Translate

RECENT COMMENTS

January 2, 2017

Research proposal writing



TOC

A.    Statement of Intent.. 2

B.     Overview... 3
1.      Topic2.      Inquiry3.      Process4.      Result
C.    Literature Review... 5
1.      Hypotheses2.      Thesis3.      Empirical test
a.         Appositive
b.         Adverbial infinitive
c.         Nominal infinitives

D.    Research Methodology.. 9






A.   Statement of Intent

This study proposal is to seek a research study being made available in facilitating the said study by a department at the center for English and Linguistics and for enabling my being with the possible supervision and progression to have attained this with the completion.

I think sometimes it is rather most often a popular myth in academic arena that what we see and what we hear are to be so relevant. After many years of doing literature reviews about well rated articles from good writers around the world, i am not so in the norm to take our worldwide academics as having the standards with the unity. And in addition, I think that recent graduates from postgraduate degrees with PhD in English, TESOL, and linguistics et cetera  also could do only a very little with their writing skills in terms of meaningful publications.

Since having the bachelor’s degree 20 years back and aquatinted with all the relevant courses into them with an extent to detail as to what these are all doing or possibly doing to academia is to be in that to take into the consideration, and interested in writing a book 'Essential of English Language (TESOL)' but prefer doing it with an admission in an institution like yours or of its similar, it is thus the motivation for seeking an avenue suitable.

To an explanation with the background to the errorless endeavours on this, or philosophical underground with its unity alternatively, i can only silently say this what I have been doing for a some time now; used to write or edit Wikipedia articles as my hobby for a some time, and in the last 2 years or so some writings by a monthly post to LangLing mainly as a literature review for good articles around and rewrite them in informal blogger style.
You would find it also with facts no difficult that my introductory paragraphs in this to have some good points to make and why, for example, this being so difficult for newly graduates with PhD to have already acquired such skills.

In addition, as I have good historical background to do research, with the extensive deep structure level understanding of language and linguistics issues written, I may have to say I could propose to venture this initiative to its completion in short time possible and with a minimum supervision.

I prefer however the first topic bellow but leave it in 2 topics, for the reason that should first one is in case to have gone over and above with the faculty moderation possible:

1.      Essential of Language (TESOL)
2.      Functional Syntax: Analyzing Reference Grammar

The Essential of Language (TESOL) to be held verities of its advance analyses is my suggestion in this, as in number of posts I wrote to LangLing like these and others on the subjects how:

2.      Verbal parity
3.      Catenation

As you can see with little doubt that these are of advance literatures which you won’t easily find them in libraries for research study but them to have been written by those skilled linguists colloquially, I should say also I do collect such literatures and write reviews for my habits. And so apparently, this is why how this has come to be of my first study proposal for a further study, if available.

Alternatively, studying the Functional Grammar: Analyzing Reference Grammar in an investigative approach to literature review is my suggestion to a study proposal. And so I have now included this in some detail here bellow as to how it is in traditional proposal writing. 


B.    Overview

1.   Topic

Functional Syntax: Analyzing Reference Grammar

2.   Inquiry


It’s being said that there is a number of different approaches to generative grammar and common to all problem is the effort to come up with a set of rules or principles which will account for the well-formed expressions of a natural language in terms of their constituents for our empirical tests.  For many linguists, the traditional approach to syntax so far has however not been represented the actual constituents of syntax as they are in a simple and concise manner.

Proposition: They neither have practical significance to our epistemological realm nor contribute to our general understanding of knowledge about our empirical world in language concise and coherent for social constructionist to express our material things and their respective world of phenomenalism.

 


3.   Process 


Being analytic in its essence and conversely deductive, this study is thus purposefully to make an attempt for further explanations both in clarifying and defining the problems of the two roles of syntax (structural and functional) of which the structural rules and roles (the phrase structure theories) to be being not adequate enough to explain the constituents of syntax like, for example, why any one or more of the current approaches to syntax theories cannot explain the constituents accurately as in the examples as shown below in literature section illustrated here for a few samples.


4.   Result 


Having the alternative hypothetical explanations; functional phrases (or functional grammar, or functional role) as if to an alternative approach to syntactic categories attempting to overcome difficulties by approaching the actual representations of constituents as they are, also to provide the motivation for other alternative grammatical architectures

Thus, such alternatives to be encoding constituents correctly, without relying on any need for bar-level projections or other transformational structural relations, would appear to be something without much doubt more to grammar studies and, particularly, to linguists and pedants in the field of syntax as their specialty in our global empiricism.


C.   Literature Review

1.   Hypotheses


SubP (Subject Phrase)          
N (NP) (NomlP)
VP (Verb Phrase)                 
V Aux (Modal) (CompP
ObP (Object Phrase)            
N (NP) (NomlP) (CompP)                       


NomlP (Nominal  Phrase)    
(ConjP) (GP) (AdjP) (NP) (AdvP) (InP)  (VP) (PrepP)
AdjlP (Adjectival Phrase )    
ConjP) (NP) (AdjP) (AdvP) (ComP)
AdvlP (Adverbial  Phrase)   
(ConjP) (InP)  (Adj) (NP) (VP) (ComP)
InP (Infinitive Phrase)          
InP (ComP)
PrepP (Prepositional  Phrase)
P (PrepC) (ComP)
NP (Noun Phrase)                  
(AdjP) N (NP)  (ComP)
AdjP (Adjective Phrase)       
Adj (AdjP) (AdjlP) (Modif) (ComP)
AdvP (Adverb Phrase)          
Adv (AdvP) (ComP)
ComP (Complement Phrase)
NP) (V) (PartP) (NomlP) (AdjP) (AdjlP) (AdvP) (AdvlP) ) (InP) (PreP) (ComP)
ConjP (Conjunction Phrase) 
Conj (ConjC)       


  


2.   Thesis


Phrase references should attempt to clarify their constituents as they are.

