Lexical Functional Grammar Mary Dalrymple Centre for Linguistics - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 1 / 80

Lexical Functional Grammar

Mary Dalrymple Centre for Linguistics and Philology Oxford University

York Frameworks, 4 May 2010

L F G

The constraint-based approach

Lexical Functional Grammar – 2 / 80

Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction Grammar, Simpler Syntax ...):

■ Different aspects of linguistic structure are realised by

different but related linguistic representations. Movement/transformations do not play a role.

L F G

Lexical Functional Grammar – 3 / 80

■ “Semantic roles, syntactic constituents, and grammatical

functions belong to parallel information structures of very different formal character. They are related not by proof-theoretic derivation but by structural correspondences, as a melody is related to the words of a

• song. The song is decomposable into parallel melodic and

linguistic structures, which jointly constrain the nature of the whole. In the same way, the sentences of human language are themselves decomposable into parallel systems

• f constraints – structural, functional, semantic, and

prosodic – which the whole must jointly satisfy.” (Bresnan, 1990) What theoretical architecture best reflects this view?

L F G

Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 4 / 80

Formal linguistic framework: A set of linguistic objects, rules, and/or processes, and a formal vocabulary for talking about

• them. Example: X-bar theory: phrase structure rules and trees.

L F G

Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 4 / 80

Formal linguistic framework: A set of linguistic objects, rules, and/or processes, and a formal vocabulary for talking about

• them. Example: X-bar theory: phrase structure rules and trees.

■ Formally explicit: Provides a way of making systematic,

clear, and testable claims about phrase structure.

L F G

Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 4 / 80

Formal linguistic framework: A set of linguistic objects, rules, and/or processes, and a formal vocabulary for talking about

• them. Example: X-bar theory: phrase structure rules and trees.

■ Formally explicit: Provides a way of making systematic,

clear, and testable claims about phrase structure.

■ Embodies some assumptions about how language works:

phrases (like VP) have heads (like V),

L F G

Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 4 / 80

Formal linguistic framework: A set of linguistic objects, rules, and/or processes, and a formal vocabulary for talking about

• them. Example: X-bar theory: phrase structure rules and trees.

■ Formally explicit: Provides a way of making systematic,

clear, and testable claims about phrase structure.

■ Embodies some assumptions about how language works:

phrases (like VP) have heads (like V),

■ but general enough to encompass a range of different

theories of phrase structure.

L F G

Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 5 / 80

Linguistic theory: A set of claims about the structure of language(s), which may (or may not) be stated with reference to a particular formal framework.

L F G

Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 5 / 80

Linguistic theory: A set of claims about the structure of language(s), which may (or may not) be stated with reference to a particular formal framework.

■ Example: The claim that all maximal X-bar projections

have bar level 2 (there is no N′′′ or V′′′′′).

L F G

Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 5 / 80

Linguistic theory: A set of claims about the structure of language(s), which may (or may not) be stated with reference to a particular formal framework.

■ Example: The claim that all maximal X-bar projections

have bar level 2 (there is no N′′′ or V′′′′′).

■ A well-designed formal framework guides development of

theory by providing explicit representations and theoretical vocabulary, and aids the linguist in developing better intuitions about language and (hence) better theories of linguistic structure.

L F G

Theories and frameworks: Other views

Lexical Functional Grammar – 6 / 80

■ Alternative view (NOT LFG): the formal framework should

not allow the linguist to formulate rules or describe constructions that are linguistically impossible.

L F G

Theories and frameworks: Other views

Lexical Functional Grammar – 6 / 80

■ Alternative view (NOT LFG): the formal framework should

not allow the linguist to formulate rules or describe constructions that are linguistically impossible.

■ This is a very strong view; e.g. disallows standard phrase

structure rules, since impossible languages can be characterised with (unconstrained) phrase structure rules (e.g., a language where every sentence is at least 3000 words long).

L F G

Theories and frameworks: Other views

Lexical Functional Grammar – 6 / 80

■ Alternative view (NOT LFG): the formal framework should

not allow the linguist to formulate rules or describe constructions that are linguistically impossible.

■ This is a very strong view; e.g. disallows standard phrase

structure rules, since impossible languages can be characterised with (unconstrained) phrase structure rules (e.g., a language where every sentence is at least 3000 words long).

■ The LFG view (also HPSG, other constraint-based

theories): use a simple, clean formal framework, and formulate linguistic theory as a set of claims stated with reference to the framework.

L F G

Theories and frameworks: Other views

Lexical Functional Grammar – 6 / 80

■ Alternative view (NOT LFG): the formal framework should

not allow the linguist to formulate rules or describe constructions that are linguistically impossible.

■ This is a very strong view; e.g. disallows standard phrase

structure rules, since impossible languages can be characterised with (unconstrained) phrase structure rules (e.g., a language where every sentence is at least 3000 words long).

