Practical Grammar 8: Difference between revisions

From English Grammar
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
No edit summary
 
(76 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<font size="3">
<font size="3">
== 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.


== 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>.
* Open your latest grammar.
* Add the words in the following sentences:
 
(1) Oscar thinks Sarah likes musicals<br>
(2) Oscar thinks that Sarah likes musicals


* Make any further changes that are necessary to obtain exactly the f-structure (10) on p. 101 for (1)-(2).
(1) Fred thought that Lilly disappeared<br>
* Extend your grammar to predict the following facts:
(2) Fred asked whether Lilly disappeared


(3) Oscar enquires whether Sarah likes musicals<br>
There is nothing really special about these structures. As with prepositional phrases, we need
(4) *Oscar enquires Sarah likes musicals<br>
(5) *Oscar enquires that Sarah likes musicals


For sentence (3), you should obtain an f-structure which is identical to that of sentence (1), with the exception that the CLTYPE of (3) should be INTER.
# lexical items for the new verbs
# lexical items for the two complementizers ''that'' and ''whether''
# two new phrase structure rules.


Now make sure that your grammar does not license the following example:
We make the following assumptions:


(6) *Oscar thinks whether Sarah likes musicals
# ''that'' and ''whether'' belong to the part of speech C (= complementizer).
# A complementizer combines with a following S to form another S.
# 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 an S. The S bears the GF '''COMP'''.
# Complementizers have no PRED value.


This requires the use of a constraining equation in one place!
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 9 </span>


'''Note:''' the solution to this exercise is going to be posted under the name ''Practical Grammar 6_solution''.
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.


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


== Collecting everything we have done so far in one grammar ==
(3) *Fred asked that Lilly disappeared<br>
(4) *Fred thought whether Lilly disappeared


<span style="color: blue>Exercise 8.2</span>
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.


* Go to <span class="newwin">[https://xlfg.labri.fr/ https://xlfg.labri.fr/]</span>.
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 10 </span>
* Open the grammar ''Practical Grammar 7''. Except for test sentences, it is empty.
* Open xlfg again in a second browser tab by clicking on <span class="newwin">[https://xlfg.labri.fr/ https://xlfg.labri.fr/]</span>.
* Open your previous grammars in the second tab window and copy information from those grammars into ''Practical Grammar 7'' in the first browser tab until the grammar returns the expected result for all test sentences.


-->
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.


== Homework ==


<span style="color: blue>For next week, read pages 102-113 in the textbook.</span>


<font size="2">
<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"