic
In everyday speech, a phrase may be any group of words carrying a special idiomatic meaning. In linguistic analysis, a phrase is a group of words that functions as a constituent in the syntax of a sentence, a single unit within a grammatical hierarchy. A phrase appears within a clause, but it is possible for a phrase to be a clause or to contain a clause within it. There are types of phrases like noun phrase, prepositional phrase and noun phrase The phrase coming up means an events is occurring within quite soon. Eg Christmas is coming up, in a few days. There is a difference between the common use of the term phrase and its technical use in linguistics. In common usage, a phrase is a group of words with some special idiomatic meaning or other significance, such as "all rights reserved", "economical with the truth", "kick the bucket", the like, it may be a saying or proverb, a fixed expression, a figure of speech, etc.. In grammatical analysis in theories of syntax, a phrase is any group of words, or sometimes a single word, which plays a particular role within the grammatical structure of a sentence.
It does not have to have any special meaning or significance, or exist anywhere outside of the sentence being analyzed, but it must function there as a complete grammatical unit. For example, in the sentence Yesterday I saw an orange bird with a white neck, the words an orange bird with a white neck form what is called a noun phrase, or a determiner phrase in some theories, which functions as the object of the sentence. Theorists of syntax differ in what they regard as a phrase; this means that some expressions that may be called phrases in everyday language are not phrases in the technical sense. For example, in the sentence I can't put up with Alex, the words put up with may be referred to in common language as a phrase but technically they do not form a complete phrase, since they do not include Alex, the complement of the preposition with. In grammatical analysis, most phrases contain a key word that identifies the type and linguistic features of the phrase; the syntactic category of the head is used to name the category of the phrase.
The remaining words in a phrase are called the dependents of the head. In the following phrases the head-word, or head, is bolded: too — Adverb phrase. For instance, the subordinator phrase: before that happened — Subordinator phrase, but this phrase, "before that happened", is more classified in other grammars, including traditional English grammars, as a subordinate clause. Most theories of syntax view most phrases as having a head, but some non-headed phrases are acknowledged. A phrase lacking a head is known as exocentric, phrases with heads are endocentric; some modern theories of syntax introduce certain functional categories in which the head of a phrase is some functional word or item, which may be covert, that is, it may be a theoretical construct that need not appear explicitly in the sentence. For example, in some theories, a phrase such as the man is taken to have the determiner the as its head, rather than the noun man – it is classed as a determiner phrase, rather than a noun phrase.
When a noun is used in a sentence without an explicit determiner, a null determiner may be posited. For full discussion, see Determiner phrase. Another type is the inflectional phrase, where a finite verb phrase is taken to be the complement of a functional covert head, supposed to encode the requirements for the verb to inflect – for agreement with its subject, for tense and aspect, etc. If these factors are treated separately more specific categories may be considered: tense phrase, where the verb phrase is the complement of an abstract "tense" element. Further examples of such proposed categories include topic phrase and focus phrase, which are assumed to be headed by elements that encode the need for a constituent of the sentence to be marked as the topic or as the focus. See the Generative approaches section of the latter article for details. Many theories of syntax and grammar illustrate sentence structure using phrase'trees', which provide schematics of how the words in a sentence are grouped and relate to each other.
Trees show the words, and, at times, clauses that make up sentences. Any word combination that corresponds to a complete subtree can be seen as a phrase. There are competing principles for constructing trees.
In syntactic analysis, a constituent is a word or a group of words that functions as a single unit within a hierarchical structure. The constituent structure of sentences is identified using tests for constituents; these tests manipulate some portion of a sentence and based on the result, clues are delivered about the constituent structure of the sentence. Many constituents are phrases. A phrase is a sequence of one or more words built around a head lexical item and working as a unit within a sentence. A word sequence is shown to be a phrase/constituent if it exhibits one or more of the behaviors discussed below; the analysis of constituent structure is associated with phrase structure grammars, although dependency grammars allow sentence structure to be broken down into constituent parts. Tests for constituents are diagnostics used to identify sentence structure. There are numerous tests for constituents that are used to identify the constituents of English sentences. 15 of the most used tests are listed next: 1) coordination, 2) pro-form substitution, 3) topicalization, 4) do-so-substitution, 5) one-substitution, 6) answer ellipsis, 7) clefting, 8) VP-ellipsis, 9) pseudoclefting, 10) passivization, 11) omission, 12) intrusion, 13) wh-fronting, 14) general substitution, 15) right node raising.
