Constraint-based Syntax 2: Week 3: Difference between revisions

From English Grammar
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(65 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
<font size="3">
<font size="3">


<!--
== Maximal phrase types ==
== Maximal phrase types ==


Line 35: Line 36:
: The four subtypes of ''hd-comp-ph'' listed above are '''all''' the subtypes of ''hd-comp-ph'' that exist in this grammar and they are mutually incompatible. This means that every ''hd-comp-ph'' must also be '''one and only one''' of its maximal subtypes! As a consequence, in the online grammar you will never see the type ''hd-comp-ph''; instead, when a head combines with its complements, the program will display one of the maximal four subtypes listed in the table.
: The four subtypes of ''hd-comp-ph'' listed above are '''all''' the subtypes of ''hd-comp-ph'' that exist in this grammar and they are mutually incompatible. This means that every ''hd-comp-ph'' must also be '''one and only one''' of its maximal subtypes! As a consequence, in the online grammar you will never see the type ''hd-comp-ph''; instead, when a head combines with its complements, the program will display one of the maximal four subtypes listed in the table.


Exercise: parse all of the examples above and examine the structure of the respective phrases and how they are licensed by the information in the head daughter (HEAD, VFORM, and COMPS).
<span style="color: red>Exercise:</span> parse all of the examples above and examine the structure of the respective phrases and how they are licensed by the information in the head daughter (HEAD, VFORM, and COMPS).


[http://141.2.159.95:7002/wt/ Online Grammar for Chapter 2: HPSG Background]
[http://141.2.159.95:7002/wt/ Online Grammar for Chapter 2: HPSG Background]
Line 41: Line 42:
=== Clauses ===
=== Clauses ===


Clauses play a central role in GS' theory of English grammar. First, they have their own syntactic and semantic characteristics, which distinguish them from non-clauses. Secondly, they recognize a number of different clauses types that each have a distinctive combination of syntactic and semantic properties.
==== States of Affairs vs. Messages ====
In the system of GS, verbs and verb phrases have '''states of affairs''' (soa) as their content. Simplifying somewhat for now, a state of affairs consists of a situation in which objects that are present in the situation (which may be people, things, properties, etc.) stand in a certain relationship to each other. Here are some informal examples:
* a state of affairs involving two entities, Fido and Lilly, who stand in the relationship that he chases her (in this state of affairs)
* a state of affairs involving three entities, a book, Fido, and Lilly, who stand in the relationship that her gave it to her
* a state of affairs involving one entity, Lilly, who stands in the relationship that she snores (it is kind of awkward to say that something stands in a one-place relationship - it would be more intuitive in this case to say that Lilly has the property of snoring. But to keep the system general, we will also use the word relation when there is only a single object involved in the state of affairs.)


Note that a state of affairs is completely abstract: all by itself, nothing is said about whether there is such a state of affairs or not and nothing is said about whether somebody believes, claims, denies, or dreams of such a state of affairs! This is precisely the crucial difference between non-clauses and clauses: non-clauses such as verbs and verb phrases have such abstract states of affairs as their content. In contrast, clauses express '''messages about a state of affairs'''. One type of message is '''proposition''', the claim that a state of affairs actually holds. Thus, the sentence ''Lilly chases Fido'' expresses the proposition that ''there is'' a state of affairs where she chases him and by uttering this sentence, a speaker actually commits herself to the truth of the proposition, i.e. to the claim that the world corresponds to the state of affairs described in the sentence she uttered. In our case, this means that by uttering the sentence ''Lilly chases Fido'', the speaker claims that it is true that she chases him.


