Practical Grammar 9: Difference between revisions

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


== Functional Control ==
== Complement Clauses ==


<!--
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>.
* Create a new project and copy your previous grammar into your new project.
* On the basis of pages 102-108 in the textbook, make all the additions to the grammar that are necessary to yield the following o


(1) Ingrid tried to buy olives
(1) Fred thought that Lilly disappeared<br>
(2) Fred asked whether Lilly disappeared


[[File:Ingrid-tried-to-buy-olives-cs.JPG | 500px]] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There is nothing really special about these structures. As with prepositional phrases, we need
[[File:Ingrid-tried-to-buy-olives-fs.JPG | 500px]]
<br>
 
Make sure that your grammar makes the correct predictions for the sentence below:
 
(2) Ingrid buys olives <br>
(3) *Ingrid tried buys olives
-->
 
In this unit, we will extend the grammar to license sentences with verbs like 'try' and 'seems' which have interesting properties.
 
==''try (Control verb)''==
 
Notation:
 
In the exercises of this unit, we will have to implement '''Control''': this means that a GF of the higher verb and the SUBJ of the higher verb's XCOMP are identical.
 
In XLFG, this is written as follows:
 
* (↑SUBJ) = (↑XCOMP SUBJ);  means: the SUBJ of the higher verb and the XCOMP's SUBJ are identical.
* (↑OBJ) = (↑XCOMP SUBJ);  means: the OBJ of the higher verb and the XCOMP's SUBJ are identical.
 
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 9.1 </span>
* Go to <span class="newwin">[https://xlfg.labri.fr/ https://xlfg.labri.fr/]</span>.
* Create a new project and copy your previous grammar into your new project.
* On the basis of pages 102-103 in the textbook, make all the additions to the grammar that are necessary to yield the following outputs for sentence (1):
 
(1) Ingrid tried to buy olives.
 
[[File:Ingrid-tried-to-buy-olives-cs.JPG | 500px]] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
[[File:Ingrid-tried-to-buy-olives-fs.JPG | 500px]]
<br>
 
Implement the following grammatical assumptions:
 
* 'to' (the infinitive marker): assume that it is marked [IM:+].
* 'buy': [VFORM:INF]
 
Make sure that your grammar makes the correct predictions for the sentences below:


(2) Ingrid buys olives <br>
# lexical items for the new verbs
(3) *Ingrid tried buys olives
# lexical items for the two complementizers ''that'' and ''whether''
# two new phrase structure rules.


==''seem(Raising verb)''==
We make the following assumptions:


Notation:
# ''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.


The verb ''seem'' differes from the verb ''try'' in that ''seem'' does not assign a semantic role to its SUBJ. This is the first time we encounter such verbs. In XLFG, GFs that the predicate does not assign a role to are written between the closing '''>'' and the final apostrophe, as follows:
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 9 </span>


* PRED:'X<...>Y'
1. Open Grammar Grammar 9 - 2026-02-04<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.


Meaning of the line above: the GFs listed in ... are assigned semantic roles by the predicate, but the grammatical function Y is not.
Note that the complementizers in (1) and (2) cannot be exchanged:


(4) Ingrid seemed to buy olives.
(3) *Fred asked that Lilly disappeared<br>
(4) *Fred thought whether Lilly disappeared


<span style="color: blue>Exercise 9.2 </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
* Go to <span class="newwin">[https://xlfg.labri.fr/ https://xlfg.labri.fr/]</span>.
the word ''whether'' can only head interrogative clauses. In (4), we find the opposite incompatibility.
* Make sure that under 'Output Parameters' '''Extended Coherence test on Feature-Structures''' is set to '''Yes'''</span>.
* Create a new project and copy your previous grammar into your new project.  


* On the basis of pages 104-108 in the textbook, make all the additions to the grammar that are necessary to yield the following outputs for sentence (1):
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 10 </span>


[[File:Ingrid-seemed-to-buy-olives-cs.JPG | 500px]] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
1. Open your current version of Grammar Grammar 9 - 2026-02-04<br>
[[File:Ingrid-seemed-to-buy-olives-fs.JPG | 500px]]
2. 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>
<font size="2">
3. Parse. Your output should look exactly like the output decribed in the document Exercise-9-expected-output.pdf on Olat.


Extended Coherence Condition [non-final version] (p. 138)
* All governable functions present in an f-structure must occur in the value of a local PRED feature.
* All functions that have a PRED value must have a theta role.




<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|'''Week 7''']] [[Practical_Grammar_8|'''Week 8''']] '''Week 9''' [[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_new|'''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 10:39, 4 February 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 9 - 2026-02-04
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. Open your current version of Grammar Grammar 9 - 2026-02-04
2. 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.
3. Parse. Your output should look exactly like the output decribed in the document Exercise-9-expected-output.pdf on Olat.





Retrieved from "https://www.english-linguistics.de/grammarparadise/wiki/index.php?title=Practical_Grammar_9&oldid=5752"