Spring term, 2019 Ling 5201 Syntax I 1: Valence, rules and proof - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Sep 28, 2023 378 likes •507 views

Spring term, 2019 Ling 5201 Syntax I 1: Valence, rules and proof Robert Levine Ohio State University levine.1@osu.edu Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 1 / 12 Where do syntactic structures come from? (1) John put this book on that table.

SLIDE 1

Spring term, 2019 Ling 5201 Syntax I 1: Valence, rules and proof

Robert Levine

Ohio State University levine.1@osu.edu

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 1 / 12

SLIDE 2

Where do syntactic structures come from?

(1) John put this book on that table.

◮ Where does the tree in (2) come from?

(2) S VP PP NP N table Det that P

NP N book Det this V put NP John

◮ More precisely, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions which

guarantee that the tree in (2) is a legal structure?

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 2 / 12

SLIDE 3

Justifying tree structure

(3)

a. this book, John put on that table

.

b. that table, John put this book on

.

c. On that table, John put this book

.

d. and put this book on that table John most certainly will

. (4)

a. *book on, John put this

that table.

b. *On that, John put this book

table.

c. *Book on that, John will put this

table.

d. *Put this, John

book on that table. (5)

a. Which book did John put
n that table? (wh question)
b. This is the book which John put
n that table.
c. It was this book (that) John put
n that table.
d. What John put
n that table was this book.

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 3 / 12

SLIDE 4

Phrase structure rules, part 1

(1)

S VP PP NP N table Det that P

NP N book Det this V put NP John

(6)

a. S → NP VP
b. VP → V NP PP
c. PP → P NP
d. NP → Det N

◮ To make sure that names such as John and Mary don’t appear with

determiners immediately preceding them, we assume that they are

ne-word NPs.

◮ Each rule admits one or more nodes in the tree in (2). ◮ Each such node is an hypothesis about the displaceability of the

material below that node.

◮ The terminal nodes dominate individual words whose properties are

identified in a lexicon, and include

◮ information about pronunciation ◮ information about part of speech Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 4 / 12

SLIDE 5

Phrase structure rules, part 2

◮ But what about sentences such as the following?

(7)

a. The cat slept.
b. The cat chased a mouse.
c. Fat cats slept.
d. The book of poems fell on the floor.

◮ To accommodate these, we need to replace the rules we’ve given with

something more like: (8)

a. S → NP VP
b. VP → V (NP) (PP)
c. PP → P NP
d. NP → (Det) (Adj) N (PP)

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 5 / 12

SLIDE 6

The lexicon, part 1

◮ The lexicon determines how the trees sanctioned by the rules can be

terminated: (9) John: john, NP table: table, N the: the, Det put: put, V lawyers: lawyers, N talked: talked, V discussed: discussed, V about: about, P various: various, Adj . . . . . . . . .

◮ But is this enough? The following tree is legal, given the rules (8) and

lexicon (9), but the corresponding string is not: S VP V discussed NP N lawyers Adj various (10) *Various lawyers discussed.

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 6 / 12

SLIDE 7

More examples. . .

(11)

a. *The lawyers put.
b. *Some crafty lawyers put the issue.
c. Various lawyers talked.
d. *Various lawyers talked the obscure issues.
e. Various lawyers talked about the obscure issues.
f. *Some lawyers discussed.
g. Some lawyers discussed the issues.
h. *Some lawyers discussed about the issues.

◮ Just what is wrong with the bad examples?

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 7 / 12

SLIDE 8

Valence

◮ Different lexical items have different combinatorial possibilities. ◮ talk combines with a PP headed by about. . . ◮ . . . whereas discuss combines with an NP:

(12)

a. Various lawyers discussed the obscure issues.
b. Some lawyers talked about the issues.

◮ and you can’t reverse those patterns:

(13)

a. *Various lawyers talked the obscure issues.
b. *Some lawyers discussed about the issues.

◮ The combinatorial possibilities of a lexical item are called its valence.

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 8 / 12

SLIDE 9

Valence is not predictable. . .

◮ Do we need to treat valence as a primitive property of lexical items? Can’t

we predict it from meaning?

◮ In a word, NO.

(14)

a. John ate (a steak)
b. John devoured *(a steak).

(15)

a. Mary demanded a raise
b. *Mary (authoritatively) asked a raise.

(16)

a. *Mary demanded for a raise
b. Mary (authoritatively) asked for a raise.

(17)

a. The prosecutor

8 < : ∗charged ∗indicted accused 9 = ; John of forgery

b. The prosecutor

8 < : ∗charged ∗accused indicted 9 = ; John for forgery.

c. The prosecutor

8 < : ∗accused ∗indicted charged 9 = ; John with forgery

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 9 / 12

SLIDE 10

. . . hence, valence must be lexically listed

◮ We start by taking lexical entries to specify pronunciation, part of

speech and valence, along the following lines:

◮ where the notation

X Y Z etc. means only that the lexical item in question appears followed by a string of words which can be parsed as a substring of category X, which is then followed by a string of words of category Y, etc.

(18) put, V, NP PP discuss, V, NP talk, V, PP charge, V, PP[with] indict, V, PP[for] accuse, V, PP[of] . . . . . . . . .

◮ But such entries have both too much and too little information:

◮ they lack information about meaning; ◮ they give you information which, in an important sense, you don’t need.

◮ Taking the last point first: if we know what a word combines with to

yield a VP,

◮ then it doesn’t really matter what part of speech we assign it to.

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 10 / 12

SLIDE 11

Valence reconsidered

◮ Let’s use a presentation of categories along these lines which displays

more explicitly the direction of combination.

◮ We have an entry for put of the form

(19) put; put; VP/PP/NP

◮ i.e., the verb put

◮ has a certain pronunciation, which we abbreviate as put, ◮ has a semantic interpretation, which we abbreviate as put, ◮ and combines to its right first with an NP (to yield a string such as put

the book)

◮ and then a PP (possibly yielding put the book on the table).

◮ Following the line just suggested, we can revise our valence entries as

follows: (20) put; put; VP/PP/NP discuss; discuss; VP/NP talk; talk; VP/PP charged; charge; VP/PP[with] accused; accuse; VP/PP[of] indicted; indict; VP/PP[for]

Robert Levine 2019, 5201 (Syntax 1) 11 / 12

SLIDE 12

More reconsideration

◮ Since we can treat VP as characterizing a string of words looking for

an NP to the left to form a sentence, we can write VP as NP\S .

◮ A transitive verb such as discuss or criticize will then be (NP\S)/NP. ◮ How does this approach change our view of syntactic structure? ◮ One one level, not all that much. Compare the trees: