HPSG approaches to information structure • A basic HPSG approach (Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı 1996; Engdahl 1999) The Interface of Syntax and Information Structure • Using information structure to explain away syntactic stipulations: from an HPSG perspective – Explaining Constraints on NP-PP Split in German (De Kuthy 2002) Kordula De Kuthy Introduction to HPSG, July 13, 2009 2/44 The approach to information structure of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı The interface between prosody and information structure • Following Bolinger (1958), Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı assume that focus and link • The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) is built on the information (topic) are each marked by a pitch accent: A accent (falling contour) and B packaging theory of Vallduv´ ı (1992), and they assume the same partitioning of accent (fall-rise). focus and ground , with the ground further divided into link and tail . • The connection between intonation and information structure is expressed in • Engdahl (1999) encodes this approach by enriching HPSG signs with the HPSG by extending the phon value with a feature accent and specifying: following information structure representation: 2 3 phon | accent A " # 2 3 word → 5 ∨ sign content 6 7 1 synsem | loc 4 2 3 context | info-struc | focus 1 2 3 focus content 6 7 6 7 6 " # 7 6 7 synsem | local | context 4 info-struc link content 6 7 6 7 6 7 ground 4 5 2 phon | accent B 3 4 5 5 tail content " # 5 ∨ content 6 1 7 synsem | loc 4 context | info-struc | ground | link 1 2 3 phon | accent unaccented " # content content 6 7 synsem | loc 4 5 context | info-struc info-struc The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 3/44 4/44
An example analysis: Narrow object focus An example analysis: Wide VP focus S fin S fin 2 2 3 3 " " focus # # focus 1 3 synsem | loc | context | info-struct " # h i 4 synsem | loc | context | info-struct link 4 6 6 7 7 ground link 4 ground 4 5 5 tail 2 NP nom VP fin NP nom VP fin 2 3 " " # # phon | accent B content 3 s | l 2 3 2 2 3 3 " # phon | accent B content 3 content 4 cxt | info-struct | focus 3 6 7 s | l " # 4 5 " # content 4 focus 1 6 7 4 s | l cxt | info-struct | ground | link 4 6 6 7 7 s | l cxt | info-struct 4 5 4 5 5 cxt | info-struct | ground | link 4 ground | tail 2 V fin NP acc John " # 2 3 phon | accent A phon | accent un John V fin NP acc " # s | l | content 2 content 1 6 7 s | l 4 5 " # 2 3 phon | accent A phon | accent un cxt | info-struct | focus 1 " # s | l | content 2 content 1 6 7 s | l 4 5 plays RUGBY cxt | info-struct | focus 1 plays RUGBY The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 5/44 The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 6/44 Information structure values of phrases Word order and information structure • In their work on Catalan, Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) observe that there is a correlation between the position in the sentence and the information status: • Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) propose that the general ID schemata for English – Link material is left-dislocated and tail material is right-dislocated. should be enriched by instantiation principles for the info-struc features. – What remains inside the core clause is interpreted as focal. • These principles are not fully formulated and include notions such as “not • To account for this correlation, the ID schemata for Catalan that license instantiated”, which cannot be interpreted in the model theoretic architecture dislocation also constrain the informational status of the daughters. of HPSG (Pollard & Sag 1994). (2) a. Link ID-schema: S # → NP i , S • Focus projection for English is specified so that focus can only project from " h " # focus 1 content 1 content 2 the most oblique argument daughter. link focus 1 2 b. Tail ID-schema: S # → NP i , S Note that for intransitive verbs, this focus projection principle licenses focus " h " # projection from the subject, as in (1). focus 1 content 1 content 2 tail focus 1 2 (1) a. [ [ Your MOTHER ] ] F phoned. b. [ [ Your MOTHER phoned. ] ] F • The word order is constrained so that a constituent whose link value is instantiated precedes the focus , which in turn precedes a tail , if there is one. The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 7/44 The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 8/44
