Linear Order and Constituency Colin Phillips Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Laboratory Department of Linguistics University of Maryland.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PRACTICE CLASS #10 (#11) /30 Complex Sentence PRACTICE CLASS #10 (#11) /30.
Advertisements

CAS LX 522 Syntax I Week 3b. Constituents.
Lecture 2: Constraints on Movement.  Formal movement rules (called Transformations) were first introduced in the late 1950s  During the 1960s a lot.
Syntax. Definition: a set of rules that govern how words are combined to form longer strings of meaning meaning like sentences.
Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context Snedeker and Trueswell (2003) Psych 526 Eun-Kyung Lee.
Many syntacks much kategory so task very tree so PSR wow many lingwistix.
Midterm Exam Nov. 2 1pm to 4pm Room: 3002 NSH Open book –But no internet or cell phone May bring food. May step outside to smoke. May go to restrooms.
SYNTAX Introduction to Linguistics. BASIC IDEAS What is a sentence? A string of random words? If it is a sentence, does it have to be meaningful?
Linguistic Theory Lecture 8 Meaning and Grammar. A brief history In classical and traditional grammar not much distinction was made between grammar and.
1 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Eleni Miltsakaki AUTH Spring 2006-Lecture 4.
Matakuliah: G0922/Introduction to Linguistics Tahun: 2008 Session 11 Syntax 2.
Features and Unification
1 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Eleni Miltsakaki AUTH Fall 2005-Lecture 2.
Week 13a. QR CAS LX 522 Syntax I. Quantifiers We interpret Bill saw everyone as We interpret Bill saw everyone as For every person x, Bill saw x. For.
1 CONTEXT-FREE GRAMMARS. NLE 2 Syntactic analysis (Parsing) S NPVP ATNNSVBD NP AT NNthechildrenate thecake.
Dr. Ansa Hameed Syntax (4).
Models of Generative Grammar Smriti Singh. Generative Grammar  A Generative Grammar is a set of formal rules that can generate an infinite set of sentences.
Lecture 1 Introduction: Linguistic Theory and Theories
Syntax Nuha AlWadaani.
Linguistic Theory Lecture 3 Movement. A brief history of movement Movements as ‘special rules’ proposed to capture facts that phrase structure rules cannot.
11 CS 388: Natural Language Processing: Syntactic Parsing Raymond J. Mooney University of Texas at Austin.
Announcements  Exam review: Thursday in section  Midterm exam: Friday 2/9 BRING PURPLE SCANTRON SHEET BRING NO. 2 PENCIL.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 14, Feb 27, 2007.
Immediate constituent analysis and translation Identifying autonomous units.
Introduction to Linguistics
1 Statistical Parsing Chapter 14 October 2012 Lecture #9.
1 Introduction to Natural Language Processing ( ) Linguistic Essentials: Syntax AI-lab
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 13, Feb 16, 2007.
Syntax 1 st class on Syntax Chapter 4. Hierarchical Structure  Sentences have internal structure that makes them more than just a sequence of words.
Today Phrase structure rules, trees Constituents Recursion Conjunction
11 Chapter 14 Part 1 Statistical Parsing Based on slides by Ray Mooney.
1 Prof.Roseline WEEK-4 LECTURE -4 SYNTAX. 2 Prof.Roseline Syntax Concentrate on the structure and ordering of components within a sentence Greater focus.
Creativity of Language
Linguistic Essentials
Culture , Language and Communication
Language Mind and Brain: The Unification Problem Colin Phillips Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Laboratory Department of Linguistics University of Maryland.
Rules, Movement, Ambiguity
CSA2050 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Parsing I.
Natural Language Processing
Phrases and Clauses Adjective, Adverb, Prepositional Phrases. Embedding. Coordination and Apposition. Introduction to Clauses.
1 Natural Language Processing Lectures 8-9 Auxiliary Verbs Movement Phenomena Reading: James Allen NLU (Chapter 5)
CPSC 422, Lecture 27Slide 1 Intelligent Systems (AI-2) Computer Science cpsc422, Lecture 27 Nov, 16, 2015.
1 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Eleni Miltsakaki AUTH Spring 2006-Lecture 2.
SYNTAX.
Lecture 1: Trace Theory.  We have seen that things move :  Arguments move out of the VP into subject position  Wh-phrases move out of IP into CP 
Handling Unlike Coordinated Phrases in TAG by Mixing Syntactic Category and Grammatical Function Carlos A. Prolo Faculdade de Informática – PUCRS CELSUL,
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 11, Feb 9, 2007.
CSA3050: NLP Algorithms Sentence Grammar NLP Algorithms.
Parsers and Grammars Colin Phillips. Outline The Standard History of Psycholinguistics Parsing and rewrite rules Initial optimism Disappointment and the.
Syntax 2 Ling400. Phrasal Categories A group of words that behave like a unitA group of words that behave like a unit A phrase is used as a constituent.
Welcome to the flashcards tool for ‘The Study of Language, 5 th edition’, Chapter 8 This is designed as a simple supplementary resource for this textbook,
College of Science and Humanity Studies, Al-Kharj.
SYNTAX.
King Faisal University جامعة الملك فيصل Deanship of E-Learning and Distance Education عمادة التعلم الإلكتروني والتعليم عن بعد [ ] 1 King Faisal University.
Natural Language Processing Vasile Rus
Lecture 2: Categories and Subcategorisation
Probabilistic CKY Parser
SYNTAX.
Chapter Eight Syntax.
The Syntax of Focus Particles in German Event vs. Result Nominals
Part I: Basics and Constituency
Syntax.
CS 388: Natural Language Processing: Syntactic Parsing
BBI 3212 ENGLISH SYNTAX AND MORPHOLOGY
Chapter Eight Syntax.
Introduction to Linguistics
Principles and Parameters (I)
Syntax.
Presentation transcript:

Linear Order and Constituency Colin Phillips Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Laboratory Department of Linguistics University of Maryland

Incremental Structure Building An investigation of the grammatical consequences of incremental, left-to-right structure building

Incremental Structure Building A

AB

A BC

A B CD

A B C DE

AB

AB constituent

Incremental Structure Building A BC constituent is destroyed by addition of new material

Incremental Structure Building A BC

A BC constituent

Incremental Structure Building A B CD constituent is destroyed by addition of new material

Incremental Structure Building the cat

Incremental Structure Building the catsat

Incremental Structure Building the cat saton

Incremental Structure Building the cat sat on the rug

Incremental Structure Building the cat saton

Incremental Structure Building the cat sat on the rug

Incremental Structure Building the cat sat on the rug [sat on] is a temporary constituent, which is destroyed as soon as the NP [the rug] is added.

Incremental Structure Building Conflicting Constituency Tests Verb + Preposition sequences can undergo coordination… (1) The cat sat on and slept under the rug. …but cannot undergo pseudogapping (Baltin & Postal, 1996) (2) *The cat sat on the rug and the dog did the chair.

Incremental Structure Building the cat saton

Incremental Structure Building the cat satonsleptunder and

Incremental Structure Building the cat satonsleptunder and coordination applies early, before the V+P constituent is destroyed.

Incremental Structure Building the cat saton

Incremental Structure Building the cat sat on the rug

Incremental Structure Building the cat sat on the rug andthe dogdid

Incremental Structure Building the cat sat on the rug andthe dogdid pseudogapping applies too late, after the V+P constituent is destroyed.

Incremental Structure Building Constituency Problem Different diagnostics of constituency frequently yield conflicting results Incrementality Hypothesis (a) Structures are assembled strictly incrementally (b) Syntactic processes see a ‘snapshot’ of a derivation - they target constituents that are present when the process applies (c) Conflicts reflect the simple fact that different processes have different linear properties Applied to interactions among binding, movement, ellipsis, prosodic phrasing, clitic placement, islands, etc. (Phillips 1996, in press; Richards 1999, 2000; Guimaraes 1999; etc.)

Movement & Binding a.John gave books to them on each other’s birthdays.

Movement & Binding a.John gave books to them on each other’s birthdays. gave books to them on each other’s birthdays VP V V (Pesetsky 1995)

Movement & Binding a.John gave books to them on each other’s birthdays. gave books to them on each other’s birthdays VP V V (Pesetsky 1995)

Movement & Binding b. …and [give books to them] he did ___ on each other’s birthdays (Pesetsky 1995)

Movement & Binding b. …and [give books to them] he did ___ on each other’s birthdays gave books to them on each other’s birthdays V’ VP (Pesetsky 1995)

Movement & Binding b. …and [give books to them] he did ___ on each other’s birthdayså gave books to them on each other’s birthdays V’ VP (Pesetsky 1995)

give books VP V to them

give books VP V to them IP hedid

give books VP V to them IP hedid

give books to them VP V give books VP V to them IP he did I’ constituent movement

give books to them on each other’s birthdays VP V V give books VP V to them IP he did I’ constituent movement

give books to them on each other’s birthdays VP V V give books VP V to them IP he did I’ constituent movement binding under c-command

Linear Order Movement & Binding: Binding relation does not block movement, because it is established after movement Ellipsis & Binding: Binding/Scope do block ellipsis, because they are established too early in the left-right derivation

Ellipsis blocks Scope/Binding John gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays *…and Mary did on each other’s first day of school Bill read all the books in a week (ambiguous scope) …and Sue did in a month (unambiguous scope)

gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays VP V V IP John +fin I’

gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays VP V V IP John +fin I’ and VP IP Bill did I’

gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays VP V V IP John +fin I’ and VP IP Bill did I’

gave books to the children VP V IP John +fin I’

gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays VP V IP John +fin I’

gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays VP V IP John +fin I’ IP and VP IP Bill did I’

gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays VP V IP John +fin I’ IP and VP IP Bill did I’

gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays VP V IP John +fin I’ IP and VP IP Bill did I’ gave books to the children V VP

gave books to the children on each other’s birthdays VP V IP John +fin I’ IP and VP IP Bill did I’ gave books to the children V VP on each other’s first day of school VP

Linear Order There have been other recent accounts which show how to handle these facts in a standard ‘back-to-front’ approach to structure-building movement & ellipsisLechner, 2001 ellipsis & bindingBaltin, in press (NLLT) None of these alternatives explains the whole range of facts; nor do they explain how comparative ellipsis sometimes behaves like movement, other times like VP- ellipsis…

Comparative Ellipsis John read as many books as Bill did in a week. (ambiguous) John read as many books in a week as Bill did in a month. (unambiguous)

Comparative Ellipsis John read as many books as Bill did in a week. (ambiguous) John read as many books in a week as Bill did in a month. (unambiguous)

Comparative Ellipsis John read as many books as Bill did in a week. (ambiguous) John read as many books in a week as Bill did in a month. (unambiguous) distributive reading of adverbial PP destroys constituency of V+NP

Comparative Ellipsis John read as many books as Bill did in a week. (ambiguous) John read as many books in a week as Bill did in a month. (unambiguous) distributive reading of adverbial PP destroys constituency of V+NP after ellipsisbefore ellipsis

Interim Conclusion By building syntactic structures from left-to-right we can explain a number of otherwise mysterious constituency phenomena (see Phillips, in press for more examples) We knew independently that humans have a left-to-right structure-building system (i.e. parser, producer) Possibility arises that the incremental left-to-right system is the only structure-building system that humans have