Practical Grammar 8: Difference between revisions

From English Grammar
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
No edit summary
 
(55 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
== Complement Clauses ==
== Complement Clauses ==


<span style="color: blue>Exercise 8.1 (based on section 5.1 of the textbook)</span>
Next, we come to the exciting topic of complement (= subordinate) clauses. Here are two examples:


* Go to <span class="newwin">[https://xlfg.labri.fr/ https://xlfg.labri.fr/]</span>.
(1) Fred thought that Lilly disappeared<br>
* Open your latest grammar or start with a copy of Grammar5-Ex 7.3-solution.
(2) Fred asked whether Lilly disappeared
* Add the words in the following sentences:


(1) Fred thinks that Lilly disappeared<br>
There is nothing really special about these structures. As with prepositional phrases, we need
(2) Fred enquires whether Lilly disappeared


Implement the following:
# lexical items for the new verbs
# lexical items for the two complementizers ''that'' and ''whether''
# two new phrase structure rules.
 
We make the following assumptions:


# ''that'' and ''whether'' belong to the part of speech C (= complementizer).  
# ''that'' and ''whether'' belong to the part of speech C (= complementizer).  
# Complementizers head CPs.
# A complementizer combines with a following S to form another S.
# CPs take two daughers: a C and an IP. The two daughters are co-heads of the CP.
# The C and the lower S are co-heads of the upper S.
# You need to add a new VP rule which allows a VP to consist of a V and a CP. The CP bears the GF '''COMP'''.
# You need to add a new VP rule which allows a VP to consist of a V and an S. The S bears the GF '''COMP'''.
 
# Complementizers have no PRED value.
* Make any further changes that are necessary to obtain the f-structure (10) on p. 101 for (1), with one exception: your grammar will not contain the information [CLTYPE DECL] in the main f-structure! For sentence (2), you should obtain an f-structure which is identical to that of sentence (1), with the exception that the CLTYPE of the COMP in (2) should be INTER.
 
Check what your grammar predicts for the following examples:
 
(3) *Fred thinks whether Lilly disappeared<br>
(4) *Fred enquires that Lilly disappeared
 
If your grammar licenses these examples, then add information to it that makes it impossible to derive a well formed f-structure for them.
 
Hint: think about the function of each of the complementizers!
 
== Subject Clauses ==
 
''That''- and ''whether''-clauses can also act as subjects:
 
1. That Lilly disappeared sucks<br>
2. Whether Lilly disappeared is unknown
 
Of course, the complementizers are still bound to their clause types:


5. *Whether Lilly disappeared sucks<br>
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 9 </span>


<span style="color: blue>Exercise 8.2</span>
1. Open Grammar Grammar 8<br>
2. Implement the analysis for sentences (1)-(2) as described above.<br>
3. Parse. Your output should look exactly like the output decribed in the document Exercise-9-expected-output.pdf on Olat.


* Go to <span class="newwin">[https://xlfg.labri.fr/ https://xlfg.labri.fr/]</span>.
Note that the complementizers in (1) and (2) cannot be exchanged:
* Open your latest grammar or start with a copy of Grammar6-solution.
* Add the sentences above to your test items.
* Change the grammar so that it makes the correct predictions for all test items.


Your grammar should yield the following Argument Structure for sentence (1):<br>
(3) *Fred asked that Lilly disappeared<br>
(4) *Fred thought whether Lilly disappeared


[[File:Sucks.JPG|500px]]
The reason is that there is an incompatibility of clause type information in (3) and (4): the verb ''thought'' requires a declarative clause as its COMP, but
the word ''whether'' can only head interrogative clauses. In (4), we find the opposite incompatibility.


Your grammar should yield the following Argument Structure for sentence (2):<br>
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 10 </span>


[[File:Unknown.JPG|500px]]
1. Add the feature CLAUSE_TYPE to the lexical entries that need it so that (3)-(4) are not accepted by the grammar for the reasons stated above, but (1)-(2) stay grammatical.<br>
2. Parse. Your output should look exactly like the output decribed in the document Exercise-9-expected-output.docx on Olat.


Notes:


a. treat ''is'' as a verb which combines with a COMP and an OBJ.<br>
b. treat ''unknown'' as an adjective.