Problems with content as the value of information features Incorrect focus values I: narrow focus 2 2 3 3 cat | head 3 (3) Q: Does she hate wine? • Engdahl (1999) does not discuss the nature of the content that is 4 s | l cont 6 A: No, she [ [ drinks ] ] F wine. 6 6 7 7 4 5 5 structure-shared with the info-struc features focus, link , and tail . cxt | info-str | focus 6 s h • It is important to note that this cannot be the traditional content " # representation of HPSG proposed in Pollard & Sag (1994): phon < she > 2 2 3 3 cat | head 3 synsem 1 – Under their approach, the semantics of a phrase is already assembled in the 4 s | l cont 6 6 6 7 7 4 5 5 lexical specifications of the semantic head. The content of the mother cxt | info-str | focus 6 and the semantic head daughter are structure shared, i.e., identical. h c – This leads to unwanted results in the cases of narrow focus on the verb and " # 2 3 phon < drinks > phon < wine > VP focus, since in both cases the focus value is identical to the focus value 2 3 " head 3 # synsem 2 6 7 of an all-focus utterance, as illustrated on the next page. 6 7 cat D E 6 7 6 7 subcat 1 NP 4 , 2 NP 5 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 2 3 6 6 7 7 drink’ s | l 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 cont 6 drinker 6 7 6 4 7 6 7 6 4 5 7 6 7 drunken 5 6 7 6 7 4 5 4 5 cxt | info-str | focus 6 The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 9/44 The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 10/44 Incorrect focus values II: VP focus Open issues in the approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı 2 2 3 3 (4) Q: What does she drink? cat | head 3 The following aspects of the approach need to be rethought: 4 s | l cont 6 A: She [ [ drinks wine ] ] F . 6 6 7 7 4 5 5 cxt | info-str | focus 6 • Where in a sign is the info-struc appropriately placed? s h • What are appropriate values for the information structure features focus and " # phon < she > ground ? 2 2 3 3 cat | head 3 synsem 1 4 s | l cont 6 6 6 7 7 4 5 5 • Proper principles determining the distribution of info-struc in the tree need cxt | info-str | focus 6 to be formulated. h c 2 3 2 phon < drinks > 3 phon < wine > 2 3 " " # # " head 3 # 6 7 6 7 cont 7 6 7 6 7 cat s 2 loc D E 4 5 6 6 7 7 cxt | info-str | focus 7 subcat 1 NP 4 , 2 NP 5 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 s | l 2 3 7 6 7 drink’ 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 cont 6 drinker 6 6 4 7 7 6 7 4 4 5 5 4 5 drunken 5 11/44 The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 12/44
Our approach to information structure in HPSG Phenomenon I: NP-PP Split in German Fronting of a PP • Two empirical challenges from the grammar of German (5) ¨ hat Sarah [ein Buch] ausgeliehen. Uber Syntax I. Accounting for context-effects on the grammaticality of NP-PP Split about syntax has Sarah a book borrowed (De Kuthy 2002) ‘Sarah borrowed a book on syntax.’ II. Explaining the definiteness effect that is observable when subjects occur as part of fronted non-verbal constituents (De Kuthy & Meurers 2003) Fronting of a partial NP (6) [Ein Buch] hat Sarah uber Syntax ¨ ausgeliehen. • We address these empirical challenges by a book has Sarah about syntax borrowed – investigating information structure requirements for partial fronting ‘Sarah borrowed a book on syntax.’ ∗ focus and focus projection ∗ connecting focus projection to what can be fronted – developing an HPSG account taking as its starting point the approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ ı (1996) 13/44 An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002) 14/44 Lexical restrictions affecting the NP-PP Split Context effects affecting the NP-PP Split (7) a. * ¨ (8) Gestern wurde in der Bibliothek eine Anzahl von Linguistikb¨ uchern geklaut. Uber Syntax hat Sarah [ein Buch] geklaut. Vor allem Semantikb¨ ucher verschwanden dabei. on syntax has Sarah a book stolen ‘Yesterday, a number of linguistics books were stolen from the library. Mostly books on ‘Sarah stole a book on syntax.’ semantic disappeared.’ b. * [Ein Buch] hat Sarah geklaut. ¨ uber Syntax ¨ Uber Syntax wurde jedoch [nur ein einziges Buch] geklaut. a book has Sarah about syntax stolen on syntax was however only one single book stolen ‘Sarah stole a book on syntax.’ ‘There was, however, only one book on syntax stolen.’ (9) Gestern war Klaus seit langem mal wieder in der Bibliothek. ‘Yesterday, Klaus went to the library.’ # [Ein Buch] wollte er dort ¨ uber Syntax ausleihen. a book wanted he there on syntax borrow ‘He wanted to borrow a book on syntax there.’ An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002) 15/44 An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002) 16/44
Recommend
More recommend