■ The LFG view (also HPSG, other constraint-based

theories): use a simple, clean formal framework, and formulate linguistic theory as a set of claims stated with reference to the framework.

■ Advantage: No need to throw away or reformulate the

framework when revisions are needed to the theory.

L F G

LFG framework

Lexical Functional Grammar – 7 / 80

Formal framework of LFG:

■ Different aspects of linguistic structure are represented in

different ways, and are related to one another by piecewise correspondence (parts of one structure are related to parts

• f another structure).

L F G

LFG framework

Lexical Functional Grammar – 7 / 80

Formal framework of LFG:

■ Different aspects of linguistic structure are represented in

different ways, and are related to one another by piecewise correspondence (parts of one structure are related to parts

• f another structure).

■ The core of the formal framework of LFG has remained

remarkably stable since its beginnings in the late 1970s.

L F G

LFG framework

Lexical Functional Grammar – 7 / 80

Formal framework of LFG:

■ Different aspects of linguistic structure are represented in

different ways, and are related to one another by piecewise correspondence (parts of one structure are related to parts

• f another structure).

■ The core of the formal framework of LFG has remained

remarkably stable since its beginnings in the late 1970s.

■ LFG-based theories of linguistic phenomena have evolved

substantially since that time, and continue to evolve as new areas are explored and new theoretical proposals are formulated and evaluated.

L F G

LFG

Lexical Functional Grammar – 8 / 80

Two aspects of syntactic structure:

■ Functional structure is the abstract functional syntactic

• rganisation of the sentence, familiar from traditional

grammatical descriptions, representing syntactic predicate-argument structure and functional relations like subject and object.

■ Constituent structure is the overt, more concrete level of

linear and hierarchical organisation of words into phrases.

L F G

LFG’s c-structure and f-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 9 / 80

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V′ V

greeted

NP N

Chris

     

pred ‘greetsubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘David’

• bj
• pred

‘Chris’

• 

    

L F G

C-structure and f-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 10 / 80

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V′ V

greeted

NP N

Chris

     

pred ‘greetsubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘David’

• bj
• pred

‘Chris’

• 

    

In GB/Principles and Parameters/Minimalism:

■ C-structure = PF or Spellout? ■ F-structure = S-Structure or LF?

L F G

Other linguistic levels

Lexical Functional Grammar – 11 / 80

Since the inception of the theory, there has been much work on

• ther linguistic levels and their relation to c-structure and

f-structure:

■ Argument structure and argument linking

(Bresnan & Zaenen, 1990; Butt, 1995)

■ The syntax-semantics interface: “glue” semantics

(Dalrymple, 1999, 2001; Asudeh, 2004): interesting relations to categorial approaches, though with different assumptions about the relation to syntactic structure

■ Information structure and its relation to syntax and

semantics (Butt & King, 2000; Dalrymple & Nikolaeva, 2010)

■ Prosodic structure and its relation to syntax and semantics

(Mycock, 2006)

L F G

LFG as a component of other approaches

Lexical Functional Grammar – 12 / 80

LFG has also been adopted as a component of OT and DOP:

■ OT-LFG: Optimality-theoretic syntax with an LFG base

(Bresnan, 2000)

■ LFG-DOP: Data-Oriented Parsing with an LFG base (see

http://www.nclt.dcu.ie/lfg-dop/publications.html)

L F G

F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

L F G

F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

■ Abstract syntactic relations (familiar from traditional

grammar) like subject, object, adjunct

L F G

F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

■ Abstract syntactic relations (familiar from traditional

grammar) like subject, object, adjunct

■ Locus of subcategorisation

L F G

F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

■ Abstract syntactic relations (familiar from traditional

grammar) like subject, object, adjunct

■ Locus of subcategorisation ■ Criteria: anaphoric binding patterns, long-distance

dependencies, control, honorification, agreement, casemarking, ...

L F G

F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

■ Abstract syntactic relations (familiar from traditional

grammar) like subject, object, adjunct

■ Locus of subcategorisation ■ Criteria: anaphoric binding patterns, long-distance

dependencies, control, honorification, agreement, casemarking, ...

■ F-structure vocabulary is universal across languages

L F G

Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

      

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘David’ num sg

• 

     

L F G

Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

      

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘David’ num sg

• 

     

■ pred, tense num: attributes

L F G

Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

      

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘David’ num sg

• 

     

■ pred, tense num: attributes ■ ‘gosubj’, David, sg: values

L F G

Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

      

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘David’ num sg

• 

     

■ pred, tense num: attributes ■ ‘gosubj’, David, sg: values ■ past, sg: symbols (a kind of value)

L F G

Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

      

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘David’ num sg

• 

     

■ pred, tense num: attributes ■ ‘gosubj’, David, sg: values ■ past, sg: symbols (a kind of value) ■ ‘boy’, ‘gosubj’: semantic forms

L F G

F-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 15 / 80           

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘David’ num sg

• adj
• pred

‘quickly’

• 

         

An f-structure can be the value of an attribute. Attributes with f-structure values are the grammatical functions: subj, obj,

• bjθ, comp, xcomp, ...

