gpsg, hpsg, lfg
DESCRIPTION
GPSG, HPSG, LFG. Jack Hoeksema. Syntax in the 1970’s. Rapid growth of transformations: Movement : Wh-movement, relativisation, topicalization, V2, Subject-Aux inversion, Extraposition, Passivization, Raising to Subject, Raising to Object, Verb Raising,Quantifier Raising, clitic movement, etc. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
GPSG, HPSG, LFG
Jack Hoeksema
Syntax in the 1970’s
Rapid growth of transformations:
Movement: Wh-movement, relativisation, topicalization, V2, Subject-Aux inversion, Extraposition, Passivization, Raising to Subject, Raising to Object, Verb Raising,Quantifier Raising, clitic movement, etc.
Deletion: Gapping, RNR, conjunction reduction, VP-deletion, have/be deletion, complementizer deletion, Equi-NP deletion
Leading to
Complex derivations, reaching their apex in generative semantics, with extremely abstract underlying structures related to surface forms by a multitude of transformations
E.g. Postal 1970 ‘On the surface verb remind’
me PERCEIVE [Larry SIMILAR Winston Churchill] =>Larry reminds me of Winston Churchill
Emonds 1970 and 1976
Limit the possibilities of transformations Structure-preserving transformations only So: no tree-pruning, nor tree-building by
means of transformations
Brame 1976: Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics
Chain of mutually dependent transformations: Equi-NP deletion, passive, raising to object
If one falls, so will the others Making the transformational theory a
house of cards
Bresnan 1978: Realistic syntax
Problem with 1960’s transformational syntax was lack of psycholinguistic support
The theory of derivational complexity had fallen apart: it does not predict order of acquisition, nor ease of computation
A more realistic theory would not use transformations in a model of online production
Cf. Joan Bresnan, 1978, “A Realistic Transformational Grammar,” in Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George A.Miller, eds., Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, The MIT Press, (pp. 1-59).
Local transformations or base structure?
John was rescued by Mary < Mary rescued John (transformation)
John was rumoured to be gay (*they rumour John to be gay)
*A Toyota was had by John (< John had a Toyota)
Alternative: two base structures
Like so:
S
NP VP
Mary V NP
rescued John
and so
S
NP VP
John V VP
Vwas PP
P NPrescued
by Mary
The main problem
Long distance movement Could not be done away by
nontransformational means in the same way as the local transformations
Gazdar 1979 (=1981)
Long-distance dependencies without movement by recursive feature-passing
Introducing slash features
S
NP S/NP
John NP
we
VP/NP
V NP/NP
like [e]
And so on
S
NP S/NP
John NP
we
VP/NP
V S/NP
reckon NP VP/NP
Fred prefers NP/NP
[e]
GPSG: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar
Let G be a context-free grammar For each rule A -> B C add new rules
A/D -> B C/D and A/D -> B/D C (metarule)
And as well as: X/X -> [e] (for all X) (slash termination)
And: S -> XP S/XP (slash introduction)
Bonus
Coordinate Structure Constraint for free
No need for Across-the-Board convention
Beans, I like but Mary despises. *Beans, I like salad but Mary despises.
Recursive feature passing needed elsewhere in the grammar
E.g. [+rel]: The boy who stole the bike The boy whose brother stole the bike The boy whose brother’s girlfriend stole the
bike All bikes the colour of the handlebars of
which is blue The boy about whose brother we are
speaking
A sample tree with feature passing
NP
NP S’
Det N PP[rel] S’/PP[rel]
the boy P NP[rel]
Det[rel] Nabout
NP
we
VP/PP
V VP/PP
V PP/PPare
speaking [e]
whose brother
Similarities with slash
The boy whose brother and whose sister were abducted
*The boy whose brother and Jim were abducted
Properties of GPSG
Heavy use of features Metarules, next to regular PS rules Later stages: separation of Immediate
Dominance from Linear Precedence General feature passing mechanisms:
Head Feature Convention and Foot Feature Principle
Separating ID from LP
PP -> P NP (in the car) PP -> P PP (from behind the car) VP -> V NP (drive the car) VP -> V PP (drive into the garage)
Or:XP -> X, YP (ID) and X < YP (LP)
OUT:
XP
XP and XP/YP
And out:
XP
XP[rel] and XP
Note:
Not all features “count” for coordination, only foot features do
Masculine + feminine is OK (la femme et l’homme sont venus)
Singular + plural is OK (the boy and the girls are in the yard)
First and second person is OK (Me and you, we are a good team)
Later developments
HPSG: Head-driven phrase structure grammar (1984 – 2005), deriving from the dissertation of Carl Pollard
Adopts the idea from categorial grammar that PS-rules can be discarded because the selection information of lexical heads predicts phrase structure
Is used frequently in computational linguistics
LFG: Lexical Functional Grammar
Joan Bresnan 1980-2005
Properties
Two levels of structure C-structure (tree) F-structure (representation of
grammatical functions) Mappings between C-structure and F-
structure