Practical Grammar 4: Difference between revisions

From English Grammar
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 37: Line 37:


== Exercise 4 ==
== Exercise 4 ==
A. State which feature the constrast between (1) and (3) motivates.
B. What are the possible values of that feature?
<span style="color: blue>
A. State which feature the constrast between (1) and (3) motivates.
B. What are the possible values of that feature?
</u>.</span>
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
{|
|-
| SUBJ  || <NP[''nom'']>
|-
| COMPS || < >
|}
</div>
</div><br>


♣ Add the following test sentences to your grammar and tell the program that they are ungrammatical:
♣ Add the following test sentences to your grammar and tell the program that they are ungrammatical:

Revision as of 10:54, 14 November 2020

Verbs and VPs

Next, we want to associate verbs and VPs with reasonable f-structures. As with NPs, we do this in two steps:

a. We add appropriate features to the lexical entries of verbs, and b. we add the correct annotation to the VP-rules, so that each node in the VP tree gets the desired f-structure.

Features of verbs

Let us look at the following sentences:

(1) I am happy. (2) They are happy. (3) I was happy.

Exercise

In the previous unit, we formulated the following annotated c-structure rule for combining a D and an N into NP:

1. NP -> D N
2. {
3.  ↑=↓1;
4.  ↑=↓2;
5. }

Let us now turn to the rule that combines a V and an NP into a VP:

VP -> V NP;

Exercise 4

A. State which feature the constrast between (1) and (3) motivates. B. What are the possible values of that feature?

A. State which feature the constrast between (1) and (3) motivates. B. What are the possible values of that feature? .

Check your answer

SUBJ <NP[nom]>
COMPS < >



♣ Add the following test sentences to your grammar and tell the program that they are ungrammatical:

(1) *John [disappeared the hospital].
(2) *Martha [stayed the hospital].
(3) *Fred [resides].
(4) *Joe [saw Fred John].
(5) *John [sent Martha to a check].
(6) *We [gave Fred].

♣ Parse each sentence.
♣ Does the grammar make the right prediction?
♣ If not, formulate in grammatical terms what the problem seems to be.

The PRED feature and valence

Valence is the representation of the knowledge speakers have about what other kinds of constituents a word needs to combine with. You will remember from traditional grammar the distinction between intransitive and transitive verbs. These are just names for those verbs, respectively, which do not need a direct object (i.e. the verb disappear) and those which do (like see).

(1)
John disappeared.
[PRED   'DISAPPEAR<SUBJ>']

(2)
The bottle broke.
[PRED   'BREAK<SUBJ>']

(3)
Joe saw Fred.
[PRED   'SEE<SUBJ,OBJ>']

(4)
Alice broke the bottle.
[PRED   'SEE<SUBJ,OBJ>']

(5)
John sent Martha a check.
[PRED   'SEE<SUBJ,OBJ,OBJ-TH>']

(6)
We gave Fred a wastebasket.
[PRED   'SEE<SUBJ,OBJ,OBJ-TH>']


PER 3
NUM sg
DEF -