All clauses have in common that they are phrases and that they must have a content of type ''message'', as follows:
Each message type is grammatically associated with a distinct '''clause type''' (= a conventional combination of syntax and semantics) by the grammar of English. Since there are four message types, there also are four clause types. The table below illustrates the one-to-one relationship between message and clause types:


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
! Clause type !! Full name !! Content value !! Examples
! Clause type !! Full name !! Message type !! Examples
|-
|-
| ''decl-clause'' || declarative clause || ''austinian'' || Lilly danced.
| ''decl-clause'' || declarative clause || ''proposition'' || Lilly danced.
|-
|-
| ''inter-clause'' || interrogative clause || ''question''  || Does Lilly dance?, Who danced?
| ''inter-clause'' || interrogative clause || ''question''  || Does Lilly dance?, Who danced?
Line 59: Line 70:
|}
|}


== Head-Complement Phrases ==
The first case has already been discussed. The remaining cases are analogous. An interrogative clause expresses the message '''question'''. By uttering such a clause, the speaker can ask whether the state of affairs which is part of the message holds or doesn't hold. An imperative clause expresses the '''outcome''' that the speaker wishes the addressee to bring about i.e. which state of affairs should come to hold as a result of the speaker uttering this type of clause to one or more hearers. Finally, an exclamative clause expresses a fact which the speaker considers surprising or unusual.
 
In the following sections, we will present a number of constraints on non-clausal and clausal phrases that interact to define the four types of head-complement phrases and the four types of clauses introduced in this section.
 
== Constraints on all Phrases ==
 
There are 3 simple principles that apply to all phrases, clausal and non-clausal alike.
 
=== Empty COMPS Constraint (ECC) ===
 
[[File:ECC.jpg]]


Informally: phrases have empty COMPS values.


=== Head Feature Principle ===


[[File:HFP.jpg]]


Informally: phrases and their head daughters have identical HEAD features.


=== Background Inheritance Principle ===


[[File:bckgrnd-principle.jpg]]


Informally: phrases and their head daughters have identical values for the feature BCKGRND.


=== The 3 Phrase Principles Combined ===


[[File:phrase-constraint.jpg]]


-->


== The Phrase Hierarchy ==


[[File:phrase-hierarchy.jpg]]


== Constraints on the Phrasal Types ==


[[File:constraint-phrase.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-hd-ph.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-fin-vp.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-nf-hc-ph.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-clause.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-core-cl.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-decl-cl.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-decl-hd-su-cl.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-decl-ns-cl.jpg]]


[[File:constraint-cp-cl.jpg]]


=== Illustration of Constraint Inheritance ===


Since the type type{fin-vp} has several phrasal supertypes, a feature structure of that type must satisfy the following constraint:
<br>


[[File:constraint-fin-vp-plus-supertypes.jpg]]


== Exercises ==


1. Using the handout [[File:Phrasal Types.pdf|frame|'''Phrasal Types''']], compute by hand the overall constraints that the maximal subtypes of type ''phrase'' have to satisfy (leave out the type ''decl-ns-cl''). In other words: write into one feature structure all the constraints of each maximal subtype and its supertypes in the type hierarchy.


2. By parsing the following expressions in the [http://141.2.159.95:7003/wt/ Schematic Grammar], you can test the constraints associated with the type ''phrase'' and its subtypes, in particular the 4 maximal types whose overall constraints you were supposed to compute by hand in Exercise 1:


a. word subj_seeker<br>
b. word spr_seeker<br>
c. comp_seeker word<br>
<br>


3. By parsing the following expressions in our [http://141.2.159.95:7002/wt/ Regular Online Grammar], you will see which information authentic lexical entries contribute to a phrase:


a. Real "subject seekers":
* dances
* likes Lilly
b. Real "specifier seekers":
* cat
* picture of Lilly
c. Real "complement seekers":
* likes Lilly
* puts the books on the shelf
After you have tried the examples above, think up 3 more examples for each of the 3 types and try them out in the regular online grammar.




Line 157: Line 229:
This is a typical modal verb. Like the other modals, it has only finite forms. Again you get two solutions, a polarized and a non-polarized one. An intriguing difference between ''will'' and the unstressed ''do'' discussed above, is that ''will'' can occur in auxiliary constructions (and then is [AUX ''plus'']), but it can also occur in constructions where main verbs can occur as well (and then, like the main verbs, will be [AUX ''minus'']. In order to be compatible with both values of the feature AUX, ''will'', it takes the neutral value [AUX ''boolean''] in its lexical entry. All verbs that can appear in auxiliary constructions except for the forms of the unstressed ''do'' behave like ''will''.
This is a typical modal verb. Like the other modals, it has only finite forms. Again you get two solutions, a polarized and a non-polarized one. An intriguing difference between ''will'' and the unstressed ''do'' discussed above, is that ''will'' can occur in auxiliary constructions (and then is [AUX ''plus'']), but it can also occur in constructions where main verbs can occur as well (and then, like the main verbs, will be [AUX ''minus'']. In order to be compatible with both values of the feature AUX, ''will'', it takes the neutral value [AUX ''boolean''] in its lexical entry. All verbs that can appear in auxiliary constructions except for the forms of the unstressed ''do'' behave like ''will''.
        
