Lexicalist Approaches to Syntax Day 1 Part I: Why lexicalism? - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lexicalist Approaches to Syntax

Day 1 Part I: Why lexicalism?

Stephen Wechsler University of Texas at Austin

Course outline

Part I. Lexical Functional Grammar Day 1. Why lexicalism? The LFG formalism. Day 2. Grammatical functions; endocentric and lexocentric

• systems. More LFG formalism.

Day 3. Head mobility. Pronouns and agreement Day 4. Raising and control. Unbounded dependency

• constructions. Topicalization and scrambling.

Part II. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Day 5. Origins: from Context-Free Grammar to HPSG. The HPSG formalism: feature structures and types. Day 6. Semantics. Binding theory. Raising and locality. Day 7. Lexical types. Lexical rules. Resultatives. Day 8. Long-distance dependencies. Versions of HPSG

• compared. Conclusion.

nibble(x, y) The rabbit is nibbling a carrot.

lexical entry for the word nibble: PHON 〈 nIbl 〉 SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 SEM nibble’(nibbler:x, nibblee:y)

The rabbit is nibbling a carrot.

(2) a. The rabbits were nibbling the carrots.

• b. The rabbits were nibbling at/on the carrots.
• c. The rabbits were nibbling.
• d. The carrots were being nibbled (by the rabbits).
• e. a large, partly nibbled, orange carrot
• f. the quiet, nibbling, old rabbits
• g. the rabbit’s nibbling of the carrots
• h. The rabbit gave the carrot a nibble.
• i. The rabbit wants a nibble (on the carrot).
• j. The rabbit nibbled the carrot smooth.

Lexicalism Your competence grammar of English has:

• 1. A lexicon: a set of lexical entries (words +

information about how they are used); and lexical rules relating words to other words

• 2. Syntax: a set of syntax rules for combining words

into sentences

The boy sees the cat. the seer the seen lexical entry for the word see: PHON 〈 si: 〉 SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 SEM see’(seer = x, seen = y)

PHON 〈 si: 〉 SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 SEM see’(seer = x, seen = y)

A syntax rule for making simple declarative sentences:

• 1. The first NP in the SYN list comes before the verb.
• 2. The other items in the SYN list come after the verb.

The boy sees the cat. seer seen

The boy is seen by the bird .

Passive voice lexical rule:

• 1. Change the PHON to the past participle form (seen,

eaten, etc.).

• 2. Change the SYN list by removing the first NP and

reassigning its subscript to an optional PP introduced by the preposition by. (Don’t change SEM.)

PHON V ⇒ PHON V[past.part] SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 SYN 〈 NPy , (PP[by]x) 〉

Applying the Passive Voice rule to the verb see:

PHON 〈 si: 〉 SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 SEM see’(seer = x, seen = y)

⇒

PHON 〈 si:n 〉 SYN 〈 NPy , (PP[by]x) 〉 SEM see’(seer = x, seen = y)

Making a sentence with the passive form seen:

PHON 〈 si:n 〉 SYN 〈 NPy , (PP[by]x) 〉 SEM see’(seer = x, seen = y)

Same syntax rule as before (1st NP is the subject; the others are complements) The boy is seen (by the bird). NPy PP[by]x

lexical entry for tickle: PHON 〈 tIkǝl 〉 SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 SEM tickle’(tickler = x, ticklee = y) Mary tickles the baby every day.

Passive tickled:

PHON 〈 tIkǝld 〉 SYN 〈 NPy , (PP[by]x), 〉 SEM tickle’(tickler = x, ticklee = y)

The baby is tickled (by Mary) every day.

Autonomous Rules The passive rule:

• is an abstract, algebraic rule
• is autonomous from meaning: it does not directly

affect SEM, and makes no reference to meaning Being abstract makes the passive rule very useful for expressing oneself. The passive voice is common in speech and writing.

The autonomy of syntax The passive rule (like many rules of syntax) is autonomous from meaning

PHON 〈 tIkǝl 〉 SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 SEM tickle’(tickler = x, ticklee = y) ⇒ PHON 〈 tIkǝld 〉 SYN 〈 NPy (, PP[by]x) 〉 SEM tickle’(tickler = x, ticklee = y)

Which generalizations should be captured in the syntax proper, and which in the lexicon? The Lexicalist Hypothesis. In early Transformational Grammar (1960s), there was

• ne main device for capturing syntactic generalizations:

the transformation. For example, (b) would be derived by transformation from a clause like (a):

• a. the army [destroyed the city]
• b. the army’s [destruction of the city]

Chomsky (1970, ‘Remarks on Nominalization’) argued that derivational morphology relations like destroy/destruction, are best captured in the lexicon. Consequences: (i) To capture parallels between phrases across different categories, X-bar theory was developed. (ii) The lexicon was enriched to include lexical rules. Later, cross-categorial parallels were captured with theories of argument structure.

The transformational account of the passive The active/passive alternation. active: Mary has kissed the frog. passive: The frog was kissed (by Mary). Transformation to derive passive (NP-movement):

S NP Aux VP was V NP PP kissed the frog by Mary S NP Aux VP was V NP PP kissed the frog by Mary e ==>

Why lexicalism?