The order in which these 15 tests are listed here corresponds to the frequency of use, coordination being the most used of the 15 tests and RNR being the least used. A general word of caution is warranted when employing these tests, since they deliver contradictory results; the tests are rough-and-ready tools that grammarians employ to reveal clues about syntactic structure. Some syntacticians arrange the tests on a scale of reliability, with less-reliable tests treated as useful to confirm constituency though not sufficient on their own. Failing to pass a single test does not mean that the test string is not a constituent, conversely, passing a single test does not mean the test string is a constituent, it is best to apply as many tests as possible to a given string in order to prove or to rule out its status as a constituent. The 15 tests are introduced and illustrated below relying on the same one sentence: Drunks could put off the customers. By restricting the introduction and discussion of the tests for constituents below to this one sentence, it becomes possible to compare the results of the tests.
To aid the discussion and illustrations of the constituent structure of this sentence, the following two sentence diagrams are employed: These diagrams show two potential analyses of the constituent structure of the sentence. A given node in a tree diagram is understood as marking a constituent, that is, a constituent is understood as corresponding to a given node and everything that that node exhaustively dominates. Hence the first tree, which shows the constituent structure according to dependency grammar, marks the following words and word combinations as constituents: Drunks, the, the customers, put off the customers; the second tree, which shows the constituent structure according to phrase structure grammar, marks the following words and word combinations as constituents: Drunks, put, the, the customers, put off the customers, could put off the customers. The analyses in these two tree diagrams provide orientation for the discussion of tests for constituents that now follows; the coordination test assumes that only constituents can be coordinated, i.e. joined by means of a coordinator such as and, or, or but: The next examples demonstrate that coordination identifies individual words as constituents: Drunks could put off the customers.
And could put off the customers. Drunks and put off the customers. Drunks could and the customers. Drunks could put off the and; the square brackets mark the conjuncts of the coordinate structures. Based on these data, one might assume that drunks, put off, customers are constituents in the test sentence because these strings can be coordinated with bums, drive away, neighbors, respectively. Coordination identifies multi-word strings as constituents: Drunks could put off and. Drunks could and. Drunks and; these data suggest that the customers, put off the customers, could put off the customers are constituents in the test sentence. Examples such as are not controversial insofar as many theories of sentence structure view the strings tested in sentences as constituents. However, additional data are problematic, since they suggest that certain strings are constituents though most theories of syntax do not acknowledge them as such, e.g. Drunks and the customers. Drunks customers. And, put off the customers.
These data suggest that could put off, put off these, Drunks could are constituents in the test sentence. Most theories of syntax reject the notion. Data such as are sometimes addressed in terms of the right node raising mechanism; the problem for the coordination test represented by examples is compounded when one looks beyond the test sentence, for one finds that coordination suggests that a wide range o
In linguistics, the head or nucleus of a phrase is the word that determines the syntactic category of that phrase. For example, the head of the noun phrase boiling hot water is the noun water. Analogously, the head of a compound is the stem that determines the semantic category of that compound. For example, the head of the compound noun handbag is bag; the other elements of the phrase or compound modify the head, are therefore the head's dependents. Headed phrases and compounds are called endocentric, whereas exocentric phrases and compounds lack a clear head. Heads are crucial to establishing the direction of branching. Head-initial phrases are right-branching, head-final phrases are left-branching, head-medial phrases combine left- and right-branching. Examine the following expressions: big red dog birdsongThe word dog is the head of big red dog since it determines that the phrase is a noun phrase, not an adjective phrase; because the adjectives big and red modify this head noun, they are its dependents.
In the compound noun birdsong, the stem song is the head since it determines the basic meaning of the compound. The stem bird is therefore dependent on song. Birdsong is a kind of song, not a kind of bird. Conversely, a songbird is a type of bird; the heads of phrases can be identified by way of constituency tests. For instance, substituting a single word in place of the phrase big red dog requires the substitute to be a noun, not an adjective. Many theories of syntax represent heads by means of tree structures; these trees tend to be organized in terms of one of two relations: either in terms of the constituency relation of phrase structure grammars or the dependency relation of dependency grammars. Both relations are illustrated with the following trees: The constituency relation is shown on the left and the dependency relation on the right; the a-trees identify heads by way of category labels, whereas the b-trees use the words themselves as the labels. The noun stories is the head over the adjective funny.
