word order

Word order

Topics in Lexical-Functional Grammar

Ronald M. Kaplan and Mary Dalrymple

Xerox PARC

August 1995

Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 95, Barcelona 1

Standard phrase structure rules work well

for con�gurational languages like English

S �! NP VP

S

NP VP

. . . . . .

and make it easy to encode subcategorization,

grammatical functions, and predicate-argument relations


Japanese: scrambling

S

NP NP V

N P Adj N P oikaketa

chase

inu

dog

o

ACC

tiisai

small

kodomotati

children

ga

NOM

OR S

NP NP V

Adj N P N P oikaketa

chase

tiisai

small

kodomotati

children

ga

NOM

inu

dog

o

ACC


Warlpiri: breakdown of phrasal grouping

S

NP Aux NP V NP

N kapala

Pres

N wajilipinyi

chase

N

kurdujarrarlu

children

maliki

dog

witajarrarlu

small

26666666664

PRED `chase'

SUBJ

264

PRED `children'

SPEC `the'

MODS f

[

PRED `small'

]

g

375

OBJ

�

PRED `dog'

SPEC `the'

�

37777777775


Original LFG:

C-structure rules with regular right-hand sides allow for

considerable exibility

Concatenation, Union, Kleene-closure

VP �! V (NP) (NP)

(

AP

VP

)!

PP* (S)

Possible because of factoring of syntactic information into

di�erent domains:

Subcategorization is not de�ned con�gurationally


Observe: Regular sets also closed under intersection and

complementation

E.g., suppose that NP and S cannot cooccur:

VP �! V (NP) (NP)

(

AP

VP

)!

PP* (S) { �* NP �* S �*

vs.

VP �! V

8>>>><

>>>>:

(NP) (NP)

(

AP

VP

)!

PP*

(

AP

VP

)!

PP* (S)

9>>>>=

>>>>;


Boolean combinations of regular predicates:

Factor generalizations, but

don't change formal power or structural domain

ID: S ! [NP,VP] abbreviates S ! [VP* NP VP*]\[NP* VP NP*]

LP: NP < VP abbreviates :[�* VP �* NP �*]

S ! NP VP can be factored to S ! [ NP, VP ] \ [ NP < VP ]


Ignore Adverbs

VP �! V [(NP) (NP) PP* (VP) (S)]/ADVP

Equivalent, but misses a generalization:

VP ! V ADVP* (NP) ADVP* (NP)

(

ADVP

PP

)

* (VP) ADVP* (S)

[A B]/C

A B

� � �

C C C


Germanic cross-serial dependencies:

Beyond c-structure to functional constraints on word order


Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch

Evers (1975): Flat c-structure

S

0

dat S

NP NP NP V

0

Jan zijn zoon geneeskunde V V

0

wil V V

0

laten studeren


Accounting for cross-serial dependencies:

Bresnan, Kaplan, Peters, and Zaenen (1982)

VP �!

0@

NP

("OBJ)=#

1A

0@

VP

(" XCOMP)=#

1A

�

V

0

�

V

0

�! V

0@

V

0

(" XCOMP)=#

1A

Assumes hierarchical constituent structure


S

0

dat S

NP VP

VP

NP VP V

0

Jan zijn

his

zoon

son

NP V V

0

geneeskunde

medicine

wil

wanted

V V

0

laten

let

studeren

study

2666666666666664

SUBJ [`Jan']

PRED `want'

XCOMP

26666666664

SUBJ

PRED `let'

OBJ [`his son']

XCOMP

264

SUBJ

PRED `study'

OBJ [`medicine']

375

37777777775

3777777777777775


Problems with the Bresnan et al. (1982) solution:

Non-branching dominance chains (Johnson 1986)

S

0

dat S

NP VP

Jan VP V

0

VP V V

0

NP heeft

has

V V

0

een

a

liedje

song

willen

wanted

V

zingen

sing


Problems with the Bresnan et al. (1982) solution:

Coordination of complex structures (Moortgat)

. . . dat Jan een liedje schreef en trachtte te verkopen.

