Concordance

Query J87-1003 22 >
Sort Left 22 (704.4 per million)

other,0-1-J87-1003,ak	The framework of the analysis is <term> model-theoretic semantics </term> . <term> English </term> is shown to be trans-context-free on the basis of <term> coordinations </term> of the respectively type that involve <term> strictly syntactic cross-serial agreement </term> .	#17257 The framework of the analysis is model-theoretic semantics.English is shown to be trans-context-free on the basis of coordinations of the respectively type that involve strictly syntactic cross-serial agreement.
other,9-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17288 The agreement in question involves number in nouns andreflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because grammatical number in English, like grammatical gender in languages such as French, is partly arbitrary.
other,32-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17311 The agreement in question involves number in nouns and reflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because grammatical number in English, like grammatical gender in languages such asFrench, is partly arbitrary.
other,20-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17299 The agreement in question involves number in nouns and reflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature becausegrammatical number in English, like grammatical gender in languages such as French, is partly arbitrary.
other,31-3-J87-1003,ak	The <term> formal proof </term> , which makes crucial use of the <term> Interchange Lemma </term> of Ogden et al. , is so constructed as to be valid even if <term> English </term> is presumed to contain <term> grammatical sentences </term> in which respectively operates across a pair of <term> coordinate phrases </term> one of whose members has fewer <term> conjuncts </term> than the other ; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding <term> constructions </term> with unequal numbers of <term> conjuncts </term> in the <term> scope </term> of respectively , whereas other <term> arguments </term> have foundered on this problem .	#17348 The formal proof, which makes crucial use of the Interchange Lemma of Ogden et al., is so constructed as to be valid even if English is presumed to containgrammatical sentences in which respectively operates across a pair of coordinate phrases one of whose members has fewer conjuncts than the other; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding constructions with unequal numbers of conjuncts in the scope of respectively, whereas other arguments have foundered on this problem.
other,49-3-J87-1003,ak	The <term> formal proof </term> , which makes crucial use of the <term> Interchange Lemma </term> of Ogden et al. , is so constructed as to be valid even if <term> English </term> is presumed to contain <term> grammatical sentences </term> in which respectively operates across a pair of <term> coordinate phrases </term> one of whose members has fewer <term> conjuncts </term> than the other ; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding <term> constructions </term> with unequal numbers of <term> conjuncts </term> in the <term> scope </term> of respectively , whereas other <term> arguments </term> have foundered on this problem .	#17366 The formal proof, which makes crucial use of the Interchange Lemma of Ogden et al., is so constructed as to be valid even if English is presumed to contain grammatical sentences in which respectively operates across a pair of coordinate phrases one of whose members has fewerconjuncts than the other; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding constructions with unequal numbers of conjuncts in the scope of respectively, whereas other arguments have foundered on this problem.
other,26-3-J87-1003,ak	The <term> formal proof </term> , which makes crucial use of the <term> Interchange Lemma </term> of Ogden et al. , is so constructed as to be valid even if <term> English </term> is presumed to contain <term> grammatical sentences </term> in which respectively operates across a pair of <term> coordinate phrases </term> one of whose members has fewer <term> conjuncts </term> than the other ; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding <term> constructions </term> with unequal numbers of <term> conjuncts </term> in the <term> scope </term> of respectively , whereas other <term> arguments </term> have foundered on this problem .	#17343 The formal proof, which makes crucial use of the Interchange Lemma of Ogden et al., is so constructed as to be valid even ifEnglish is presumed to contain grammatical sentences in which respectively operates across a pair of coordinate phrases one of whose members has fewer conjuncts than the other; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding constructions with unequal numbers of conjuncts in the scope of respectively, whereas other arguments have foundered on this problem.
other,29-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17308 The agreement in question involves number in nouns and reflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because grammatical number in English, like grammatical gender inlanguages such as French, is partly arbitrary.
other,23-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17302 The agreement in question involves number in nouns and reflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because grammatical number inEnglish, like grammatical gender in languages such as French, is partly arbitrary.
other,7-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17286 The agreement in question involves number innouns and reflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because grammatical number in English, like grammatical gender in languages such as French, is partly arbitrary.
other,17-1-J87-1003,ak	<term> English </term> is shown to be trans-context-free on the basis of <term> coordinations </term> of the respectively type that involve <term> strictly syntactic cross-serial agreement </term> .	#17274 English is shown to be trans-context-free on the basis of coordinations of the respectively type that involvestrictly syntactic cross-serial agreement.
other,5-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17284 The agreement in question involvesnumber in nouns and reflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because grammatical number in English, like grammatical gender in languages such as French, is partly arbitrary.
other,26-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17305 The agreement in question involves number in nouns and reflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because grammatical number in English, likegrammatical gender in languages such as French, is partly arbitrary.