In the constituency trees on the left, the noun projects its category status up to the mother node, so that the entire phrase is identified as a noun phrase. In the dependency trees on the right, the noun projects only a single node, whereby this node dominates the one node that the adjective projects, a situation that identifies the entirety as an NP; the constituency trees are structurally the same as their dependency counterparts, the only difference being that a different convention is used for marking heads and dependents. The conventions illustrated with these trees are just a couple of the various tools that grammarians employ to identify heads and dependents. While other conventions abound, they are similar to the ones illustrated here; the four trees above show a head-final structure. The following trees illustrate head-final structures further as well as head-initial and head-medial structures; the constituency trees appear on the left, dependency trees on the right. Henceforth the convention is employed.
The next four trees are additional examples of head-final phrases: The following six trees illustrate head-initial phrases: And the following six trees are examples of head-medial phrases: The head-medial constituency trees here assume a more traditional n-ary branching analysis. Since some prominent phrase structure grammars take all branching to be binary, these head-medial a-trees may be controversial. Trees that are based on the X-bar schema acknowledge head-initial, head-final, head-medial phrases, although the depiction of heads is less direct; the standard X-bar schema for English is as follows: This structure is both head-initial and head-final, which makes it head-medial in a sense. It is head-initial insofar as the head X0 precedes its complement, but it is head-final insofar as the projection X' of the head follows its specifier; some language typologists classify language syntax according to a head directionality parameter in word order, that is, whether a phrase is head-initial or head-final, assuming that it has a fixed word order at all.
English is more head-initial than head-final, as illustrated with the following dependency tree of the first sentence of Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis: The tree shows the extent to which English is a head-initial language. Structure is descending as processing move from left to right. Most dependencies have the head preceding its dependent, although there are head-final dependencies in the tree. For instance, the determiner-noun and adjective-noun dependencies are head-final as well as the subject-verb dependencies. Most other dependencies in English are, head-initial as the tree shows; the mixed nature of head-initial and head-final structures is common across languages. In fact purely head-initial or purely head-final languages do not exist, although there are some languages that approach purity in this respect, for instance Japanese; the following tree is of the same sentence from Kafka's story. The glossing conventions are those established by Lehmann. One can see the extent to which Japanese is head-final: A large majority of head-dependent orderings in Japanese are head-final.
This fact is obvious in this tree, since structure is ascending as speech and processing move from left to right. Thus the word order of Japanese is in a sense the opposite of English, it is common to classify language morphology according to whether a phrase is head-mark
In language, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. A typical clause consists of a subject and a predicate, the latter a verb phrase, a verb with any objects and other modifiers. However, the subject is sometimes not said or explicit the case in null-subject languages if the subject is retrievable from context, but it sometimes occurs in other languages such as English. A simple sentence consists of a single finite clause with a finite verb, independent. More complex sentences may contain multiple clauses. Main clauses are those. Subordinate clauses are those that would be incomplete if they were alone. A primary division for the discussion of clauses is the distinction between main clauses and subordinate clauses. A main clause can stand alone, i.e. it can constitute a complete sentence by itself. A subordinate clause, in contrast, is reliant on the appearance of a main clause. A second major distinction concerns the difference between non-finite clauses.
A finite clause contains a structurally central finite verb, whereas the structurally central word of a non-finite clause is a non-finite verb. Traditional grammar focuses on finite clauses, the awareness of non-finite clauses having arisen much in connection with the modern study of syntax; the discussion here focuses on finite clauses, although some aspects of non-finite clauses are considered further below. Clauses can be classified according to a distinctive trait, a prominent characteristic of their syntactic form; the position of the finite verb is one major trait used for classification, the appearance of a specific type of focusing word is another. These two criteria overlap to an extent, which means that no single aspect of syntactic form is always decisive in determining how the clause functions. There are, strong tendencies. Standard SV-clauses are the norm in English, they are declarative. The pig has not yet been fed. - Declarative clause, standard SV order I've been hungry for two hours.
- Declarative clause, standard SV order...that I've been hungry for two hours. - Declarative clause, standard SV order, but functioning as a subordinate clause due to the appearance of the subordinator thatDeclarative clauses like these are by far the most occurring type of clause in any language. They can be viewed as other clause types being derived from them. Standard SV-clauses can be interrogative or exclamative, given the appropriate intonation contour and/or the appearance of a question word, e.g. a. The pig has not yet been fed? - Rising intonation on fed makes the clause a yes/no-question.b. The pig has not yet been fed! - Spoken forcefully, this clause is exclamative.c. You've been hungry for how long? - Appearance of interrogative word how and rising intonation make the clause a constituent questionExamples like these demonstrate that how a clause functions cannot be known based on a single distinctive syntactic criterion. SV-clauses are declarative, but intonation and/or the appearance of a question word can render them interrogative or exclamative.