. . . that Jan a song wrote and tried to sell.


S

(" SUBJ)=#

NP

"=#

VP

Jan

("OBJ)=# OR

("XCOMP OBJ)=#

NP

"=#

V

0

een liedje

#2"

V

0

#2"

V

0

"=#

V

"=#

V

("XCOMP)=#

V

0

schreef trachtte

"=#

V

te verkopen


Functional uncertainty eliminates nonbranching chains:

Johnson (1986)

VP �!

0@

NP

("OBJ)=#

1A

0@

VP

("XCOMP

+

)=#

1A

�

V

0

�

Also solves the coordination problem


Nonbranching dominance chains eliminated

S

0

dat S

NP VP

Jan NP V

0

een liedje V V

0

heeft V V

0

willen V

zingen


But how to correlate word order and grammatical functions?

S

0

dat S

NP VP

NP NP V

0

Jan zijn

his

zoon

son

geneeskunde

medicine

V V

0

wil

wanted

V V

0

laten

let

studeren

study


Description by inverse correspondence

The inverse of the correspondence relation �

induces f-structure properties based on c-structure relations

n1:S

n2:NP n3:VP

n4:N n5:V

f

1

:

h

SUBJ f

2

:[ ]

i

Example: F-structure \category"

CAT(f; cats) holds i�

there is some n 2 �

�1

(f) such that �(n) 2 cats

Thus: CAT(f

1

, S), CAT(f

1

, V), but not CAT(f

2

, VP)


Complement selection by functional category

become (" PRED) = `becomeh(" SUBJ), (" XCOMP)i'

(" XCOMP SUBJ) = (" SUBJ)

CAT((" XCOMP), fA, Ng) _

CAT((" XCOMP), N)

John became a leader.

John became tall.

* John became in the park.

* John became to go.

compare ACOMP, VCOMP, ... (Kaplan and Bresnan 1982)


A Functional View of X-Bar Theory

A maximal node n can be of category XP if CAT(�(n), X).

XP

X

� [ ]

This justi�es an XP label

even though the XP does not dominate an X:

XP

X

� [ ]


Constraining word order possibilities: Functional Precedence

(Bresnan 1984, Kaplan 1987)

Precedence: Total order on strings (de�ning relation)

Partial order on trees (de�ning relation)

Not de�ned on f-structure

But: C-precedence <

c

naturally induces an f-structure

\precedence" relation <

f

via inverse of correspondence �


Functional Precedence

For two f-structure elements f

1

and f

2

, f

1

f-precedes f

2

if and

only if all the nodes that map onto f

1

c-precede all the nodes

that map onto f

2

:

f

1

<

f

f

2

i� for all n

1

2 �

�1

(f

1

) and for all n

2

2 �

�1

(f

2

), n

1

<

c

n

2

�

�1

partitions c-structure nodes into equivalence classes

because � is many-to-one


Example:2

664

f

1

:[ ]

f

2

:[ ]

f

3

:[ ]

3775

f

1

<

f

f

2

f

1

<

f

f

3

f

2

6<

f

f

3


Some properties of f-precedence:

Not antisymmetric, not transitive ) not an order

because � is not onto

24

f

1

:[ ]

f

2

:[ ]

35

f

1

<

f

f

2

f

2

<

f

f

1

but f

1

6= f

2

and f

1

6<

f

f

1


Some properties of f-precedence:

Can order non-sisters

S �! [ NP, VP

(" SUBJ) <

f

(" OBJ)

] S

NP

SUBJ

VP

V NP

OBJ

The ball fell.

Fell the ball.

The dog chased the ball.

* Chased the ball the dog.


Applications:

Anaphora

Constrained/free word order (Zaenen and Kaplan 1994)

Weak crossover (Bresnan 1984, 1994)

(with slightly di�erent de�nition)

etc.


