1. GPSG, HPSG, LFG Jack Hoeksema

2. Syntax in the 1970’s Rapid growth of transformations: Movement: Wh-movement, relativisation, topicalization, V2, Subject-Aux inversion, Extraposition, Passivization, Raising to Subject, Raising to Object, Verb Raising,Quantifier Raising, clitic movement, etc. Deletion: Gapping, RNR, conjunction reduction, VP- deletion, have/be deletion, complementizer deletion, Equi-NP deletion

3. Leading to Complex derivations, reaching their apex in generative semantics, with extremely abstract underlying structures related to surface forms by a multitude of transformations

4. E.g. Postal 1970 ‘On the surface verb remind’ me PERCEIVE [Larry SIMILAR Winston Churchill] => Larry reminds me of Winston Churchill

5. Emonds 1970 and 1976 Limit the possibilities of transformations Structure-preserving transformations only So: no tree-pruning, nor tree-building by means of transformations

7. Brame 1976: Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics Chain of mutually dependent transformations: Equi-NP deletion, passive, raising to object If one falls, so will the others Making the transformational theory a house of cards

8. Bresnan 1978: Realistic syntax Problem with 1960’s transformational syntax was lack of psycholinguistic support The theory of derivational complexity had fallen apart: it does not predict order of acquisition, nor ease of computation A more realistic theory would not use transformations in a model of online production

9. Cf. Joan Bresnan, 1978, “A Realistic Transformational Grammar,” in Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George A.Miller, eds., Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, The MIT Press, (pp. 1-59).

10. Local transformations or base structure? John was rescued by Mary < Mary rescued John (transformation) John was rumoured to be gay (*they rumour John to be gay) *A Toyota was had by John (< John had a Toyota) Alternative: two base structures

11. Like so: S NP Mary VP V rescued NP John

12. and so S NP John VP V was VP V rescued PP P by NP Mary

13. The main problem Long distance movement Could not be done away by nontransformational means in the same way as the local transformations

14. Gazdar 1979 (=1981) Long-distance dependencies without movement by recursive feature- passing

15. Introducing slash features S NP John S/NP NP we VP/NP V like NP/NP [e]

16. And so on S NP John S/NP NP we VP/NP V reckon S/NP NP Fred VP/NP prefersNP/NP [e]

17. GPSG: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar Let G be a context-free grammar For each rule A -> B C add new rules A/D -> B C/D and A/D -> B/D C (metarule) And as well as: X/X -> [e] (for all X) (slash termination) And: S -> XP S/XP (slash introduction)

18. Bonus Coordinate Structure Constraint for free No need for Across-the-Board convention Beans, I like but Mary despises. *Beans, I like salad but Mary despises.

19. Recursive feature passing needed elsewhere in the grammar E.g. [+rel]: The boy who stole the bike The boy whose brother stole the bike The boy whose brother’s girlfriend stole the bike All bikes the colour of the handlebars of which is blue The boy about whose brother we are speaking

20. A sample tree with feature passing NP Det the N boy S’ PP[rel] P about NP[rel] Det[rel] whose N brother S’/PP[rel] NP we VP/PP V are VP/PP V speaking PP/PP [e]

21. Similarities with slash The boy whose brother and whose sister were abducted *The boy whose brother and Jim were abducted

22. Properties of GPSG Heavy use of features Metarules, next to regular PS rules Later stages: separation of Immediate Dominance from Linear Precedence General feature passing mechanisms: Head Feature Convention and Foot Feature Principle

23. Separating ID from LP PP -> P NP (in the car) PP -> P PP (from behind the car) VP -> V NP (drive the car) VP -> V PP (drive into the garage) Or: XP -> X, YP (ID) and X < YP (LP)

24. OUT: XP andXP/YP

25. And out: XP XP[rel]andXP

26. Note: Not all features “count” for coordination, only foot features do Masculine + feminine is OK (la femme et l’homme sont venus) Singular + plural is OK (the boy and the girls are in the yard) First and second person is OK (Me and you, we are a good team)

27. Later developments HPSG: Head-driven phrase structure grammar (1984 – 2005), deriving from the dissertation of Carl Pollard Adopts the idea from categorial grammar that PS-rules can be discarded because the selection information of lexical heads predicts phrase structure Is used frequently in computational linguistics

28. LFG: Lexical Functional Grammar Joan Bresnan 1980-2005

29. Properties Two levels of structure C-structure (tree) F-structure (representation of grammatical functions) Mappings between C-structure and F- structure