Verb first clauses in English play one of three roles: 1. They express a yes/no-question via subject–auxiliary inversion, 2, they express a condition as an embedded clause, or 3. They express a command via e.g. a. He must stop laughing. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Should he stop laughing? - Yes/no-question expressed by verb first order c. Had he stopped laughing... - Condition expressed by verb first order d. Stop laughing! - Imperative formed with verb first ordera. They have done the job. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Have they done the job? - Yes/no-question expressed by verb first order c. Had they done the job... - Condition expressed by verb first order d. Do the job! - Imperative formed with verb first orderMost verb first clauses are main clauses. Verb first conditional clauses, must be classified as embedded clauses because they cannot stand alone. Wh-clauses contain a wh-word. Wh-words serve to help express a constituent question, they are prevalent, though, as relative pronouns, in which case they serve to introduce a relative clause and are not part of a question.
The wh-word focuses a particular constituent and most of the time, it appears in clause-initial position. The following examples illustrate standard interrogative wh-clauses; the b-sentences are direct questions, the c-sentences contain the corresponding indirect questions: a. Sam likes the meat. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Who likes the meat? - Matrix interrogative wh-clause focusing on the subject c. They asked. - Embedded interrogative wh-clause focusing on the subjecta. Larry sent Susan to the store. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Whom did Larry send to the store? - Matrix interrogative wh-clause focusing on the object, subject-auxiliary inversion present c. We know. - Embedded wh-clause focusing on the object, subject-auxiliary inversion absenta. Larry sent Susan to the store. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Where did Larry send Susan? - Matrix interrogative wh-clause focusing on the ob
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics that studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology and anthropology. Unlike semantics, which examines meaning, conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge of the speaker and listener, but on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, other factors. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, time, etc. of an utterance. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence; the word pragmatics derives via Latin pragmaticus from the Greek πραγματικός, meaning amongst others "fit for action", which comes from πρᾶγμα, "deed, act", that from πράσσω, "to do, to act, to pass over, to practise, to achieve".
Pragmatics was a reaction to structuralist linguistics. In many cases, it expanded upon his idea that language has an analyzable structure, composed of parts that can be defined in relation to others. Pragmatics first engaged only in synchronic study, as opposed to examining the historical development of language. However, it rejected the notion that all meaning comes from signs existing purely in the abstract space of langue. Meanwhile, historical pragmatics has come into being; this field only gained linguists' attention in the 70s. This is; the study of the speaker's meaning, not focusing on the phonetic or grammatical form of an utterance, but instead on what the speaker's intentions and beliefs are. The study of the meaning in context, the influence that a given context can have on the message, it requires knowledge of the speaker's identities, the place and time of the utterance. The study of implicatures, i.e. the things that are communicated though they are not explicitly expressed. The study of relative distance, both social and physical, between speakers in order to understand what determines the choice of what is said and what is not said.
The study of what is not meant, as opposed to the intended meaning, i.e. that, unsaid and unintended, or unintentional. Information structure, the study of how utterances are marked in order to efficiently manage the common ground of referred entities between speaker and hearer Formal Pragmatics, the study of those aspects of meaning and use for which context of use is an important factor, by using the methods and goals of formal semantics; the sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker or the speaker's intent, it is difficult to infer the meaning with certainty. For example, it could mean: the space that belongs to you has green ambient lighting; the sentence "Sherlock saw the man with binoculars" could mean that Sherlock observed the man by using binoculars, or it could mean that Sherlock observed a man, holding binoculars. The meaning of the sentence depends on an understanding of the speaker's intent; as defined in linguistics, a sentence is an abstract entity—a string of words divorced from non-linguistic context—as opposed to an utterance, a concrete example of a speech act in a specific context.
The more conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms and topics, the more others can surmise their meaning. This suggests that sentences do not have intrinsic meaning, that there is no meaning associated with a sentence or word, that either can only represent an idea symbolically; the cat sat on the mat is a sentence in English. If someone were to say to someone else, "The cat sat on the mat," the act is itself an utterance; this implies that a sentence, expression or word cannot symbolically represent a single true meaning. By contrast, the meaning of an utterance can be inferred through knowledge of both its linguistic and non-linguistic contexts. In mathematics, with Berry's paradox, there arises a similar systematic ambiguity with the word "definable"; the referential uses of language are. A sign is the link or relationship between a signified and the signifier as defined by Saussure and Huguenin; the signified is some concept in the world. The signifier represents the signified. An example would be: Signified: the concept cat Signifier: the word "cat"The relationship between the two gives the sign meaning.