Rules for Dutch

VP �! NP

�

("XCOMP

�

OBJ)=#

V

0

V

0

�! V

0BBB@

V

0

(" XCOMP)=#

(" XCOMP

+

OBJ) 6<

f

("OBJ)

1CCCA


Extending the solution to Swiss German

. . . das [er] [sini chind] [mediziin] wil la schtudiere.

. . . that [he] [his children] [medicine] wants let study

. . . `that he wants to let his children study medicine.'

. . . das [er] wil [sini chind] la [mediziin] schtudiere.

. . . das [er] [sini chind] wil la [mediziin] schtudiere.

. . . das [er] [mediziin] [sini chind] wil la schtudiere.

. . . das [er] [sini chind] wil [mediziin] la schtudiere.

But:

* . . . das [er] wil la [sini chind] [mediziin] schtudiere.

. . . that [he] wants let [his children] [medicine] study

Generalization:

All the nominal arguments of a particular verb precede it.


All the nominal arguments of a particular verb precede it:

VP �! [ NP

�

("XCOMP

�

NGF)=#

, V

0�

(" XCOMP

�

)=#

]

V

0

�! V

#6<

f

(" NGF)


Topicalization in Dutch:

All NP dependents can be topicalized, even from within an

XCOMP:

[Het boek] heeft Jan de kinderen laten lezen.

The book has Jan the children let read.

`Jan let the children read this book'.

Restrictions on word-order that apply to dependents in their

middle-�eld positions do not operate when those elements

appear in topic (fore�eld) position.


Generalization about middle-�eld word order:

S

0

�! XP S , where

XP = f NP

("

8<

:

XCOMP

COMP

9=

;

�

NGF) = #

j VP

(" XCOMP

+

)=#

j : : :g

VP �! NP

�

("XCOMP

�

NGF)=#

V

0

V

0

�! V

0BB@

V

0

(" XCOMP)=#

(" XCOMP

+

NGF) 6<

f

(" NGF)

1CCA

But topicalized elements do not satisfy this constraint.


S

0

NP S

het boek V NP NP V

0

heeft Jan de kinderen laten lezen

2666666666666664

TOPIC [the book]

PRED let

SUBJ [Jan]

OBJ [the children]

XCOMP

26664

PRED read

SUBJ

OBJ

37775

3777777777777775

the book f-precedes Jan and the children!


Re�ning the condition:

Restrict ordering conditions to operate

just within the VP domain

De�ne:

n

1

and n

2

are X-codominated i� the lowest node of type X that

dominates n

1

is also the lowest node of type X that

dominates n

2

.

VP

n

1

n

2

VP

NP NP

n

1

n

2

VP

n

1

VP

n

2

n

1

and n

2

are n

1

and n

2

are

VP-codominated NOT VP-codominated


Relativized f-precedence:

For two f-structure elements f

1

and f

2

and a category X,

f

1

f-precedes f

2

relative to X i� for all n

1

in �

�1

(f

1

) and for all

n

2

in �

�1

(f

2

), n

1

and n

2

are X-codominated and n

1

<

c

n

2

.

We write: f

1

<

Xf

f

2


Dutch topicalization: F-precedence relative to VP

V

0

�! V

0BB@

V

0

(" XCOMP)=#

(" XCOMP

+

NGF) 6<

VP

f

(" NGF)

1CCA

Imposes ordering constraints only on VP-codominated nodes

Constraints between fore�eld nodes

Constraints between middle-�eld nodes

No constraints between fore�eld and middle-�eld


Summary

� Some di�cult word order constraints can be captured with

LFG's exible c-structure notation

� More complex word order constraints involve an interaction

between functional and phrasal requirements

� The LFG correspondence architecture provides mathemati-

cally precise and linguistically useful notions for expressing

such constraints


word order

Documents