Empty category phenomena in LFG Nigel Vincent University of Manchester.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lecture 2: Constraints on Movement.  Formal movement rules (called Transformations) were first introduced in the late 1950s  During the 1960s a lot.
Advertisements

 Christel Kemke 2007/08 COMP 4060 Natural Language Processing Feature Structures and Unification.
Feature Structures and Parsing Unification Grammars Algorithms for NLP 18 November 2014.
Lecture 4: The Complementiser System
07/05/2005CSA2050: DCG31 CSA2050 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Lecture DCG3 Handling Subcategorisation Handling Relative Clauses.
Lexical Functional Grammar : Grammar Formalisms Spring Term 2004.
Lexical Functional Grammar History: –Joan Bresnan (linguist, MIT and Stanford) –Ron Kaplan (computational psycholinguist, Xerox PARC) –Around 1978.
NP Movement Passives, Raising: When NPs are not in their theta positions.
Chapter 4 Syntax.
Intervention by gaps in online sentence processing Michael Frazier, Peter Baumann, Lauren Ackerman, David Potter, Masaya Yoshida Northwestern University.
Syntax Lecture 10: Auxiliaries. Types of auxiliary verb Modal auxiliaries belong to the category of inflection – They are in complementary distribution.
Dr. Abdullah S. Al-Dobaian1 Ch. 2: Phrase Structure Syntactic Structure (basic concepts) Syntactic Structure (basic concepts)  A tree diagram marks constituents.
Long Distance Dependencies (Filler-Gap Constructions) and Relative Clauses October 10, : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin (Examples from Kroeger.
Introduction to LFG Kersti Börjars & Nigel Vincent {k.borjars, University of Manchester Winter school in LFG July University.
Linguistic Theory Lecture 7 About Nothing. Nothing in grammar Language often contains irregular paradigms where one or more expected forms are absent.
Grammatical Relations and Lexical Functional Grammar Grammar Formalisms Spring Term 2004.
Lecture 11: Binding and Reflexivity.  Pronouns differ from nouns in that their reference is determined in context  The reference of the word dog is.
LFG Slides based on slides by: Kersti Börjars & Nigel Vincent {k.borjars, University of Manchester Winter school in LFG July
Lecture 6: Verbs with Clausal Arguments
1 Auxiliary Verbs and Movement Phenomena Allen ’ s Chapter 5 J&M ’ s Chapter 11.
University of Alberta6/3/20151 Governing Category and Coreference Dekang Lin Department of Computing Science University of Alberta.
DS-to-PS conversion Fei Xia University of Washington July 29,
Sag et al., Chapter 4 Complex Feature Values 10/7/04 Michael Mulyar.
1 Kakia Chatsiou Department of Language and Linguistics University of Essex XLE Tutorial & Demo LG517. Introduction to LFG Introduction.
June 7th, 2008TAG+91 Binding Theory in LTAG Lucas Champollion University of Pennsylvania
Week 14b. PRO and control CAS LX 522 Syntax I. It is likely… This satisfies the EPP in both clauses. The main clause has Mary in SpecIP. The embedded.
Phrase Structure The formal means of representing constituency.
CAS LX 522 Syntax I Week 9. Wh-movement.
CAS LX 522 Syntax I Week 11a. Wh-movement.
Emergence of Syntax. Introduction  One of the most important concerns of theoretical linguistics today represents the study of the acquisition of language.
Embedded Clauses in TAG
Feature structures and unification Attributes and values.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 14, Feb 27, 2007.
Extending X-bar Theory DPs, TPs, and CPs. The Puzzle of Determiners  Specifier RuleXP  (YP) X’ – requires the specifier to be phrasal – *That the book.
IV. SYNTAX. 1.1 What is syntax? Syntax is the study of how sentences are structured, or in other words, it tries to state what words can be combined with.
Binding Theory Describing Relationships between Nouns.
Linguistic Theory Lecture 10 Grammaticality. How do grammars determine what is grammatical? 1 st idea (traditional – 1970): 1 st idea (traditional – 1970):
October 15, 2007 Non-finite clauses and control : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 24, April 3, 2007.
Lecture 7: Tense and Negation.  The clause is made up of distinct structural areas with different semantic purposes  The VP  One or more verbal head.
1 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Eleni Miltsakaki AUTH Fall 2005-Lecture 4.
Albert Gatt LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 4. In this lecture Compositionality in Natural Langauge revisited: The role of types The typed lambda calculus.
Revision.  Movements leave behind a phonologically null trace in all their extraction sites.
Rules, Movement, Ambiguity
Linguistic Theory Lecture 5 Filters. The Structure of the Grammar 1960s (Standard Theory) LexiconPhrase Structure Rules Deep Structure Transformations.
October 25, : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin.
Fact Extraction Ontology Ontological- Semantic Analysis Text Meaning Representation (TMR) Fact Repository (FR) Text Sources Lexicons Grammars Static Knowledge.
 Chapter 8 (Part 2) Transformations Transformational Grammar Engl 424 Hayfa Alhomaid.
1 Natural Language Processing Lectures 8-9 Auxiliary Verbs Movement Phenomena Reading: James Allen NLU (Chapter 5)
Syntax Lecture 6: Missing Subjects of Non-finite Clauses.
ACTL 2008 Syntax: Introduction to LFG Peter Austin, Linguistics Department, SOAS with thanks to Kersti Börjars & Nigel Vincent.
Linguistics 187 Week 3 Coordination and Functional Uncertainty.
1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:
A Memory-Based Account of Linear Order Effects in English TAKAHASHI, Kei The University of Tokyo ISHIKAWA, Kiyoshi Hosei University.
 2003 CSLI Publications Ling 566 Oct 17, 2011 How the Grammar Works.
Clauses The building blocks of sentences: units of syntactic construction made of more than one phrase.
Lexical-Functional Grammar A Formal System for Grammatical Representation Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982 Erin Fitzgerald NLP Reading Group October 18, 2006.
3.3 A More Detailed Look At Transformations Inversion (revised): Move Infl to C. Do Insertion: Insert interrogative do into an empty.
LECT. 11 DR. AMAL ALSAIKHAN Government and Case Theories.
SYNTAX.
Embedded Clauses in TAG
Lecture 4: The Complementiser System
Statistical NLP: Lecture 3
Lexical Functional Grammar
Behavioral Properties of Subjects: matrix coding as subject
Lecture 7: Missing Subjects of Non-finite Clauses
ENG 3306 Raising and Control I.
:.
:.
Presentation transcript:

Empty category phenomena in LFG Nigel Vincent University of Manchester

Caveat This presentation was prepared for use at the LFG Winter School held at the University of Canterbury, 4-8 July It was designed to follow on from the foregoing presentation by Kersti Börjars. Feel free to make use of it but please acknowledge the source.

Properties of LFG Non-derivational Parallel correspondence Monotonic

Therefore LFG eschews: movement the (consequent) use of empty categories the (consequent) use of uninterpretable features (in particular Case and EPP) Instead, new analytical tools consistent with LFG premisses need to be found

A typology of empty categories ConstructionEmpty categoryOvert category Finite clause arguments propronouns Non-finite clause, ‘equi’ subjects PRO– Raising/passiveNP/DP traceanaphors (herself) Unbounded dependencies wh-traceR expressions

The treatment of ‘pro-drop’ Italian: (Memo) canta canta

f-structure for canta ‘(s)he sings’

English non-pro-drop English: Bill singsvs*sings sings

Control and raising ‘Missing’ subject relatable to matrix verb ‘Missing’ subject is a semantic argument of both verbs = control (aka equi) e.g. Bill tried to dance ‘missing’ subject only a semantic argument of the infinitival verb = raising e.g. Bill seemed to dance

equi vs raising Equi traditionally handled via a construction specific empty category with no overt analogue, viz PRO Bill tried [PRO to dance] Raising handled via movement [[e]seemed [Bill to dance]

Obligatory (OC) vs non- obligatory (NOC) control OC antecedentsNOC antecedents obligatoryoptional localnon-local c-commandingnot c-commanding uniquesplit

Bill tried to dance to dance requires a verb to introduce it introducing verb is in the next clause up therefore introducing verb c-commands inf. no split antecedence, so: *Bill tried (*for him and Sally) to dance

f-control = OC ‘Let us first observe that Williams’ “obligatory control” corresponds to our functional control. That is, the central properties that Williams takes to be characteristic of obligatory control follow from our theory of functional control.’ (Bresnan 1982: 350)

Functional control Involves ‘structure sharing between SUBJ of matrix verb and SUBJ of embedded verb Structure sharing achieved by means of a new type of function, namely the ‘open function’ XCOMP

COMP vs XCOMP COMP Bill said that Sally appointed Sue COMP XCOMP Bill persuadedSallyto appoint Sue OBJXCOMP

Lex entries:say, try, persuade say ‘say ’ try ‘try ’ persuade ‘persuade <(SUBJ) (OBJ) (XCOMP)’

Lexical Rule of f-control For any lexical form: a)XCOMP SUBJ = OBJ if present otherwise b)XCOMP SUBJ = SUBJ

F-structure for try

try‘try ’ (XCOMP SUBJ) = (SUBJ) ‘exhaustive’: same info referred to in two places in f- structure, so split antecedence impossible ‘local’: verb can only subcategorise for a clause contained in its own immediate constituent ‘obligatory’: control pattern can only be introduced via lexical entry of controlling verb ‘c-command’ (or f-command): controlling verb one clause up and thus subject/object/indirect object necessarily c-commands controllee

persuade vs promise ‘persuade ’ (XCOMP SUBJ) = (OBJ) ‘promise ’ (XCOMP SUBJ) = (SUBJ)