L F G

F-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 16 / 80           

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘David’ num sg

• adj
• pred

‘quickly’

• 

         

A set of f-structures can also be a value of an attribute.

L F G

Sets of f-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 17 / 80

             

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

      

• pred

‘David’

• pred

‘George’

• 

     

adj

• pred

‘quickly’

• 

            

Sets of f-structures represent:

■ adjuncts (there can be more than one adjunct) or

L F G

Sets of f-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 17 / 80

             

pred ‘gosubj’ tense past subj

      

• pred

‘David’

• pred

‘George’

• 

     

adj

• pred

‘quickly’

• 

            

Sets of f-structures represent:

■ adjuncts (there can be more than one adjunct) or ■ coordinate structures (there can be more than one

conjunct)

L F G

Describing F-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 18 / 80

(f num) = sg is a functional equation. (f a) = v holds if and only if f is an f-structure, a is a symbol, and the pair a, v ∈ f. A set of formulas describing an f-structure is a functional description.

L F G

More Complex Descriptions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 19 / 80

(f subj num) = (g num) = sg f

    

pred ‘gosubj’ subj g

• pred

‘David’ num sg

• 

   

L F G

Finding the Right F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 20 / 80

Hindi verbs show person, number, and gender agreement: Ram Ram calegaa go.future ‘Ram will go.’ Ram (g pred) = ‘Ram’ (g case) = nom (g pers) = 3 (g num) = sg (g gend) = masc calegaa (f pred) = ‘gosubj’ (f subj case) = nom (f subj pers) = 3 (f subj num) = sg (f subj gend) = masc (f subj) = g

L F G

F-description and its solution

Lexical Functional Grammar – 21 / 80

(g pred) = ‘Ram’ (g case) = nom (g pers) = 3 (g num) = sg (g gend) = masc (f pred) = ‘gosubj’ (f subj) = g f

           

pred ‘gosubj’ subj g

       

pred ‘Ram’ case nom pers 3 num sg gend masc (f subj case) = (g case) = nom (f subj num) = (g num) = sg (f subj pers) = (g pers) = 3 (f subj gend) = (g gend) = masc

L F G

Formal descriptions: LFG vs HPSG

Lexical Functional Grammar – 22 / 80

■ HPSG takes a different view of formal descriptions from

• LFG. The HPSG view goes back to Functional Unification

Grammar (Kay, 1984), where unification (an operation on structures) was used to combine structures:

■ in HPSG, the constraints look (as much as possible) like

the structures.

■ That is why you sometimes see a set of instructions in what

looks like a representation – it is actually a constraint or description in the (apparent) form of a structure.

L F G

Formal descriptions: LFG vs HPSG

Lexical Functional Grammar – 23 / 80

HPSG’s Argument Realisation Principle (Sag et al., 2003, 432): word:

           

SYN

      

VAL

  

SPR A COMPS B ⊖ C

  

GAP C

      

ARG-STR A ⊕ B

           

⊖: list subtraction ⊕: list addition

L F G

Generalisations and constructions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 24 / 80

■ Expressing generalisations over functional descriptions:

templates (Dalrymple et al., 2004; Asudeh et al., 2008)

L F G

Generalisations and constructions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 24 / 80

■ Expressing generalisations over functional descriptions:

templates (Dalrymple et al., 2004; Asudeh et al., 2008)

■ Templates are names for bundles of functional equations

that characterise a construction.

L F G

Generalisations and constructions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 24 / 80

■ Expressing generalisations over functional descriptions:

templates (Dalrymple et al., 2004; Asudeh et al., 2008)

■ Templates are names for bundles of functional equations

that characterise a construction.

■ Templates can be defined in terms of other templates,

giving something like the inheritence hierarchy of HPSG (but involving relations among descriptions rather than linguistic objects).

L F G

Generalisations and constructions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 24 / 80

■ Expressing generalisations over functional descriptions:

templates (Dalrymple et al., 2004; Asudeh et al., 2008)

■ Templates are names for bundles of functional equations

that characterise a construction.

■ Templates can be defined in terms of other templates,

giving something like the inheritence hierarchy of HPSG (but involving relations among descriptions rather than linguistic objects).

■ Templates can be associated with words or with units that

are bigger than words, and are used to describe constructions in the Construction Grammar sense.

L F G

Generalisations and constructions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 24 / 80

■ Expressing generalisations over functional descriptions:

templates (Dalrymple et al., 2004; Asudeh et al., 2008)

■ Templates are names for bundles of functional equations

that characterise a construction.

