Sag et al., Chapter 4

1. Sag et al., Chapter 4 Complex Feature Values 10/7/04 Michael Mulyar

2. Complex Feature Structures • Main point of this chapter: Complex feature structures are used to describe the notion of Valence. This greatly simplifies the grammar rules and collapses the distinction between words and phrases into one between complete (SATURATED) constituents and ones which lexically require complementation.

3. Question Does one need phrase structure rules, given the notion of SATURATION? • Quantifiers • Coordination • Modification

4. Examples (1) Pat relies on Kim. (2) *Pat relies. (3) The child put the toy on the table. (4) *The child put the toy. • The notion of valence—a verb requires complements, as lexically specified. Verbs also require specifiers [Fillmore’s Subject Principle].

5. Architecture: The Phrase Structure Rules • Lexical head-complementation • Phrasal head-specification Advantages: specifiers not embedded into complement rules; consistent with analysis of NOM in Ch 1; avoids underspecification (e.g. no grammar rules without phrases).

6. Implementation: Feature Structure Lists • VAL features COMPS and SPR described using feature structures (not atomic). • Feature structure lists used, where more than one argument is required. • Ordering in feature lists consistent with linear word order.

7. COMPS Feature • Transitive Verb COMPS HEAD noun SPR + • Abbreviated: [ COMPS <NP> ]. • Feature structure lists, e.g. put [ COMPS <NP, PP> ]. • Big advantage: this approach is flexible, i.e. will work with nouns, adjectives, etc. (Reduces need for categories! More on this later)

8. Questions (1) How to specify a complement PP? e.g. He put the book on the table vs. *He put the book of the table. (2) What about multiple complement frames?

9. Head-Complement Rule • Phrase Independent! • Predicts a flat structure for the English VP. phrase H word 1…n VAL [COMPS < >]VAL [COMPS <1…n>]

10. Specifiers • Verbs and common nouns require specifiers (more on quantifiers later). • Specification implemented phrasally (avoids groupings like [the book] [about Jim]). That is, only constituents with COMPS <> can be used with head-specification.

11. Head-Specifier Rule phrase  1 H VAL SPR <1> VAL [SPR <>] COMPS <>

12. The Valence Principle “Unless the rule says otherwise, the mother’s values for the VAL features (SPR and COMPS) are identical to those of the head daughter.” (p. 106)

13. Words and Phrases • SPR and COMPS features allow to dispense with distinctions between N and NOM; VP and V. • Names can still be applied, but these are no longer vital, since valence specification collapses the distinction between words and phrases. • Non-branching domination no longer needed.

14. Applying the system: Case Marking in Pipil (Problem 4) • Data in problem 4 shows that Pipil is a verb initial language. (VOS in transitive sentences and VS in intransitive sentences.) • Nouns require a determiner (ne). • Thus, head-specification only applies to nouns. (Verbs are SPR <>). English style head-complement rule will work so long as case is specified.

15. Pipil, cont. • From what we can tell, case marking is tripartite (S, A, and P). • Supposing that case is a lexical feature of the noun (a head feature CASE), we can write the following rule: phrase  H word 1…n VAL [COMPS < >] VAL [COMPS <1…n>] 1 HEAD noun CASE (S | P)

16. Agreement (A Lexical Analysis) • Ch 3 grammar treated agreement via a rule of grammar (e.g. AGR values for NP subjects and VPs must be identical). • Other heads, however, (adjectives and PPs) are not specified for AGR. (Example 31, p. 107). • Sag proposes a lexical solution: verbs and common nouns only need agree with their specifiers.

17. SHAC (Specifier-Head Agreement Constraint) • Applies only to verbs and common nouns • HEAD [AGR 1] VAL [SPR < [AGR 1] >] • Can be applied to determiner-noun agreement (more on quantifiers below).

18. Extending the formalism: Count and Mass Nouns • Sag argues that the count / mass distinction is not entirely semantic. • All smaller portions of furniture are not furniture? (Not infinitely divisible, though.) • Nouns specify for determiners (+COUNT or –COUNT), but are themselves unmarked for the feature COUNT. • The feature COUNT does not project to the phrasal level (e.g. SPR <> feature is used instead). Sag argues that this is consistent with the observation that no English verb requires only either count or mass nouns.

19. Quantifiers • Quantifiers like much or little are –COUNT; quantifiers like a or every are +COUNT. • How does the formalism account for: (1) Much furniture was broken. (2) *Much furniture looks bad. (3) Some furniture looks bad. Is (2) a problem for Sag’s prediction? Justice or peace SPR <>, but occur with some quantifiers?

20. Coordination: A first approach • The coordination rule in Ch 3 only allows coordination of conjuncts with identical head values. This clearly undergenerates. • Sag’s first suggestion is to coordinate conjuncts with identical Valence. (Rule 55, p. 116). • The rule overgenerates somewhat, as NP and S have equivalent valence but do not combine (Example 56).

21. Coordination • Pos and coordination. • Ellipsis must be accounted for: John reads and writes letters. (not generated by head-complementation rule) John reads and sends Bill letters. (not elliptical, as grammar correctly generates!)