Lexical form for seem seem‘seem (SUBJ) (XCOMP SUBJ) = (SUBJ) NB: (SUBJ) outside the angle brackets shows it is syntactically but not semantically selected

F-structure for seem

believe ‘believe (OBJ)’ XCOMP SUBJ = OBJ

a-control vs f-control Functional control (models oblig control) Anaphoric control (models non-oblig control) Structure sharingCo-reference Open functionsClosed functions Corresponds to PROCorresponds to pro

Keep + –ing i)Susan discussed visiting Fred (anaphoric) ii)Susan kept visiting Fred(functional)

Passive: Visiting Fred was discussed/*kept by Susan Cleft: It was visiting Fred that Susan discussed/*kept

‘Tough’: Visiting Fred is unpleasant for Susan to discuss/*keep Gen subj: Susan discussed/*kept our visiting Fred

Mechanism of a-control Add the optional equation (  GF PRED) = ‘pro’ to the lexical entry of a non-finite verb

To visit Fred will annoy Susan

Obviation: English want vs Italian volere Bill wanted to visit Fred Bill wanted Susan to visit Fred MemovolevavisitareFederico Billwantedvisit.INFFred Memo voleva[che Susanna visitasse Federico] Bill wanted[that Susan visited Fred]

Wh-movement Involves link between a ‘filler’ and a ‘gap’ WhatdidBillput[e]in the box? fillergap

Unboundedness vs islands Potentially infinite distance between filler and gap Who did Bill want Sally to try to invite [e]? Yet certain close dependencies are not OK *What did Bill believe the report Sally said? (Complex NP Constraint)

Wh-constructions: the challenge for LFG Can we avoid recourse to empty categories? The construction seems to refer to categories/positions not functions: a) all categories except VP front b) categories move to a specific c- structure position

DFs vs GFs A functional account needs to identify a function for the wh-element: TOPIC:old information; relatives; topics FOCUS: new information; questions SUBJ: grammaticalized DF; default topic

Functional dependencies: outside-in Who did Bill visit? (  FOCUS) = (  OBJ) Who did Bill try to visit? (  FOCUS) = (  XCOMP OBJ) Who did Bill say that Susan visited? (  FOCUS) = (  COMP OBJ) Who did Bill say that Susan tried to visit? (  FOCUS) = (  COMP XCOMP OBJ) etc

Functional dependencies: inside-out Who did Bill visit? (  OBJ) = (  FOCUS) Who did Bill try to visit? (  OBJ) = ((XCOMP  FOCUS) Who did Bill say that Susan visited? (  OBJ) = ((COMP  FOCUS) Who did Bill say that Susan tried to visit? (  OBJ) = ((COMP XCOMP  FOCUS) etc

Functional uncertainty The infinite set of possible dependencies requires a means of selecting the right one for the sentence in question (  DF) = (  GF* GF)(Outside-in) (  GF) = ((GF*  DF)(Inside-out)

Outside-in functional uncertainty filler-gap relation expressed solely at f- structure with no empty c-structure Island constraints statable as conditions on the path from filler function to gap function (  DF) = (  {COMP, XCOMP}* (GF– COMP))

Off-path constraints (  DF) = (  {COMP, XCOMP}* (GF)) Only COMP and XCOMP can intervene between filler and gap So Complex NP Constraint follows since NPs cannot be COMPs or XCOMPs

Inside out functional uncertainty (IOFU) there is an empty node in c-structure the empty node is annotated with the equation: (  GF) = ((GF*  DF) provided there is a legitimate path from the gap to the required focus or topic function the equations can be solved and the structure is allowed

Why IOFU? f- /c-structure correspondences weak crossover effects wh- in situ and scope

Canonical structural realization SUBJ and OBJ must be realized as nominals (NP or DP)(Bresnan 2001) a) That he would be late, I never would have believed.(That he would be late = COMP) b) That he would be late was widely predicted. (That he would be late = ?) c) Under the bed, we said they would find him. (Under the bed = ADJ) d) Under the bed is where they found him. (Under the bed = ?)

CSR (cont.) If that he would be late in (b) is COMP, and if under the bed in (d) is PP, then CSR is violated. So, assume a null expletive subject [e]

Weak Crossover Who does his mother like [e]?(who ≠ his) f-precedence: a piece of f-structure f f-precedes a piece of f-structure g if the rightmost node associated with f precedes the rightmost node associated with g. A pronominal P cannot f-precede a constituent on which P is referentially dependent.