The Metagrammar Goes Multilingual A Crosslinguistic Look at the V2 Phenomenon Owen Rambow Tatjana Scheffler Thanks to SinWon Yoon Aravind K. Joshi Alexandra Kinyon 22 juin 2007 Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 1 / 41
Outline Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar The V2 Phenomenon: German and Yiddish Crosslinguistic Analysis of V2 Our Implementation Sample Derivations Implementation & Evaluation Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 2 / 41
Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Outline Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar The V2 Phenomenon: German and Yiddish Crosslinguistic Analysis of V2 Our Implementation Sample Derivations Implementation & Evaluation Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 3 / 41
Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Multilingual Metagrammars Traditional focus: Grammar development Our focus: Linguistic generalizations Our approach: Find cross-linguistic and framework-neutral syntactic invariants Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 4 / 41
Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Goal of Project ◮ Our goal is theoretical: we want to identify cross-linguistic principles and language-specific parameters (as does theoretical syntax) ◮ MGs factor common properties of TAG elementary trees ◮ Theoretical syntax makes emprirical claims; they are not usually systematically validated ◮ XMG allows us to validate empirical claims we make! ◮ Side benefit: actually generating usable grammars for new languages (theory and applications are intertwined in NLP!) Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 5 / 41
Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Methodology of the Project 1. Identify issue to be handled: head position (V2) and scrambling 2. Choose theoretical solution to be implemented and verified in XMG: head features and underspecification 3. Implement: ◮ Take existing metagrammar for Korean ◮ Hypothesize a division into Universal Grammar and a Korean component ◮ Add German, modifying the UG where necessary ◮ Adapt German grammar into Yiddish – very few, if any, changes to UG necessary. 4. Generate grammar 5. Validate against (naturally ocurring) data Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 6 / 41
Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Major New Issue When Going Multilingual: Heads ◮ One language: relative position of verb and arguments determine word order ◮ Two languages: want language-independent generalizations about syntax; prototypical example: adverbs in English and French (Pollock): E: Charles (often) eats (*often) beans F: Charles (souvent) mange (souvent) des haricots ◮ Solution: claim verbal heads are in different positions on the projection in E and F , but adverb is always adjoined to VP ◮ In some languages (like German and Yiddish), it is clear that verbs can be in different positions on the projection, anyway ◮ For some languages (Korean), there is very little evidence for this notion, even cross-linguistically Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 7 / 41
Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Sample cross-linguistic and cross-framework syntactic invariants ◮ Finite number of syntactic categories (NP , PP , etc.) ◮ Notion of subcategorization (Candito’s dimension 1) ◮ Finite number of syntactic functions (subject, object etc.) ◮ Existence of valency alternations (Candito’s dimension 2) ◮ Argument realization, word order effects (such as V2 or wh -movement) (extension of Candito’s dimension 3). Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 8 / 41
Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars UG components ◮ TAG elementary tree is defined by a projection, a subcat frame, and a set of heads and their positions ◮ The set of heads is a function of valency alternations and of argument realization choices ◮ Much is underspecified in UG: e.g., category of head and arguments, order of head and sisters, etc. Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 9 / 41
Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars UG components (2) ◮ Universal diathesis alternations: passive, causative ◮ Spec heads, non-spec heads ◮ specifier arguments, non-specifier arguments Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 10 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar Outline Introduction: Multilingual Metagrammars Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar The V2 Phenomenon: German and Yiddish Crosslinguistic Analysis of V2 Our Implementation Sample Derivations Implementation & Evaluation Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 11 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar The V2 Phenomenon: German and Yiddish The Verb-Second Phenomenon (V2) (1) a. [Auf dem Weg] sieht [der Junge] [eine Ente]. on the path sees the boy a duck ‘On the path, the boy sees a duck.’ b. * [Auf dem Weg] [der Junge] sieht [eine Ente]. on the path the boy sees a duck Int.: ‘On the path, the boy sees a duck.’ ◮ Finite verb is required to be located in “second position” ◮ V2 languages include German, Dutch, Yiddish, Frisian, Icelandic, Mainland Scandinavian, and Kashmiri ◮ Small-scale linguistic variation: Behavior in embedded clauses differs Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 12 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar The V2 Phenomenon: German and Yiddish V2 in German (2) a. Der Junge sieht eine Ente auf dem Weg. the boy sees a duck on the path ‘On the path, the boy sees a duck.’ b. . . . , dass der Junge auf dem Weg eine Ente sieht. . . . , that the boy on the path a duck sees ‘. . . , that the boy sees a duck on the path.’ ◮ Main clauses exhibit V2 in German ◮ Embedded clauses with complementizers are verb-final Main Clauses Embedded Clauses German V2 V-Final Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 13 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar The V2 Phenomenon: German and Yiddish V2 in Yiddish (3) a. Oyfn veg zet dos yingl a katshke. on-the path sees the boy a duck. ‘On the path, the boy sees a duck.’ b. . . . , az dos yingl zet a katshke oyfn veg . . . , that the boy sees a duck on-the path ‘. . . , that the boy sees a duck on the path.’ ◮ As a verb-second language, Yiddish main clauses exhibit V2 ◮ Yiddish embedded clauses must also be V2 Main Clauses Embedded Clauses German V2 V-Final Yiddish V2 V2 Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 14 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar Crosslinguistic Analysis of V2 Methodology Idea Basic V2 phenomenon is the same in all V2 languages Our Approach Crosslinguistic generalizations are captured in one Metagrammar using different heads (see Rambow and Santorini, 1995) Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 15 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar Our Implementation Dealing With Word Order Variation in a Metagrammar Verbal trees are determined by: 1. A subcategorization frame 2. Valency alternations (e.g., voice) 3. Argument Realizations 4. A topology, which encodes the position and characteristics of the verbal head Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 16 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar Our Implementation Topology A topology is a combination of the projection and any compatible head(s). projection ◮ Empty verbal head plus its maximal projection ◮ Different types of clauses defined by features: ◮ non-finite clauses: [I: − ] ◮ root V2 clauses: [Top:+] ◮ finite clauses [M:+, I:+] heads ◮ Introduce categorial features ◮ The list of possible heads differs from language to language (similar to, but different from, (Gerdes 2002)) Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 17 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar Our Implementation A Finite Projection " # M VP + I + VP 2 3 C − M 6 − 7 6 7 T OP 6 7 − 4 5 I − ε Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 18 / 41
Verb-second in a Multilingual Metagrammar Our Implementation The Heads Define the Topology of Clauses Properties of the verbal heads (feature inventory) determine the positions of arguments and adjuncts: I (finite tense and subject-verb agreement): creates a specifier position for agreement, but allows recursion (i.e., adjunction at IP) Top (topic): a feature which creates a specifier position for the topic and which does not allow recursion M (mood): a feature with semantic content (to be defined), but no specifier C (complementizer): a lexical feature introduced only by complementizers Rambow & Scheffler ( ) Multilingual Metagrammar: V2 22 juin 2007 19 / 41
Recommend
More recommend
