Sentence examples for syntactic frames from inspiring English sources

The syntactic frames associated with the individual lexical items are unified by a dynamic binding process into a structural representation that spans the whole utterance.

This Unification Model assumes that syntactic frames are stored in memory and retrieved on the basis of the spoken or written word form input.

On the basis of a meta-analysis of imaging studies on syntax, it is argued that the left posterior inferior frontal cortex is involved in binding syntactic frames together, whereas the left superior temporal cortex is involved in retrieval of the syntactic frames stored in memory.

Thus, the present stimulus material with fixed syntactic frames containing 2 dependencies with 32 intervening X-elements, provides an interesting comparison to that used in the study by Gomez and colleagues [4], [11] which contained 3 dependencies with 24 intervening X-elements.

The cross-modal lexical priming experiment reported in the current study suggested that the sentential context quickly sets up a syntactic frame for accessing words of a particular syntactic category.

A nogo-LRP may or may not emerge in German, depending on the assumption about the underlying syntactic frame.

Whereas incrementality may be limited from the semantic processing to the syntactic framing [47], the mapping of linguistic forms and articulatory gestures is rather straightforward.

The mapping entails two levels: grammatical formulation, yielding a surface structure of the sentence, and phonological specification, inserting word forms into the syntactic frame.

The syntactic correlation between two features is computed based on their syntactic form.

In order to generate the corresponding sentence frame, the syntactic specification of the interrogative mood is early in Polish and late in Chinese.

Reinforced syntactic foams also show similar trends.