other,10-1-J87-1003,ak	<term> English </term> is shown to be trans-context-free on the basis of <term> coordinations </term> of the respectively type that involve <term> strictly syntactic cross-serial agreement </term> .	#17267 English is shown to be trans-context-free on the basis ofcoordinations of the respectively type that involve strictly syntactic cross-serial agreement.
other,69-3-J87-1003,ak	The <term> formal proof </term> , which makes crucial use of the <term> Interchange Lemma </term> of Ogden et al. , is so constructed as to be valid even if <term> English </term> is presumed to contain <term> grammatical sentences </term> in which respectively operates across a pair of <term> coordinate phrases </term> one of whose members has fewer <term> conjuncts </term> than the other ; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding <term> constructions </term> with unequal numbers of <term> conjuncts </term> in the <term> scope </term> of respectively , whereas other <term> arguments </term> have foundered on this problem .	#17386 The formal proof, which makes crucial use of the Interchange Lemma of Ogden et al., is so constructed as to be valid even if English is presumed to contain grammatical sentences in which respectively operates across a pair of coordinate phrases one of whose members has fewer conjuncts than the other; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding constructions with unequal numbers ofconjuncts in the scope of respectively, whereas other arguments have foundered on this problem.
other,41-3-J87-1003,ak	The <term> formal proof </term> , which makes crucial use of the <term> Interchange Lemma </term> of Ogden et al. , is so constructed as to be valid even if <term> English </term> is presumed to contain <term> grammatical sentences </term> in which respectively operates across a pair of <term> coordinate phrases </term> one of whose members has fewer <term> conjuncts </term> than the other ; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding <term> constructions </term> with unequal numbers of <term> conjuncts </term> in the <term> scope </term> of respectively , whereas other <term> arguments </term> have foundered on this problem .	#17358 The formal proof, which makes crucial use of the Interchange Lemma of Ogden et al., is so constructed as to be valid even if English is presumed to contain grammatical sentences in which respectively operates across a pair ofcoordinate phrases one of whose members has fewer conjuncts than the other; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding constructions with unequal numbers of conjuncts in the scope of respectively, whereas other arguments have foundered on this problem.
other,78-3-J87-1003,ak	The <term> formal proof </term> , which makes crucial use of the <term> Interchange Lemma </term> of Ogden et al. , is so constructed as to be valid even if <term> English </term> is presumed to contain <term> grammatical sentences </term> in which respectively operates across a pair of <term> coordinate phrases </term> one of whose members has fewer <term> conjuncts </term> than the other ; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding <term> constructions </term> with unequal numbers of <term> conjuncts </term> in the <term> scope </term> of respectively , whereas other <term> arguments </term> have foundered on this problem .	#17395 The formal proof, which makes crucial use of the Interchange Lemma of Ogden et al., is so constructed as to be valid even if English is presumed to contain grammatical sentences in which respectively operates across a pair of coordinate phrases one of whose members has fewer conjuncts than the other; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding constructions with unequal numbers of conjuncts in the scope of respectively, whereas otherarguments have foundered on this problem.
other,64-3-J87-1003,ak	The <term> formal proof </term> , which makes crucial use of the <term> Interchange Lemma </term> of Ogden et al. , is so constructed as to be valid even if <term> English </term> is presumed to contain <term> grammatical sentences </term> in which respectively operates across a pair of <term> coordinate phrases </term> one of whose members has fewer <term> conjuncts </term> than the other ; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding <term> constructions </term> with unequal numbers of <term> conjuncts </term> in the <term> scope </term> of respectively , whereas other <term> arguments </term> have foundered on this problem .	#17381 The formal proof, which makes crucial use of the Interchange Lemma of Ogden et al., is so constructed as to be valid even if English is presumed to contain grammatical sentences in which respectively operates across a pair of coordinate phrases one of whose members has fewer conjuncts than the other; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regardingconstructions with unequal numbers of conjuncts in the scope of respectively, whereas other arguments have foundered on this problem.
other,1-2-J87-1003,ak	The <term> agreement </term> in question involves <term> number </term> in <term> nouns </term> and <term> reflexive pronouns </term> and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because <term> grammatical number </term> in <term> English </term> , like <term> grammatical gender </term> in <term> languages </term> such as <term> French </term> , is partly arbitrary .	#17280 Theagreement in question involves number in nouns and reflexive pronouns and is syntactic rather than semantic in nature because grammatical number in English, like grammatical gender in languages such as French, is partly arbitrary.
other,1-3-J87-1003,ak	The <term> formal proof </term> , which makes crucial use of the <term> Interchange Lemma </term> of Ogden et al. , is so constructed as to be valid even if <term> English </term> is presumed to contain <term> grammatical sentences </term> in which respectively operates across a pair of <term> coordinate phrases </term> one of whose members has fewer <term> conjuncts </term> than the other ; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding <term> constructions </term> with unequal numbers of <term> conjuncts </term> in the <term> scope </term> of respectively , whereas other <term> arguments </term> have foundered on this problem .	#17318 Theformal proof, which makes crucial use of the Interchange Lemma of Ogden et al., is so constructed as to be valid even if English is presumed to contain grammatical sentences in which respectively operates across a pair of coordinate phrases one of whose members has fewer conjuncts than the other; it thus goes through whatever the facts may be regarding constructions with unequal numbers of conjuncts in the scope of respectively, whereas other arguments have foundered on this problem.


	in Help