■ Templates can be defined in terms of other templates,

giving something like the inheritence hierarchy of HPSG (but involving relations among descriptions rather than linguistic objects).

■ Templates can be associated with words or with units that

are bigger than words, and are used to describe constructions in the Construction Grammar sense.

■ This is a relatively recent area of exploration in LFG.

L F G

Semantic Forms

Lexical Functional Grammar – 25 / 80

Subcategorisation requirements are imposed at f-structure (not c-structure) – a predicate specifies a set of grammatical functions, and the phrase structure grammar of the language determines where in the tree these functions can appear. Subcategorisation requirements are specified by semantic forms: (f pred) = ‘gosubj’ Semantic forms have argument lists that list the arguments they require.

L F G

Grammatical functions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 26 / 80

Non-argument topic Discourse function focus Argument Core subj (governable)

• bj

Non-discourse function

• bjθ

Non-core

• blθ

comp Non-argument adj(unct) (from B¨

• rjars & Vincent 2004)

L F G

Completeness

Lexical Functional Grammar – 27 / 80

Completeness requires: All arguments which are listed in the semantic form must be present. (f pred) = ‘gosubj’ “Go” must have a subj.

L F G

Coherence

Lexical Functional Grammar – 28 / 80

Coherence requires: No arguments which are not listed in the semantic form may be present. (f pred) = ‘gosubj’ “Go” may not have a obj.

L F G

Coherence

Lexical Functional Grammar – 28 / 80

Coherence requires: No arguments which are not listed in the semantic form may be present. (f pred) = ‘gosubj’ “Go” may not have a obj. Completeness and coherence are the equivalent (more or less) of the Theta Criterion of GB theory, or the Valence Principle and Root Condition of HPSG.

L F G

Semantic Forms and Uniqueness

Lexical Functional Grammar – 29 / 80

*wati man.abs ka pres parnka-mi run-nonpast karnta woman.abs ‘The man runs the woman.’ (Warlpiri) wati (g pred) = ‘man’ karnta (g pred) = ‘woman’ Each use of a semantic form is unique.

L F G

Conflicting Semantic Forms

Lexical Functional Grammar – 30 / 80

wati (g pred) = ‘man’ karnta (g pred) = ‘woman’ Ill-formed f-structure:

    

pred ‘runsubj’ tense pres subj g

• pred

‘man’/‘woman’

• 

   

L F G

Optionality

Lexical Functional Grammar – 31 / 80

njˆ uchi bees zi-n´ a-l´ um-a subj-past-bite-indicative alenje hunters ‘The bees bit the hunters.’ (Chicheˆ wa) zi-n´ a-l´ um-a subj-past-bite-indicative alenje hunters ‘They bit the hunters.’ zi-n´ a-l´ um-a: ((f subj pred) = ‘pro’) zi-n´ a-l´ um-a optionally contributes a pred for its subj.

L F G

Overt subject

Lexical Functional Grammar – 32 / 80

njˆ uchi bees zi-n´ a-l´ um-a subj-past-bite-indicative alenje hunters ‘The bees bit the hunters.’ f

          

pred ‘bitesubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘bees’ nounclass 10

• bj
• pred

‘hunters’ nounclass 2

• 

         

L F G

No overt subject

Lexical Functional Grammar – 33 / 80

zi-n´ a-l´ um-a subj-past-bite-indicative alenje hunters ‘They bit the hunters.’ f

          

pred ‘bitesubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘pro’ nounclass 10

• bj
• pred

‘hunters’ nounclass 2

• 

         

L F G

Optionality: Clitics

Lexical Functional Grammar – 34 / 80

Juan Juan vi´

• saw

a prep Pedro. Pedro ‘Juan saw Pedro.’ (Spanish) Juan Juan lo acc.masc.sg.clitic vi´

• .

saw ‘Juan saw him.’ Juan Juan lo acc.masc.sg.clitic vi´

• saw

a prep Pedro. Pedro ‘Juan saw Pedro.’

L F G

Optionality: Clitics

Lexical Functional Grammar – 35 / 80

Pedro (f pred) = ‘Pedro’ (f gend) = masc (f num) = sg lo ((f pred) = ‘pro’) (f gend) = masc (f num) = sg

L F G

Optionality: Clitics

Lexical Functional Grammar – 35 / 80

Pedro (f pred) = ‘Pedro’ (f gend) = masc (f num) = sg lo ((f pred) = ‘pro’) (f gend) = masc (f num) = sg lo optionally contributes a pred.

L F G

Optionality: Clitics

Lexical Functional Grammar – 36 / 80

Juan Juan lo acc.masc.sg.clitic vi´

• saw

a prep Pedro. Pedro ‘Juan saw Pedro.’