A major problem here, though to overcome all other obstacles in previous syntactic theories, is that a phrase is not to be simply translated as a prepositional phrase because of that a phrase heads a preposition, nor should the verbal in the same way because of that a phrase heads a verbal.

A minor problem over the traditional approaches to syntax here is that the functional or actual role of prepositional and verbal phrases versus the structural role of phrases that are to be translated in an otherwise, or alternative, or arbitrary model of referencing their functional roles in varying phrasal categories.


3.   Empirical test


a.            Appositive

1)      My favorite sport, football, takes a great deal of effort. (Single-word noun)
2)      My favorite sport, running, takes a great deal of effort. (Gerund)
3)      My favorite sport, running three miles, takes a great deal of effort. (Gerund phrase)





Inquiries in question

In sentence c), though the phrase running three miles is a gerund phrase, the actual function of the phrase is an adjectival. And the phrase cannot be translated as a noun phrase because the first two units are in apposition.
So only in the phrase rules of the functional approach, this constituent can be encoded as it is, which is an AdjlP.

Also, compare a phrase like my friend Alice, which is a colloquial form of the nouns that are in apposition for Alice, my friend.  That is, the apposition my friend modifies which Alice the speaker is referring to (not about the phrase my friend); there are more than one Alice (cf. my friend, Alice; there are more than one friend).  In functional phrases to syntax, these differences in modifications do not cause dependencies on any other secondary syntax theories for explanations; whether it is of a limiting modification or of an adding modification (e.g. Nathan, a city planer by training,) That is, the constituent of syntax in question at its best is namely an adjectival following a nominal or a noun while the syntactic function of the two elements in apposition is always co-referential (cf. a phrase like Professor Albert…, which is simply a noun phrase and not in apposition).    


b.            Adverbial infinitive

1)      To win, you need the highest number of points. (Adverbial infinitive and Verb respectively)
2)      To prepare for the storm, we nailed plywood over the store windows. (Adverbial infinitive and Verb)





Inquiries in question

In sentence a), To win is an infinitive phrase; but it is an adverbial in its actual role. So in the phrase structure rules of the functional approach, this constituent can be encoded as it is; (AdvelP).

Thus, why the ambiguity arises in cases like these is that a phrase structure is usually defined by the name of its head (cf. the contraries in the AdvlP phrase as in sentence a) versus the phrases as in to win requires courage and as in to win sport requires effort, which are NomlP as to their functional roles). And the noun sport in the latter case here serves only as a complement of its own phrase (NomlP), and the finite form of verb win functions as the object of the preposition to to transform the head in to a different category that is usually neither of the traditional phrasal syntax nor of a NP.        


c.             Nominal infinitives

1)      To climb Mt. Everest was my greatest ambition. (Nominal infinitive phrase used as subject) 

Inquiries in question

In this sentence, To climb Mt. Everest is an infinitive phrase; but it is a nominal in its actual role. So in the phrase structure rules of the functional approach, this constituent can be encoded as it is (NomlP); otherwise there are always structural ambiguities. Likewise, the traditional syntax can encode the phrase like the man with the telescope in The boy saw the man with the telescope only as a NP to mean both ‘The boy use the telescope to see the man' and 'The boy saw the man who had a telescope'.  That is, even the changing of liner order of words to the constituents of NP, the actual representations of constituents in syntax are not possible for interpretation; which are namely a NomlP to mean ‘The boy saw the man who had a telescope’ but an AdvelP to mean 'The boy use the telescope to see the man'. Moreover, in their interpretations, the complement in the latter case (the prepositional phrase for 'The boy use the telescope to see the man') is the complement of the verb (not of the NP). And for the former case, the object of the verb is a NomlP. 

So what militates a further issue here is that the inductive inquiries of dominant school of modern linguistics still instill the advanced study of syntax largely from a structural viewpoint for some reasons by attempting to construct a model of grammar as if the actual composition weren’t exist. 


D.   Research Methodology

It is thus begging the question that the phrase structure rules we ought to believe as what constitutes the syntax is a somewhat over generalized concept, and in particular with the question of roles of function words. While the ‘function words’, unlike 'open class words’, are neither characterized within the rules of phrases nor can form independent phrases that can follow the phrasal orders in syntax, the issue of codifying our corpuses remain puzzled to be the findings.

The need is thus far open for enlightenments and literature reviews. This study will locate and evaluate literary texts further in depth as shown here in the literature section and in my posts for LangLing in order to having to explore the controversies with the attempt to answer some of the problems obvious or ostensible in our current syntax theories.

Primarily vested with the observational research method in its task to a general research and writing for a dissertation with the preference to Chicago Manual of Style for Turabian Guide and author-date system of citation unless a department specific citation source is to be followed.

While the experimental hypotheses are to be accordingly staying normative in content analyzes and eventually for comparative and historical artifacts, bringing also manifest and latent contents together into the empirical test standardized at its best nominal scale as such the propositions of the study are to be with the greater certainty well kept to be remaining at their deductive or inductive capacity intact in this would, I judge, reckon a substantial drive for a search.  



No comments:

Post a Comment