290 likes | 466 Views
GPSG, HPSG, LFG. Jack Hoeksema. 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.
E N D
GPSG, HPSG, LFG Jack Hoeksema
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
Leading to • Complex derivations, reaching their apex in generative semantics, with extremely abstract underlying structures related to surface forms by a multitude of transformations
E.g. Postal 1970‘On the surface verb remind’ • me PERCEIVE [Larry SIMILAR Winston Churchill] => Larry reminds me of Winston Churchill
Emonds 1970 and 1976 • Limit the possibilities of transformations • Structure-preserving transformations only • So: no tree-pruning, nor tree-building by means of transformations
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
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
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).
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
The main problem • Long distance movement • Could not be done away by nontransformational means in the same way as the local transformations
Gazdar 1979 (=1981) • Long-distance dependencies without movement by recursive feature-passing
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)
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.
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
Similarities with slash • The boy whose brother and whose sister were abducted • *The boy whose brother and Jim were abducted
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
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)
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)
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
LFG: Lexical Functional Grammar • Joan Bresnan • 1980-2005
Properties • Two levels of structure • C-structure (tree) • F-structure (representation of grammatical functions) • Mappings between C-structure and F-structure