This relationship can be further explained by considering what we mean by "meaning." In pragmatics, there are two different types of meaning to consider: semantico-referential meaning and indexical meaning. Semantico-referential meaning refers to the aspect of meaning, which describes events in the world that are independent of the circumstance they are uttered in. An example would be propositions s
Dependency grammar is a class of modern grammatical theories that are all based on the dependency relation and that can be traced back to the work of Lucien Tesnière. Dependency is the notion that linguistic units, e.g. words, are connected to each other by directed links. The verb is taken to be the structural center of clause structure. All other syntactic units are either directly or indirectly connected to the verb in terms of the directed links, which are called dependencies. DGs are distinct from phrase structure grammars, since DGs lack phrasal nodes, although they acknowledge phrases. Structure is determined by the relation between its dependents. Dependency structures are flatter than phrase structures in part because they lack a finite verb phrase constituent, they are thus well suited for the analysis of languages with free word order, such as Czech and Warlpiri; the notion of dependencies between grammatical units has existed since the earliest recorded grammars, e.g. Pāṇini, the dependency concept therefore arguably predates that of phrase structure by many centuries.
Ibn Maḍāʾ, a 12th-century linguist from Córdoba, may have been the first grammarian to use the term dependency in the grammatical sense that we use it today. In early modern times, the dependency concept seems to have coexisted side by side with that of phrase structure, the latter having entered Latin, French and other grammars from the widespread study of term logic of antiquity. Dependency is concretely present in the works of Sámuel Brassai, a Hungarian linguist, Franz Kern, a German philologist, of Heimann Hariton Tiktin, a Romanian linguist. Modern dependency grammars, begin with the work of Lucien Tesnière. Tesnière was a Frenchman, a polyglot, a professor of linguistics at the universities in Strasbourg and Montpellier, his major work Éléments de syntaxe structurale was published posthumously in 1959 – he died in 1954. The basic approach to syntax he developed seems to have been seized upon independently by others in the 1960s and a number of other dependency-based grammars have gained prominence since those early works.
DG has generated a lot of interest in Germany in both theoretical language pedagogy. In recent years, the great development surrounding dependency-based theories has come from computational linguistics and is due, in part, to the influential work that David Hays did in machine translation at the RAND Corporation in the 1950s and 1960s. Dependency-based systems are being used to parse natural language and generate tree banks. Interest in dependency grammar is growing at present, international conferences on dependency linguistics being a recent development. Dependency is a one-to-one correspondence: for every element in the sentence, there is one node in the structure of that sentence that corresponds to that element; the result of this one-to-one correspondence is. All that exist are the dependencies that connect the elements into a structure; this situation should be compared with phrase structure. Phrase structure is a one-to-one-or-more correspondence, which means that, for every element in a sentence, there is one or more nodes in the structure that correspond to that element.
The result of this difference is that dependency structures are minimal compared to their phrase structure counterparts, since they tend to contain many fewer nodes. These trees illustrate two possible ways to render the phrase structure relations; this dependency tree is an "ordered" tree. Many dependency trees abstract away from linear order and focus just on hierarchical order, which means they do not show actual word order; this constituency tree follows the conventions of bare phrase structure, whereby the words themselves are employed as the node labels. The distinction between dependency and phrase structure grammars derives in large part from the initial division of the clause; the phrase structure relation derives from an initial binary division, whereby the clause is split into a subject noun phrase and a predicate verb phrase. This division is present in the basic analysis of the clause that we find in the works of, for instance, Leonard Bloomfield and Noam Chomsky. Tesnière, argued vehemently against this binary division, preferring instead to position the verb as the root of all clause structure.
Tesnière's stance was that the subject-predicate division stems from term logic and has no place in linguistics. The importance of this distinction is that if one acknowledges the initial subject-predicate division in syntax is real one is to go down the path of phrase structure grammar, while if one rejects this division one must consider the verb as the root of all structure, so go down the path of dependency grammar; the following frameworks are dependency-based: Algebraic syntax Operator grammar Link grammar Functional generative description Lexicase Meaning–text theory Word grammar Extensible dependency grammar Universal DependenciesLink grammar is similar to dependency grammar, but link grammar does not include directionality between the linked words, thus does not describe head-dependent relationships. Hybrid dependency/phrase structure grammar uses dependencies between words, but includes dependencies between phrasal nodes – see for example the Quranic Arabic Dependency Treebank; the derivation trees of tree-adjoining grammar are dependency struc