Empirical arguments in the literature syntactic properties Locality - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Empirical arguments in the literature syntactic properties Locality of Grammatical Relations • Bender and Flickinger (1999a,b): Bob Levine and Detmar Meurers – Tag questions in English The Ohio State University – Richard phenomenon • H¨ ohle (1994, 1995, 1997): – complementizer agreement in Eastern Dutch dialects – agreement in gapless relative clauses in German – case assignment in English for-to infinitives • Meurers (1999, 2000): Scandinavian Summer School on Constraint-Based Grammar – Apparently non-local case assignment and agreement in German Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway • Przepi´ orkowski (1999): 6.–11. August 2001 – Raising across prepositions in Polish – Case agreement with numeral phrases in Polish 3 Course overview Empirical arguments in the literature semantic properties • Introduction (first part of Tuesday): • Baxter (1999) and Johnston (1999): English Purpose Infinitives – The traditional HPSG architecture • Levine (2000): English tough constructions – Locality of grammatical relations • Kolliaou and Alexopoulou (1999): Information Structure Instantiation • Empirical arguments for extending domains of traditionally local Constraint for link values of Clitic Left Dislocation phenomenon in Greek grammatical relations for – syntactic properties (case, subject-verb agreement, . . . ) – semantic properties (semantic index) • General discussion (second part of Saturday) 2 4

Related arguments in the literature HPSG grammars from a linguistic perspective relations between co-dependents within head domain From a linguistic perspective, an HPSG grammar consists of Semantic: • Kiss (2001): determining quantifier scope in German using arg-st • a lexicon licensing basic words Syntactic: • lexical rules licensing derived words • Przepi´ orkowski (1999): case assignment on arg-st • immediate dominance ( id ) schemata licensing constituent structure Morphosyntactic: • linear precedence ( lp ) statements constraining word order • Kathol (1999): agreement phenomena based on new agr architecture. • a set of implicational grammatical principles expressing generalizations (Kathol’s new agr setup forms the basis of Bender and Flickinger about linguistic objects 1999a,b and is used as supportive evidence in Meurers 1999). 5 7 The HPSG paradigm and the issue of locality Basic lexicon 2 3 � � phon she 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 6 � noun � 7 6 4 head 7 6 cat case nom 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 5 7 7 • The main building blocks of HPSG grammars (Pollard and Sag, 1994) 6 7 6 6 subcat �� 7 7 6 7 word → 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 synsem loc 2 3 6 7 ppro 6 6 7 7 6 7 – from a linguistic perspective 6 6 7 7 6 7 2 per 3 3rd 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 7 cont 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 7 – from a formal perspective index num sing 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 7 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 gend fem • Locality of grammatical relations in HPSG 2 3 � � phon painted 3 3 2 2 2 � verb � 3 6 7 6 head 7 6 vform psp 7 6 6 cat 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 D E 5 7 ∨ 6 6 7 7 subcat NP[nom] 1 , NP[acc] 2 6 7 6 6 7 7 synsem loc 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 2 3 7 7 6 6 paint 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 cont painter 1 7 7 6 7 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 painted 2 6 8