• 1. Passive is a voice form of a word— not a syntactic

construction.

• 2. The passive lexical rule feeds other lexical rules.
• 3. The output of a lexical rule behaves like a word (X-

zero), not a phrasal structure.

Passive is a voice form of a verb — not a syntactic

• construction. Passive verbs appear in many different

syntactic contexts:

The baby was tickled (by Mary). BE+ PassP The baby got tickled (by Mary). GET+ PassP John will have you tickled (by Mary). HAVE+NP+PassP John wants you tickled (by Mary). WANT+NP+PassP Any guy tickled by Mary has my sympathy. PassP modifies a noun When tickled (by Mary), the baby giggles. when + PassP

Passive verbs feed Verb-to-Adjective conversion

active verb Joe salts the peanuts. PHON /salt/ SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 ⇓ passive verb The peanuts were salted (by J). PHON /salted/ SYN 〈 NPy , (PP[by]x) 〉 ⇓ adjective the salted peanuts PHON /salted/ the peanuts remained unsalted SYN 〈 NPy , (PP[by]x) 〉

Active and passive verbs coordinated

Swedish:

(28) Golfllubben begärde

• ch

beviljade-s marklov för golf.club.def requested and granted-pass ground.permit for banbygget efuer en hel del förhandlingar och track.build.def afuer a whole part negotiations and kompromisser med Länsstyrelsen

• ch

compromises with county.board.def and Naturvårdsverket.28 nature.protection.agency.def ‘The golf club requested and was granted a ground permit for fairlane con- struction afuer a lot of negotiations and compromises with the County Board and the Environmental Protection Agency.’

(Müller and Wechsler 2015, p. 29)

V0+V0 coordination, not ‘right node raising’: She [requested and was granted] two different things. (≠ ‘She requested two different things and was granted two different things.)

English deverbal nominals Three types of nominal (all discussed in Chomsky 1970):

• 1. deverbal nominal: vary in whether they allow poss. agent

his destruction of their home *his raise of the glass; *his growth of the tomatoes

• 2. ingof-nouns (mixed nominals): allow poss. agent

his destroying of their home his raising of the glass

• 3. gerundive construction: allow poss. agent

[ his [destroyingV their home]VP ]DP his raising the glass

ingof nominals always allow the possessive agent

• 1. a. John’s [v growing of tomatoes]
• b. John’s [v collapsing of the tent]
• c. John’s [v raising of the glass]
• 2. a. *John’s growth of tomatoes
• b. *John’s collapse of the tent.
• c. *John’s raise of the glass

*the raise of the glass; *the glass’s raise (Nouns raise, break, etc.: not event nominals)

Lexicalist account:

• tion, -th, etc.: varies (*shootation); such nouns result

from a historical process affecting the lexicon

• ing nominalizer: fully productive rule in the modern

competence grammar applying to event-denoting verbs. the argument structure of the verb is preserved by the noun.

verb John raised the glass. PHON /raise/ SYN 〈 NPx , NPy 〉 ⇓ noun John’s raising of the glass PHON /rais+ing/ SYN 〈 NP[poss]x , PP[of]y 〉

Alternative anti-lexicalist account

gerundive and mixed: agent role assigned by silent ‘little v’: vP ei his v’ ei v XP qp looting (of) their home derived nominals: agent depends on pragmatics, varies w/ N: DP ei his XP qp destruction/*collapse of their home

Comparison A key difference: The little-v account crucially assumes different syntactic structure for ing-of nominal (includes vP) vs. deverbal nominal (lacks vP)

vP ei the soldier’s v’ ei v XP qp looting of their home DP ei the soldier’s XP qp destruction of their home

Deverbal and ingof nominals coordinate and share dependents

• 1. With nothing left after the soldier’s destruction and looting
• f their home, they re-boarded their coach and set out for the

port of Calais. (www)

• 2. Anyone with information in relation to the growing or

distribution of cannabis is urged to contact Crime Stoppers

• n 1 800 333 000. (www)
• 3. The destruction or hiding of client files and removal of

funds would result in irreparable harm to clients and constitutes good cause for ex parte relief. (www)

• 4. our recruitment, hiring and promotion of faculty

Lexicalist analysis: N-zero coordination

destruction and looting ( __of NP) are simply nouns, so they can be conjoined: the soldier’s [destructionN and lootingN]N of their home But for the anti-lexicalists, destruction and looting supposedly appear at different levels in the phrase structure…

the soldier’s destruction and looting of their home vP ei the soldier’s v’ ei v XP qp looting of their home vP ei the soldier’s XP qp destruction of their home

Conclusion

• A verb’s lexical valence structure is an abstraction over various
• ccurrences of the verb in syntactic contexts.
• One key use of that valence structure is to indicate what sort of

phrases the verb must combine with, and the result of semantic composition

• Once abstracted, this lexical valence structure can alternatively be

used in other ways. The verb (including valence structure):

• can be coordinated with other verbs with a similar valence

structure.

• can serve as the input to lexical rules specifying a new word

bearing a systematic relation to the input word.

• These facts follow from the lexical view.