L F G

Optionality: Clitics

Lexical Functional Grammar – 36 / 80

Juan Juan lo acc.masc.sg.clitic vi´

• saw

a prep Pedro. Pedro ‘Juan saw Pedro.’

              

pred ‘seesubj,obj’ subj

  

pred ‘Juan’ gend masc num sg

  

• bj

f

  

pred ‘Pedro’ gend masc num sg

                 

L F G

Optionality and clitic doubling

Lexical Functional Grammar – 37 / 80

Juan Juan lo acc.masc.sg.clitic vi´

• .

saw ‘Juan saw him.’

              

pred ‘seesubj,obj’ subj

  

pred ‘Juan’ gend masc num sg

  

• bj

f

  

pred ‘pro’ gend masc num sg

                 

L F G

C-structure and f-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 38 / 80

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V′ V

greeted

NP N

Chris

     

pred ‘greetsubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘David’

• bj
• pred

‘Chris’

• 

    

L F G

Motivating Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 39 / 80

What information does constituent structure represent?

L F G

Motivating Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 39 / 80

What information does constituent structure represent?

■ Represents hierarchical phrasal groupings

L F G

Motivating Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 39 / 80

What information does constituent structure represent?

■ Represents hierarchical phrasal groupings ■ Criteria depend on surface syntactic properties, not

semantic intuitions or facts about abstract functional syntactic structure

L F G

Motivating Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 39 / 80

What information does constituent structure represent?

■ Represents hierarchical phrasal groupings ■ Criteria depend on surface syntactic properties, not

semantic intuitions or facts about abstract functional syntactic structure

■ Varies greatly across languages

L F G

Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 40 / 80

■ Some theories (GB/Principles and Parameters, NOT LFG):

Subjects always appear in the specifier of IP.

L F G

Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 40 / 80

■ Some theories (GB/Principles and Parameters, NOT LFG):

Subjects always appear in the specifier of IP.

■ LFG does not assume that subjects are defined in terms of

phrase structure position, or that subjects must always appear in a particular position in the tree.

L F G

Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 40 / 80

■ Some theories (GB/Principles and Parameters, NOT LFG):

Subjects always appear in the specifier of IP.

■ LFG does not assume that subjects are defined in terms of

phrase structure position, or that subjects must always appear in a particular position in the tree.

■ However, there are structure-function mapping

generalisations which state that phrases with particular functions tend to appear in particular phrase structure positions.

L F G

Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 40 / 80

■ Some theories (GB/Principles and Parameters, NOT LFG):

Subjects always appear in the specifier of IP.

■ LFG does not assume that subjects are defined in terms of

phrase structure position, or that subjects must always appear in a particular position in the tree.

■ However, there are structure-function mapping

generalisations which state that phrases with particular functions tend to appear in particular phrase structure positions.

■ In English, the specifier of IP is associated with the subject

function; in other languages, it is associated with TOPIC or

• FOCUS. More below.

L F G

Lexical Integrity

Lexical Functional Grammar – 41 / 80

Lexical Integrity (Bresnan, 1982): Morphologically complete words are leaves of the c-structure tree, and each leaf corresponds to one and only one c-structure node.

L F G

Lexical Integrity

Lexical Functional Grammar – 41 / 80

Lexical Integrity (Bresnan, 1982): Morphologically complete words are leaves of the c-structure tree, and each leaf corresponds to one and only one c-structure node. English: cause to run Japanese: hasiraseta run.caus.past

          

pred ‘causesubj,obj,xcomp’ subj [ ]

• bj

[ ] xcomp

 pred

‘runsubj’ subj

            

Words in one language can express the same f-structure as phrases in another language: Lexical Integrity holds at c-structure, not f-structure.

L F G

Economy of Expression

Lexical Functional Grammar – 42 / 80

Economy of Expression (Bresnan, 2001): All syntactic phrase structure nodes are optional, and are not used unless required by independent principles (completeness, coherence, semantic expressivity).

CP C′ C

Is

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V

yawning

L F G

Lexical Functional Grammar – 43 / 80

CP NP N

kogda when

C′ IP I′ I

rodilsja born

VP NP N

Lermontov Lermontov ‘When was Lermontov born?’

L F G

C-structure and f-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 44 / 80

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V′ V

greeted

NP N

Chris

     

pred ‘greetsubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘David’

• bj
• pred

‘Chris’

• 

    

L F G

C- and F-Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 45 / 80

V

greeted

• pred

‘greetsubj,obj’ tense past

• φ

φ function relates c-structure nodes to f-structures. (Function: Every c-structure node corresponds to exactly one f-structure.)

L F G

Many Corresponding Nodes

Lexical Functional Grammar – 46 / 80

VP V′ V

greeted

• pred

‘greetsubj, obj’ tense past

• φ

Many c-structure nodes can correspond to the same f-structure.

