Practical Grammar 8: Difference between revisions

From English Grammar
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
<font size="3">
<font size="3">


So far, the arguments of verbs have all been determiner phrases (= DPs) like names, pronouns, or Det-N (''the cat'') configurations. But verbs can also take complements of other parts of speech. This week, we will encounter two new cases: namely, complements which are a. prepositional phrases and b. subordinate clauses.
So far, the arguments of verbs have all been determiner phrases (= DPs) like names, pronouns, or Det-N (''the cat'') configurations. But verbs can also take complements of other parts of speech. This week, we will encounter a new case: namely, complements which are prepositional phrases (= PPs).


== Prepositional Phrases ==
== Prepositional Phrases ==
Line 8: Line 8:
We want our grammar to generate sentences like the following:
We want our grammar to generate sentences like the following:


(1) The cat sat under the table.
(1) The cat sat under the table.<br>
(2) Robin put food on the table.
(2) Robin put food on the table.


Line 35: Line 35:
We make the following assumptions about the meaning of locational PPs like ''under the table'':
We make the following assumptions about the meaning of locational PPs like ''under the table'':


a. the meaning of the DP ''the table'' is a LANDMARK (= orientation point)
a. the meaning of the DP ''the table'' is a LANDMARK (= orientation point).<br>
b. different prepositions take the landmark as a basis and make different locations, depending on the meaning of the preposition. Thus, ''under'' uses the landmark '''the table''' to create the location '''under the table''', whereas ''on'' makes the location '''on the table''' from the same landmark.  
b. different prepositions take the landmark as a basis and make different locations, depending on the meaning of the preposition. Thus, ''under'' uses the landmark '''the table''' to create the location '''under the table''', whereas ''on'' makes the location '''on the table''' from the same landmark.<br>
c. Sentence (1) then says that the cat is sitting in the location under the table and sentence (2) says that Robin put the food into the location '''on the table'''.
c. sentence (1) then says that the cat is sitting in the location '''under the table''' and sentence (2) says that Robin put the food into the location '''on the table'''.<br>
d. In accordance with this, the whole PP bears the thematic role LOCATION to the verb, and
d. in accordance with this, the whole PP bears the thematic role LOCATION to the verb, and<br>
e. the DP object of the preposition bears the thematic role of LANDMARK to the preposition.
e. the DP object of the preposition bears the thematic role of LANDMARK to the preposition.


'''Important note''': the Wiki page currently does not allow me to upload pictures. Therefore, I have uploaded '''to Olat''' the file
Exercise-8-expected-output.pdf
which gives you the f-structure and the Argument Structure that your grammar should produce for sentences (1) and (2).


<span style="color: blue>Exercise 8</span>


 
1. Open Grammar-8<br>
 
2. Implement the analysis for sentences (1)-(2) as described above.<br>
 
3. Parse.
 
(2) translates into xlfg as follows:
 
3. VP → V PP
2. {
3. ↑=↓1;
4. (↑OBL) = ↓2;
5. }
 
Add the following rule for PPs:
 
6.  PP → P DP
7.  {
8.  ↑=↓1;
9.  (↑OBJ) =↓2;
10. }
 
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 7.1</span>
 
1. Open Grammar-7.1<br>
2. Add the two rules above to your grammar.<br>
3. Also add a correctly annotated rule VP -> V DP PP.<br>
2. Make sure that in all your VP rules that have a PP on the right the annotation on the PP is: (↑OBL) = ↓n.<br>
3. Add the prepositions ''to'' on ''on'' to your lexicon as follows:
to P
[PRED: 'to<OBJ>',
  PCASE: OBL_REC]
 
on P
[PRED: 'on<OBJ>',
  PCASE: OBL_LOC]
 