Lexical Rules General grammatical principles Example 1: The Head-Feature Principle (Pollard and Sag, 1994, p.399) A passive lexical rule (based on Pollard and Sag, 1987, p.215): 2 2 " # 3 3 � phrase � � synsem | loc | cat | head � verb 1 → head dtrs headed-struc dtrs | head-dtr | synsem | loc | cat | head vform psp 6 6 7 7 1 4 synsem | loc | cat 5 �→ 6 6 7 7 4 D E 5 subcat NP 1 , NP 2 ⊕ 3 2 3 2 " # 3 verb Example 2: The Clausal Rel Prohibition (Pollard and Sag, 1994, p.401) head 6 7 vform pas 6 7 4 synsem | loc | cat 6 7 6 7 6 7 5 4 D E D � � E 5 subcat NP 2 ⊕ 3 ⊕ PP[ by] 1 2 3 synsem h i " # head → nonloc | inher | rel {} verb 6 7 loc | cat 4 5 subcat �� 9 11 ID Schemata and LP Statements HPSG grammars from a formal perspective ID Schemata From a formal perspective (SRL, King 1989, 1994), a grammar consists of: Example: The Head-Complement Schema (Pollard and Sag, 1994, p.402) • The signature as declaration of the linguistic ontology 2 3 synsem | loc | cat | subcat � synsem � � phrase � � head-comp-struc � → – type hierarchy (which kind of objects exist) 6 7 dtrs headed-structure dtrs 4 5 head-dtr word – appropriateness conditions (which objects have which properties) ∨ . . . • The theory constraining the domain LP Statements – A theory is a set of description language statements, the constraints. – A linguistic object is grammatical (admissible with respect to a theory) Example: A restriction on the linearization of indefinite NPs in the German iff it satisfies each of the descriptions in the theory and so does each Mittelfeld (based on Lenerz, 1977; cf. also topol. fields in Kathol, 2000) of its substructures. NP[dat] < NP[acc,indef] 10 12

More on theories in the formal sense • local to a lexically extended head domain: – argument attraction: coherence (Germanic), restructuring (Romance) – control phenomena: raising and equi A theory is a set of description language statements, the constraints, which single out the grammatical objects from the ungrammatical ones. • not generally local to a domain: – topicalization • The description language statements consist of: ∗ filler ↔ gap ( slash ) – type assignment, path equality – wh -questions – conjunction, disjunction, negation ∗ filler ↔ gap ( slash ) ∗ wh -word ↔ wh -phrase ( que ) • Most of the theory – Lexicon, ID Schemata, and Principles – is already – relative clauses expressed using such statements. ∗ filler ↔ gap ( slash ) ∗ relative pronoun ↔ relative phrase ( rel ) • Other components can be formalized on this logical basis: LP statements – binding (principle C) (Richter and Sailer, 1995), Lexical Rules (Meurers, 1995, to appear) ∗ binder ↔ referring expression (recursive o-command definition) • An extension of SRL including relations and explicit quantification is – interpretation of quantifiers provided in RSRL (Richter 1997, 1999, Richter et al. 1999). ∗ occurrence ↔ interpretation ( qstore , retrieved ) 13 • extraposition? (cf. Kathol and Pollard, 1995; Keller, 1994, 1995; Kiss, 1998) 15 Locality of grammatical relations in HPSG Valence in HPSG The subcategorization requirements of a verb are represented on the subcat • local to lexical head of head domain: list and realized along the head projection. Sketch of a lexical entry: – binding (principles A and B): local o-command expressed in terms of 2 3 properties only present in lexical head of head domain phon < give > D E 2 3 6 7 cat | subcat NP 1 , NP 2 , NP 3 6 7 • local to part of head domain, between lexical head and realized dependent: 6 7 6 7 2 3 7 6 give’ 6 7 6 7 6 7 – syntactic properties of dependent: 6 synsem | local 7 giver 6 7 6 1 7 6 7 ∗ government 1 phenomena: case assignment, . . . cont 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 gift 7 7 6 2 7 ∗ agreement 2 phenomena: subject-verb agreement, . . . 4 5 4 5 4 5 given 3 Each subcategorization requirement (e.g., NP above) is only a partial • local to entire head domain: representation of the realized argument; it does not include information on: – semantic properties (relations, roles and indices): ∗ argument realization – phonological or morphological realization ∗ modifier realization – lexical or phrasal nature of the argument – syntactic head properties of lexical head: selection – internal constituent structure of the argument → makes head domains the essential domains for local 1 government: A head selects properties of its complement which are not properties of the head itself. 14 grammatical relations (government, agreement) 16 2 agreement: Two elements in a head domain exhibit the same morphological properties.