1.[ s i forced him [ s pro to be kind]] phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational...

1. [S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:


2. [S I believed [S him to be kind]]




3. [S NP seems [S John to shout]]





4. [S NP tends [S John to shout]]






5. [S Bill [VP killed John]]







6. [S NP [VP was killed John]]








1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:









2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]











4. [S John tends [VP' to shout]]












6. [S John [VP' was killed]]















How does LFG capture













How does LFG capture•the difference between 1 and 2,













How does LFG capture•the difference between 1 and 2,•the non-argument status of the subject of 4,













How does LFG capture•the difference between 1 and 2,•the non-argument status of the subject of 4,•and the semantic role of the subject of 6?













How does LFG capture•the difference between 1 and 2,•the non-argument status of the subject of 4,•and the semantic role of the subject of 6?

Answer: Don’t operate on the trees,but annotate them with relevant informationabout syntactic functions and semantic arguments.

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

AP

to

V

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

AP

to

VP

V NP

S

NPI

believed

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to V

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V NP

S

NPI

believed

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

tends

shout

VP'

TO VP

V

to

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V NP

S

NPI

believed

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

tends

shout

VP'

TO VP

V

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

was

Bill

VP

V PP

NP

killed

by P

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V NP

S

NPI

believed

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

tends

shout

VP'

TO VP

V

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

was

Bill

VP

V PP

NP

killed

by P

INF

’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’PRET

XCOMPOBJ

SUBJ

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V NP

S

NPI

believed

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

tends

shout

VP'

TO VP

V

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

was

Bill

VP

V PP

NP

killed

by P

INFINF

XCOMPOBJ

SUBJ


XCOMPOBJ

SUBJ

PRETBELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V NP

S

NPI

believed

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

tends

shout

VP'

TO VP

V

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

was

Bill

VP

V PP

NP

killed

by P

PRES

SUBJINF

INF

XCOMP

INF

XCOMPOBJ

SUBJ


XCOMPOBJ

SUBJ

TEND ‹XCOMP› SUBJ’

PRETBELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V NP

S

NPI

believed

kindbe

himVP'

TO VP

V AP

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

tends

shout

VP'

TO VP

V

to

VP

V

S

NPJohn

was

Bill

VP

V PP

NP

killed

by P

PRES

SUBJINF

INF

OBLag

XCOMP

INF

SUBJ

XCOMPOBJ

SUBJ


XCOMPOBJ

SUBJ

TEND ‹XCOMP› SUBJ’

PRET

KILL ‹OBLag SUBJ›’

BELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

The functional information in the annotations

is represented in a separate functional structure

(f-structure), in the form of an attribute-value graph:

SUBJPRED ’I’CASE nom

TENSE pret

OBJPRED ’HE’CASE oblNUM sg

XCOMPSUBJPRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’

F-structure for I forced him to leave

f1 f2

f5

f6


TENSE pret




f1 f2

f5

f6



TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6


TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6

Describing parts of the structureby means of equations


TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6


f1 (TENSE) = pret


TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6


f1 (TENSE) = pretf1 (SUBJ) = f2


TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6


f1 (TENSE) = pretf1 (SUBJ) = f2f2 (CASE) = nom


TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6


f1 (TENSE) = pretf1 (SUBJ) = f2f2 (CASE) = nomf1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom


TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6



f2


TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6



f2

Alternative notation:

(f1 TENSE) = pret(f1 SUBJ) = f2(f2 CASE) = nom(f1 SUBJ CASE) = nom


TENSE pret





f1 f2

f5

f6



f2

Alternative notation:

(f1 TENSE) = pret(f1 SUBJ) = f2(f2 CASE) = nom(f1 SUBJ CASE) = nom

(f1 OBJ) = (f1 XCOMP SUBJ)

How to incorporatef-structure information

into a grammar

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced: ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'( TENSE) = pret( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced himVP'

to leave

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced himVP'

to leave

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced himVP'

to leave

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'( TENSE) = pret( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


Index the c-structure nodes

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:Replace them with f-structurevariables based on the node indices.

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)f2


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3

f3


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3

f3f4


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3

f3f4 (f3 OBJ)


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3

f3f4 (f3 OBJ)f5


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'( TENSE) = pret( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3

f3f4 (f3 OBJ)f5 (f3 XCOMP)


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'( TENSE) = pret( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3

f3f4 (f3 OBJ)f5 (f3 XCOMP)f6


S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP:3

V:4 NP:5

S:1

NP:2I

forced himVP':6

to leave(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'(f4 TENSE) = pret(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)

(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3



S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'(f4 TENSE) = pret(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)

(f1 SUBJ)f2 f1f3


The tree has done its job:Forget it.

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


(f1 SUBJ)f2f1f3f3f4(f3 OBJ)f5(f3 XCOMP)f6

Collect the instantiated equationsinto an f-description



Solve the equations in any orderto constuct an f-structure



SUBJ


f1 f2



SUBJ


f1 f2

f3



SUBJ


f1 f2

f3

f4



SUBJ

OBJ


f1 f2

f5

f3

f4



SUBJ

OBJ


f1 f2

f3

f4

f5



SUBJ

OBJ

XCOMP


f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5



SUBJ

OBJ

XCOMP

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'


f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5



SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP



f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5



SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ



f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5



SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ



f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5

Notice: The f-structure hasfewer levels than the c-structurebecause of the nodes annotatedwith ↓

SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ


The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structurenow stand in a many-to-one relation:

f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced himVP'

to leave

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ



f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced himVP'

to leave

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

The relation is called a projection relation.

SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ



f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced himVP'

to leave

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

The relation is called a projection relation.A set of nodes which project the same f-structureare said to constitute a functional domain.

A functional domain

Let us now move from

I forced him to leave

to

I believed him to leave

SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ


f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP

V NP

S

NPI

forced himVP'

to leave

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)


All we need to change is the lexical entry:

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

believed: ( PRED) = ’BELIEVE‹( SUBJ) ( XCOMP)›( OBJ)'( TENSE) = pret( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

VP

V NP

S

NPI

believed himVP'

to leave

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( XCOMP)

( PRED) = ’BELIEVE‹( SUBJ) ( XCOMP)›( OBJ)'( TENSE) = pret( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

All we need to change is the lexical entry:

SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ


f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5

This leads to the following change in the f-structure:

SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ

PRED ’BELIEVE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›(f4 OBJ)'

f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5


SUBJ

TENSE pret

OBJ

XCOMP SUBJ

PRED ’BELIEVE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›(f4 OBJ)'

f1 f2

f6

f3

f4

f5


The only change is in the mapping between syntactic functionsand argument positions, as expressed in the value of PRED.The syntax as such is unchanged.

1.[ s i forced him [ s pro to be kind]] phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational...

Documents