L F G

No Corresponding Node

Lexical Functional Grammar – 47 / 80

S V

kowareta break.past

    

pred ‘breaksubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘pro’

• 

   

φ Some f-structures have no corresponding c-structure node.

L F G

No Corresponding Node

Lexical Functional Grammar – 47 / 80

S V

kowareta break.past

    

pred ‘breaksubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘pro’

• 

   

φ Some f-structures have no corresponding c-structure node. These are formal, mathematical facts about the c-structure/f-structure relation. What are the linguistic facts?

L F G

Mapping regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 48 / 80

C-structure heads are f-structure heads:

VP V′ V

greeted

• pred

‘greetsubj, obj’ tense past

• φ

L F G

Mapping Regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 49 / 80

Specifiers are filled by grammaticized discourse functions SUBJ, TOPIC, FOCUS.

L F G

Mapping Regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 49 / 80

Specifiers are filled by grammaticized discourse functions SUBJ, TOPIC, FOCUS. Specifier of IP in English: SUBJ

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V

yawned

  

pred ‘yawnsubj’ subj

• pred

‘David’

• 

 

L F G

Mapping regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 50 / 80

Specifier of IP in Russian: Topic or Focus

IP NP

Evgenija Onegina Eugene Onegin

I′ I

napisal wrote

VP NP N

Puˇ skin Pushkin

           

pred ‘writesubj,obj’ topic

• pred

‘Eugene Onegin’

• subj
• pred

‘Pushkin’

• bj

           

L F G

Mapping regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 51 / 80

Specifier of IP in Bulgarian: Focus; Specifier of CP: Topic

CP NP N

Ivan Ivan

C′ IP NP N

kakvo what

I′ I

pravi does

             

pred ‘dosubj,obj’ topic

• pred

‘Ivan’

• subj

focus

• pred

‘what’

• bj

             

L F G

Mapping regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 52 / 80

Specifier of CP in English: Focus

CP NP N

What

C′ C

is

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V

eating

         

pred ‘eatsubj,obj’ focus

• pred

‘what’

• subj
• pred

‘David’

• bj

         

L F G

Mapping regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 53 / 80

Specifier of CP in Finnish: Focus

CP NP N

Mikolta Mikko.abl

C′ IP NP N

Anna Anna

I′ I

sai got

VP NP N

kukkia flowers.part

                 

pred ‘getsubj,obj,oblsource’ focus

• pred

‘Mikko’

• blsource

topic

• pred

‘Anna’

• subj
• bj
• pred

‘flowers’

• 

                

L F G

Complements: Functional Categories

Lexical Functional Grammar – 54 / 80

Complement of functional category is f-structure co-head:

IP NP N

David

I′ I

is

VP V

yawning

  

pred ‘yawnsubj’ subj

• pred

‘David’

• 

 

L F G

Complements: Functional Categories

Lexical Functional Grammar – 55 / 80

IP NP N

Anna Anna

I′ I

budet future

VP V′ V

ˇ citat’ read.inf

NP N

knigu book

           

pred ‘readsubj,obj’ tense future topic

• pred

‘Anna’

• subj
• bj
• pred

‘book’

• 

          

L F G

Complements of Lexical Categories

Lexical Functional Grammar – 56 / 80

Complement of lexical category is f-structure complement (non-subject argument):

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V′ V

greeted

NP N

Chris

      

pred ‘greetsubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘David’

• bj
• pred

‘Chris’

• 

     

L F G

Complements of Lexical Categories

Lexical Functional Grammar – 57 / 80

IP NP N

David

I′ VP V′ V

gave

NP N

Chris

NP Det

a

N′ N

book

             

pred ‘givesubj,obj,objtheme’ subj

• pred

‘David’

• bj
• pred

‘Chris’

• bjtheme

 spec

• pred

‘a’

• pred

‘book’

               

L F G

Constraining the c-structure/f-structure correspondence

Lexical Functional Grammar – 58 / 80

V′ V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• φ

L F G

Constraining the c-structure/f-structure correspondence

Lexical Functional Grammar – 58 / 80

V′ V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• φ

V′

− → V

L F G

Local F-Structure Reference

Lexical Functional Grammar – 59 / 80

V′ V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• φ

V′

− → V the current c-structure node (“self”): ∗ the immediately dominating node (“mother”):

