CBA-2

Constraint-based Syntax 2

Welcome and Prospect

This course continues the course Constraint-based Analysis taught by Prof. Webelhuth in the previous semester. Constraint-based Analysis introduced the major theoretical techniques of the theory of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: types and type hierarchies, feature structures, constraints, and the six syntactic schemata proposed in Pollard and Sag (1994).

Constraint-based Syntax 2 focuses less on techniques and more on the structure of English. It illustrates that the techniques acquired by the students in the previous course are sufficient to develop concrete and insightful analyses of many English constructions, including the following: interrogative and relative clauses, passive sentences, and several varieties of infinitives.

Readings

We will read several chapters from the following book:

Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan Sag (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI.

Online Grammars

In order to prove the consistency and precision of the theory, we will again work with online grammars. These are available permanently. Here are the links to the grammars:

Online Grammar for Chapter 2: HPSG Background

OLAT

The OLAT course for CBA-2 is at Constraint-based Syntax 2 on OLAT.

Course and Module Requirements

Constraint-based Syntax 2 is Seminar A in the Core module Constraint-based Grammar (LING-CORE-CON). Seminar B is Constraint-based Semantics. The Modulhandbuch specifies the following requirements for the module:

1. Module Assessment

Seminar paper of about 15-20 standard pages (6,000-8,000 words, max. 4 weeks to complete / full time) or a 30-minute oral examination relating to seminar A or B. At the beginning of the seminar, the lecturer in charge will determine the possible forms of examinations.

2. Performance record

Oral presentation or written work (5 pages) for the seminar which is not the subject of the module examination.

Week 1

New Feature Geometry

The geometry of the feature structures of Ginzburg and Sag (from here on simply GS) differs slightly from that of Pollard and Sag (1994). Here is the general structure of a sign:

We find the following differences from the earlier feature geometry:

1. Instead of a SUBCAT list, there is now an ARG-ST. Only signs of type word have this list-valued attribute. Like SUBCAT, it contains all the syntactic arguments of a word. Unlike SUBCAT, this list is not used for head-driven phrase formation, however! It is used, among others, for the Binding Theory.
2. As part of the category information of the sign, we now find the 3 valence attributes SUBJ, SPR, and COMPS. Together with combinatorial schemas, they drive phrase formation from the information in the head daughter. They have the following properties:

• SUBJ: the list contains 0-1 synsem objects
• SPR: the list contains 0-1 synsem object
• Comps: the list contains 0-3 synsem objects

Some Words in the New Feature Geometry

The word I:

The word a:

Phrases

Unlike Pollard and Sag (1994), GS give subtypes to the type phrase which reflect the functional relationship between the head daughter and the non-head daughter(s). The following phrase types exist:

Head-Complement Phrases

A Head-Complement Phrase is formed from a word and one phrase for each of the synsems on the head's COMPS list. There has to be a 1:1 relation between the selected synsems and the phrases:

Head-Specifier Phrases

In a Head-Specifier Phrase a head combines with a phrase whose synsem is token-identical to the synsem on the head's SPR list:

Head-Subject Phrases

In a Head-Subject Phrase a head combines with a phrase whose synsem is token-identical to the synsem on the head's SUBJ list:

Note that unlike in Pollard and Sag (1994), subjects of verbs combine with the head in a Head-Subject Phrase, whereas determiners combine with the nominal they specify in a Head-Specifier Phrase!

Homework for next time

1. Read p. 17-38 in GS (ignore the section on lexemes at the beginning!
2. Study the type definitions in these pages and make sure you understand them!

Week 2

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:

In words, the principle says that the ARG-ST list is the result of merging the three valence lists into one list, with the elements of the SUBJ list coming first, followed by the elements on the SPR list, followed by the elements on the COMPS list.

Besides the ARP, the valence properties of words depend on their part of speech. Thus, all words of part of speech v must have a SUBJ list with exactly one element on it and a SPR list which is empty. In combination with the ARP, verbs of part of speech v thus must have the following properties:

1. The ARG-ST must have at least one element on it.
2. The first element of the ARG-ST is also the single element on the SUBJ list.
3. If there are additional elements on the ARG-ST, then these elements also occur on the COMPS list.
4. The elements which appear both on the ARG-ST and the COMPS list, appear in the same order on both lists.

The following exercises have the purpose of showing that the 4 statements above must be true.

Exercises on the append relationship (⊕)

Solved example:
Solve the equation!
<a,b> ⊕ <c,d> = < ___________ >
Type "a,b,c,d" into the text box to get the correct solution:
Solution: < a,b,c,d >

Now it is your turn:

Solve the equation!

<a,b> ⊕ <d,c> = < >

Solve the equation!

<> ⊕ <d,c> = < >

Solve the equation!

<> ⊕ <> ⊕ <> = < >

Solve the equation!

<> ⊕ <d> ⊕ <> = < >

Solve the equation!

<> ⊕ <> ⊕ <d> = < >

Solve the equation!

<d> ⊕ <> ⊕ <> = < >

Exercises on the ARG-ST and the valence lists of words of part of speech v

Assume the following two constraints on the valence of words of part of speech v:

1. [SUBJ <synsem>]
2. [SPR <>]

Fill in the empty boxes in accordance with the Argument Realization Principle.

[HEAD      v ]

[SUBJ     < >]

[SPR       < >]

[COMPS < >]

[ARG-ST <NP,PP>]

Fill in the empty boxes in accordance with the Argument Realization Principle.

[HEAD      v ]

[SUBJ     < >]

[SPR       < >]

[COMPS < >]

[ARG-ST <NP>]

Fill in the empty boxes in accordance with the Argument Realization Principle.

[HEAD      v ]

[SUBJ     < >]

[SPR       < >]

[COMPS < >]

[ARG-ST <NP,NP>]

Fill in the empty boxes in accordance with the Argument Realization Principle.

[HEAD      v ]

[SUBJ     < NP >]

[SPR       < >]

[COMPS < AP >]

[ARG-ST < >]