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

There is a long-standing controversy as to whether it makes sense to try to define parts of speech cross-linguistically, and if so, how to do it. The generativist position, advocated by Chomsky (1970), Baker (2003), Chung (2012a, 2012b), Panagiotidis (2015) and many others, has almost always assumed that it does, focusing on noun (N), verb (V) and adjective (A), applying a combination of syntactic and semantic ideas and concepts. On the other hand, functionally oriented typologists such as Dryer (1997), Croft (2001) and Haspelmath (2010, 2012) seem to have largely come to the conclusion that it does not; while Wierzbicka (2010) argues that it can be done, using the grammatical treatment of certain Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) primes as universal exemplars. Here I will propose a different NSM-based approach, intended to be complementary to Wierzbicka’s, which uses NSM to define ‘semantic cores’, whose members are treated equivalently by certain kinds of grammatical phenomena, restricted in order to avoid the problem of ‘methodological opportunism’ discussed by Croft (2001). The goal is definitions that can be applied

On defining parts of speech with Generative Grammar and NSM