• ∗

the c-structure to f-structure function: φ

L F G

Rule Annotation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 60 / 80

V′ V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• φ

L F G

Rule Annotation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 60 / 80

V′ V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• φ

V′

− →

V φ( ∗) = φ(∗)

mother’s (V′’s) f-structure = self’s (V’s) f-structure

L F G

Simplifying the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 61 / 80

φ( ∗) (mother’s f-structure) = ↑ φ(∗) (self’s f-structure) = ↓

V′ V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• φ

L F G

Simplifying the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 61 / 80

φ( ∗) (mother’s f-structure) = ↑ φ(∗) (self’s f-structure) = ↓

V′ V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• φ

V′

− →

V ↑ = ↓

mother’s f-structure = self’s f-structure

L F G

Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 62 / 80

V′

− →

V ↑ = ↓

mother’s f-structure = self’s f-structure

L F G

Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 62 / 80

V′

− →

V ↑ = ↓

mother’s f-structure = self’s f-structure

V′

V ↑ = ↓

L F G

Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 62 / 80

V′

− →

V ↑ = ↓

mother’s f-structure = self’s f-structure

V′

V ↑ = ↓

L F G

Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 62 / 80

V′

− →

V ↑ = ↓

mother’s f-structure = self’s f-structure

V′

V ↑ = ↓ [ ]

L F G

More rules

Lexical Functional Grammar – 63 / 80

V′

− →

V φ( ∗) = φ(∗) NP (φ( ∗) obj) = φ(∗)

mother’s f-structure’s obj = self’s f-structure In simpler form:

V′

− →

V ↑ = ↓ NP (↑ obj) = ↓

L F G

Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 64 / 80

V′

− →

V ↑ = ↓ NP (↑ obj) = ↓

L F G

Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 64 / 80

V′

− →

V ↑ = ↓ NP (↑ obj) = ↓ V′

V NP

• bj

[ ]

L F G

Terminal nodes

Lexical Functional Grammar – 65 / 80

V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

L F G

Terminal nodes

Lexical Functional Grammar – 65 / 80

V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• Expressible as:

V

− → yawned (↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past

L F G

Terminal nodes

Lexical Functional Grammar – 65 / 80

V

yawned

• pred

‘yawnsubj’ tense past

• Expressible as:

V

− → yawned (↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past Standard form: yawned

V

(↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past

L F G

Phrase structure rules: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 66 / 80

IP

− →

• NP

(↑ subj) = ↓

• I′

↑ = ↓

• I′

− →

• I

↑ = ↓

• VP

↑ = ↓

• VP

− →

• V

↑ = ↓

• NP −

→

• N

↑ = ↓

L F G

Lexical entries: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 67 / 80

yawned

V

(↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past David

N

(↑ pred) = ‘David’

L F G

Lexical entries: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 67 / 80

yawned

V

(↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past David

N

(↑ pred) = ‘David’ (Standard LFG practice: include only features relevant for analysis under discussion.)

L F G

Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP NP (↑ subj) = ↓ N ↑ = ↓

David (↑ pred) = ‘David’

I′ ↑ = ↓ VP ↑ = ↓ V ↑ = ↓

yawned (↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past

L F G

Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP NP (↑ subj) = ↓ N ↑ = ↓

David (fn pred) = ‘David’

I′ ↑ = ↓ VP ↑ = ↓ V ↑ = ↓

yawned (↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past

L F G

Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP NP (↑ subj) = ↓ N fnp = fn

David (fn pred) = ‘David’

I′ ↑ = ↓ VP ↑ = ↓ V ↑ = ↓

yawned (↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past

L F G

Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP NP (fip subj) = fnp N fnp = fn

David (fn pred) = ‘David’

I′ ↑ = ↓ VP ↑ = ↓ V ↑ = ↓

yawned (↑ pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (↑ tense) = past

L F G

Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP NP (fip subj) = fnp N fnp = fn

David (fn pred) = ‘David’

I′ ↑ = ↓ VP ↑ = ↓ V ↑ = ↓

yawned (fv pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (fv tense) = past

L F G

Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP NP (fip subj) = fnp N fnp = fn

David (fn pred) = ‘David’

I′ ↑ = ↓ VP ↑ = ↓ V fvp = fv

yawned (fv pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (fv tense) = past

L F G

Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP NP (fip subj) = fnp N fnp = fn

David (fn pred) = ‘David’

I′ ↑ = ↓ VP fi′ = fvp V fvp = fv

yawned (fv pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (fv tense) = past

L F G

Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP NP (fip subj) = fnp N fnp = fn

David (fn pred) = ‘David’

I′ fip = fi′ VP fi′ = fvp V fvp = fv

yawned (fv pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (fv tense) = past

L F G

Solving the Description

Lexical Functional Grammar – 69 / 80

(fip subj) = fnp fnp = fn (fn pred) = ‘David’ fip = fi′ fi′ = fvp fvp = fv (fv pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (fv tense) = past fip fi′ fvp fv

     

pred ‘yawnsubj’ tense past subj fnp fn

• pred

‘David’

• 

    

L F G

Final result

Lexical Functional Grammar – 70 / 80 IP NP (fip subj) = fnp N fnp = fn

David (fn pred) = ‘David’