<!--
== The Difference between Defining Equations and Constraining Equations ==
There are several types of equations that can be used in annotations. So far, we have encountered the following two:
(1) ↑=↓1; <br>
(2) (↑ OBJ) =↓2;
These equations are both defining equations.
'''Defining equations''' add their information to an f-structure.
There is a second kind of equation, which we have not seen yet, but which you will need for the following exercise. These are called constraininig equations.
'''Constraininig equations''' test whether their information is contained in an f-structure. They do NOT add the information themselves.
Illustration:
Case 1:
Imagine you have the following defining equation:
(↑ TENSE) = pres;
* it turns the f-structure [] into the f-structure [TENSE pres], i.e. it adds its information to the f-structure.
* it turns the f-structure [TENSE pres] into the f-structure [TENSE pres], i.e. it adds its information to the f-structure. If the information was already there, the f-structure remains the same.
Case 2:
Now, imagine you have the following constraining equation:
(↑ TENSE) =<sub>c</sub> pres
* it marks the f-structure [] as ill-formed, since it does not contain the information TENSE pres, i.e. the constraining equation is a test on an f-structure.
* it marks the f-structure [TENSE pres] as well-formed, but does not change it.
When to use a constraining equation:
'''Constraining equations''' are used when one item depends on some other item's adding a particular piece of information to an f-structure.
=== The Syntax of Constraining equations in xlfg ===
Since xlfg does not use subscripts, it uses "==" as constraining equations.
Illustration:
'''<span style="color: red>(↑ TENSE) =<sub>c</sub> pres</span>''' becomes '''<span style="color: blue>(↑ TENSE) == pres;</span>''' in xlfg.
-->
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
 
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<font size="2">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
   [[Practical_Grammar |'''Main page''']] [[Practical_Grammar_2| '''Week 2''']] [[Practical_Grammar_3| '''Week 3''']]  [[Practical_Grammar_4| '''Week 4''']]  [[Practical_Grammar_5| '''Week 5''']] [[Practical_Grammar_6| '''Week 6''']]  [[Practical_Grammar_7_new| '''Week 7''']]  '''Week 8''' [[Practical_Grammar_Help| '''Help''']]
   [[Practical_Grammar |'''Main page''']] [[Practical_Grammar_2|'''Week 2''']] [[Practical_Grammar_3|'''Week 3''']]  [[Practical_Grammar_4|'''Week 4''']]  [[Practical_Grammar_5|'''Week 5''']] [[Practical_Grammar_6|'''Week 6''']]  [[Practical_Grammar_7|'''Week 7''']]  [[Practical_Grammar_8|'''Week 8''']]  '''Week 9'''    
</div>
</div>
<!--  [[Practical_Grammar_10|'''Week 10''']]  [[Practical_Grammar_11|'''Week 11''']] [[Practical_Grammar_12|'''Term Paper Project''']] -->

Latest revision as of 05:28, 16 June 2026

Complement Clauses

Next, we come to the exciting topic of complement (= subordinate) clauses. Here are two examples:

(1) Fred thought that Lilly disappeared
(2) Fred asked whether Lilly disappeared

There is nothing really special about these structures. As with prepositional phrases, we need

  1. lexical items for the new verbs
  2. lexical items for the two complementizers that and whether
  3. two new phrase structure rules.

We make the following assumptions:

  1. that and whether belong to the part of speech C (= complementizer).
  2. A complementizer combines with a following S to form another S.
  3. The C and the lower S are co-heads of the upper S.
  4. You need to add a new VP rule which allows a VP to consist of a V and an S. The S bears the GF COMP.
  5. Complementizers have no PRED value.

Exercise 9

1. Open Grammar Grammar 8
2. Implement the analysis for sentences (1)-(2) as described above.
3. Parse. Your output should look exactly like the output decribed in the document Exercise-9-expected-output.pdf on Olat.

Note that the complementizers in (1) and (2) cannot be exchanged:

(3) *Fred asked that Lilly disappeared
(4) *Fred thought whether Lilly disappeared

The reason is that there is an incompatibility of clause type information in (3) and (4): the verb thought requires a declarative clause as its COMP, but the word whether can only head interrogative clauses. In (4), we find the opposite incompatibility.

Exercise 10

1. Add the feature CLAUSE_TYPE to the lexical entries that need it so that (3)-(4) are not accepted by the grammar for the reasons stated above, but (1)-(2) stay grammatical.
2. Parse. Your output should look exactly like the output decribed in the document Exercise-9-expected-output.docx on Olat.





Retrieved from "https://www.english-linguistics.de/grammarparadise/wiki/index.php?title=Practical_Grammar_8&oldid=5841"