        
 
== The Argument Realization Principle (ARP) ===
 
 
 
 
=== The Argument Realization Principle (ARP) ===


Recall that in GS the syntactic arguments of a word are in a sense represented twice: once on the ARG-ST (argument structure) list which, among others, is used for Binding Theory, and again on one of the valence lists SUBJ, SPR, and COMPS.  Rather than being arbitrary, the relationship between the ARG-S and the valence lists is governed by the '''Argument Realization Principle''':
Recall that in GS the syntactic arguments of a word are in a sense represented twice: once on the ARG-ST (argument structure) list which, among others, is used for Binding Theory, and again on one of the valence lists SUBJ, SPR, and COMPS.  Rather than being arbitrary, the relationship between the ARG-S and the valence lists is governed by the '''Argument Realization Principle''':
Line 187: Line 254:
Navigation:  
Navigation:  
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
  [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2| '''Main page''']]  [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2:_Week_1| ''''Week 1''']]  [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2:_Week_2| ''''Week 2''']]  Week 3 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week3 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week4 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week5 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week6 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week7 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week8 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week9 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week10
  [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2| '''Main page''']]  [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2:_Week_1| '''Week 1''']]  [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2:_Week_2| '''Week 2''']]  [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2:_Week_3| '''Week 3''']]  [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2:_Week_4| '''Week 4''']] &nbsp;&nbsp; [[Constraint-based_Syntax_2:_Week_5| '''Week 5''']]  &nbsp;&nbsp; Week6 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week7 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week8 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week9 &nbsp;&nbsp; Week10
</div>
</div>


Latest revision as of 10:02, 16 May 2017


The Phrase Hierarchy

Phrase-hierarchy.jpg

Constraints on the Phrasal Types

Constraint-phrase.jpg

Constraint-hd-ph.jpg

Constraint-fin-vp.jpg

Constraint-nf-hc-ph.jpg

Constraint-clause.jpg

Constraint-core-cl.jpg

Constraint-decl-cl.jpg

Constraint-decl-hd-su-cl.jpg

Constraint-decl-ns-cl.jpg

Constraint-cp-cl.jpg

Illustration of Constraint Inheritance

Since the type type{fin-vp} has several phrasal supertypes, a feature structure of that type must satisfy the following constraint:

Constraint-fin-vp-plus-supertypes.jpg

Exercises

1. Using the handout File:Phrasal Types.pdf, compute by hand the overall constraints that the maximal subtypes of type phrase have to satisfy (leave out the type decl-ns-cl). In other words: write into one feature structure all the constraints of each maximal subtype and its supertypes in the type hierarchy.

2. By parsing the following expressions in the Schematic Grammar, you can test the constraints associated with the type phrase and its subtypes, in particular the 4 maximal types whose overall constraints you were supposed to compute by hand in Exercise 1:

a. word subj_seeker
b. word spr_seeker
c. comp_seeker word

3. By parsing the following expressions in our Regular Online Grammar, you will see which information authentic lexical entries contribute to a phrase:

a. Real "subject seekers":

  • dances
  • likes Lilly

b. Real "specifier seekers":

  • cat
  • picture of Lilly

c. Real "complement seekers":

  • likes Lilly
  • puts the books on the shelf

After you have tried the examples above, think up 3 more examples for each of the 3 types and try them out in the regular online grammar.




Navigation: 

 Main page    Week 1    Week 2    Week 3   Week 4     Week 5     Week6    Week7    Week8    Week9    Week10

Retrieved from "https://www.english-linguistics.de/grammarparadise/wiki/index.php?title=Constraint-based_Syntax_2:_Week_3&oldid=1166"