I′ fip = fi′ VP fi′ = fvp V fvp = fv

yawned (fv pred) = ‘yawnsubj’ (fv tense) = past

    

pred ‘yawnsubj’ tense past subj

• pred

‘David’

• 

   

L F G

Warlpiri

Lexical Functional Grammar – 71 / 80

gf ≡ {subj | obj | oblθ}

IP

− →

  NP (↑ focus) = ↓ (↑ gf) = ↓  

• I′

↑ = ↓

• I′

− →

• I

↑ = ↓

• S

↑ = ↓

• S

− → {

NP (↑ gf) = ↓ | V ↑ = ↓ }∗

L F G

Warlpiri verbs

Lexical Functional Grammar – 72 / 80

panti-rni

V

(↑ pred) = ‘spearsubj,obj’ ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’) (↑ subj case) = erg ((↑ obj pred) = ‘pro’) (↑ obj case) = abs

L F G

Warlpiri

Lexical Functional Grammar – 73 / 80

IP NP (↑ focus)=↓ (↑ gf)=↓ N ↑ = ↓

ngarrka-ngku man-erg (↑ pred) = ‘man’ (↑ case) = erg

I′ ↑ =↓ I ↑ =↓

ka pres

S ↑ =↓ NP (↑ gf)=↓ N ↑ = ↓

wawirri kangaroo.abs (↑ pred) = ‘kangaroo’ (↑ case) = abs

V ↑ =↓

panti-rni spear-nonpast (↑ pred) = ‘spearsubj,obj’ ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’) (↑ subj case) = erg ((↑ obj pred) = ‘pro’) (↑ obj case) = abs

             

pred ‘spearsubj,obj’ focus

• pred

‘man’ case erg

• subj
• bj
• pred

‘kangaroo’ case abs

• 

            

L F G

Chichewa

Lexical Functional Grammar – 74 / 80

S

− →

• NP

(↑ subj) = ↓

• ,
• NP

(↑ topic) = ↓

• ,

VP ↑ = ↓

• VP

− →

• V′

↑ = ↓

• V′

− →

• V

↑ = ↓

• NP

(↑ obj) = ↓

• Comma between daughters in S rule: daughters of S are

unordered

L F G

Chichewa verbs

Lexical Functional Grammar – 75 / 80

zi-n´ a-w´ a-lum-a

V

(↑ pred) = ‘bitesubj,obj’ ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’) (↑ subj nounclass) = 10 (↑ obj pred) = ‘pro’ (↑ obj nounclass) = 2

L F G

Chichewa

Lexical Functional Grammar – 76 / 80

S NP (↑ subj)=↓

njˆ uchi bees (↑ pred) = ‘bees’ (↑ nounclass) = 10

VP ↑ =↓ V′ ↑ =↓ V

zi-n´ a-w´ a-lum-a subj-past-obj-bite-indicative (↑ pred) = ‘bitesubj,obj’ ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’) (↑ subj nounclass) = 10 (↑ obj pred) = ‘pro’ (↑ obj nounclass) = 2

          

pred ‘bitesubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘bees’ nounclass 10

• bj
• pred

‘pro’ nounclass 2

• 

         

L F G

Chichewa

Lexical Functional Grammar – 77 / 80

S VP ↑ =↓ V′ ↑ =↓ V

zi-n´ a-lum-a subj-past-obj-bite-indicative (↑ pred) = ‘bitesubj,obj’ ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’) (↑ subj nounclass) = 10

NP (↑ obj)=↓

alenje hunters (↑ pred) = ‘hunter’ (↑ nounclass) = 10

          

pred ‘bitesubj,obj’ subj

• pred

‘pro’ nounclass 10

• bj
• pred

‘hunter’ nounclass 2

• 

         

L F G

For more information

Lexical Functional Grammar – 78 / 80

■ For more on LFG, visit the LFG website:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/LFG/

■ Introductions to LFG: Bresnan (2001), Dalrymple (2001),

Falk (2001)

■ SOAS, Essex, and Oxford hold student-oriented meetings

each term for discussion of issues in LFG, including student presentations: http://se-lfg.tk/

L F G

Bibliography

Lexical Functional Grammar – 79 / 80 Lexical Functional G

References Asudeh, Ash. 2004. Resumption as Resource Management. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Asudeh, Ash, Mary Dalrymple, & Ida Toivonen. 2008. Constructions with lexical integrity: Templates as the lexicon-syntax interface. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (editors), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2007 Conference. URL http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/13/lfg08.htm B¨

• rjars, Kersti & Nigel Vincent. 2004. Introduction to LFG.

Slides from the Winter School in LFG and Computational Linguistics, University of Canterbury. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In Joan Bresnan (editor), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pp. 3–86. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.