4. Add the following test items:
a. Oscar donated clothes to charity
b. Robin put food on the table
5. Parse.
<br>
<br>


<span style="color: blue>Exercise 7.2</span>
1. Add the following test items:
a. *Oscar donated clothes on charity
b. *Robin put food to the table
2. Parse!<br>
3. The grammar does not return the intended result. What is the problem?<br>
4. The problem is easy to fix with the same technique that we used to enforce subject-verb agreement.<br>
5. Do so and parse!
== Complement Clauses ==
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 8.1 (based on section 5.1 of the textbook)</span>
* Go to <span class="newwin">[https://147.210.117.56 https://147.210.117.56]</span>.
<!-- Grammar5-Ex 7.3-solution. -->
* Add the words in the following sentences:
(1) Fred thinks that Lilly disappeared<br>
(2) Fred enquires whether Lilly disappeared
Implement the following:
# ''that'' and ''whether'' belong to the part of speech C (= complementizer).
# Complementizers head CPs.
# CPs take two daughers: a C and an IP. The two daughters are co-heads of the CP.
# 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'''.
* 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:
3. *Whether Lilly disappeared sucks<br>
<span style="color: blue>Exercise 8.2</span>
* Go to <span class="newwin">[https://xlfg.labri.fr/ https://xlfg.labri.fr/]</span>.
<!-- * Open your latest grammar or start with a copy of Grammar5-.Ex8.1-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>
[[File:Sucks.JPG|500px]]
Your grammar should yield the following Argument Structure for sentence (2):<br>
[[File:Unknown.JPG|500px]]
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>
<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_9|'''Week 9''']]   
   [[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_9|'''Week 9''']]   
</div>
</div>
<!--  [[Practical_Grammar_10|'''Week 10''']]    [[Practical_Grammar_11|'''Week 11''']] [[Practical_Grammar_12|'''Term Paper Project''']] -->

Latest revision as of 06:35, 25 July 2025

So far, the arguments of verbs have all been determiner phrases (= DPs) like names, pronouns, or Det-N (the cat) configurations. But verbs can also take complements of other parts of speech. This week, we will encounter a new case: namely, complements which are prepositional phrases (= PPs).

Prepositional Phrases

We want our grammar to generate sentences like the following:

(1) The cat sat under the table.
(2) Robin put food on the table.

To achieve this, we need

  1. lexical items for the new verbs
  2. a phrase structure rule that creates PPs from a P and a DP
  3. two new phrase structure rules for verb phrases.

The Syntax of PPs

We make the following assumptions about the internal and external syntax of PPs:

A. The internal structure of the PP

a. the P is the head of the PP
b. the DP daughter of the PP bears the grammatical function OBJ

B. The external relationships of the PP

a. c-structure: the whole PP is treated as just another daughter of the verb phrase whose head is the verb selecting the PP. Thus, in (1), the VP has two daughters, a V and a PP. In (2), the VP has three daughters, a V, a DP, and a PP.
b. grammatical function: we will only deal with PPs that express locations, for example under the table and on the table. Accordingly, the verbs taking the PP as argument assign it the grammatical function LOC.

The Semantics of PPs expressing locations

We make the following assumptions about the meaning of locational PPs like under the table:

a. the meaning of the DP the table is a LANDMARK (= orientation point).
b. different prepositions take the landmark as a basis and make different locations, depending on the meaning of the preposition. Thus, under uses the landmark the table to create the location under the table, whereas on makes the location on the table from the same landmark.
c. sentence (1) then says that the cat is sitting in the location under the table and sentence (2) says that Robin put the food into the location on the table.
d. in accordance with this, the whole PP bears the thematic role LOCATION to the verb, and
e. the DP object of the preposition bears the thematic role of LANDMARK to the preposition.

Important note: the Wiki page currently does not allow me to upload pictures. Therefore, I have uploaded to Olat the file 

Exercise-8-expected-output.pdf

which gives you the f-structure and the Argument Structure that your grammar should produce for sentences (1) and (2).

Exercise 8

1. Open Grammar-8
2. Implement the analysis for sentences (1)-(2) as described above.
3. Parse.

Retrieved from "https://www.english-linguistics.de/grammarparadise/wiki/index.php?title=Practical_Grammar_8&oldid=5614"