English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We are not arguing against any formal mechanism, but only against the claim that such mechanisms should replace lexical rules or lexical valence structures. We examined the proposed replacements and argued that they are inadequate or inferior to lexical rules. Our claim is neither new nor radical. Rather, we are defending a traditional view against various alternatives that could be seen as radical. Some of the respondents even suggest that our claim is uncontroversial and seem to question the need to discuss it. But others demonstrate very clearly that the controversy is alive and well! We thank all of the respondents for their valuable commentaries. Some of the comments directly address the issue of our target article, while others have no direct bearing on it but are interesting for other reasons. So in this response we primarily focus on those replies that are germane to the issue, while also addressing some other matters.

Two sides of the same slim Boojum: Further arguments for a lexical approach to argument structure