Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories...

131
Lexical Functional Grammar – 1 / 80 Lexical Functional Grammar Mary Dalrymple Centre for Linguistics and Philology Oxford University York Frameworks, 4 May 2010

Transcript of Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories...

Page 1: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

Lexical Functional Grammar – 1 / 80

Lexical Functional Grammar

Mary DalrympleCentre for Linguistics and Philology

Oxford University

York Frameworks, 4 May 2010

Page 2: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G The constraint-based approach

Lexical Functional Grammar – 2 / 80

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

■ Different aspects of linguistic structure are realised bydifferent but related linguistic representations.Movement/transformations do not play a role.

Page 3: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G

Lexical Functional Grammar – 3 / 80

■ “Semantic roles, syntactic constituents, and grammaticalfunctions belong to parallel information structures of verydifferent formal character. They are related not byproof-theoretic derivation but by structuralcorrespondences, as a melody is related to the words of asong. The song is decomposable into parallel melodic andlinguistic structures, which jointly constrain the nature ofthe whole. In the same way, the sentences of humanlanguage are themselves decomposable into parallel systemsof constraints – structural, functional, semantic, andprosodic – which the whole must jointly satisfy.” (Bresnan,1990)

What theoretical architecture best reflects this view?

Page 4: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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

Page 5: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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

■ Formally explicit: Provides a way of making systematic,clear, and testable claims about phrase structure.

Page 6: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 aboutthem. 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),

Page 7: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 aboutthem. 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 differenttheories of phrase structure.

Page 8: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 5 / 80

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

Page 9: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 5 / 80

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

■ Example: The claim that all maximal X-bar projectionshave bar level 2 (there is no N′′′ or V′′′′′).

Page 10: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Theories and frameworks

Lexical Functional Grammar – 5 / 80

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

■ Example: The claim that all maximal X-bar projectionshave bar level 2 (there is no N′′′ or V′′′′′).

■ A well-designed formal framework guides development oftheory by providing explicit representations and theoreticalvocabulary, and aids the linguist in developing betterintuitions about language and (hence) better theories oflinguistic structure.

Page 11: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Theories and frameworks: Other views

Lexical Functional Grammar – 6 / 80

■ Alternative view (NOT LFG): the formal framework shouldnot allow the linguist to formulate rules or describeconstructions that are linguistically impossible.

Page 12: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Theories and frameworks: Other views

Lexical Functional Grammar – 6 / 80

■ Alternative view (NOT LFG): the formal framework shouldnot allow the linguist to formulate rules or describeconstructions that are linguistically impossible.

■ This is a very strong view; e.g. disallows standard phrasestructure rules, since impossible languages can becharacterised with (unconstrained) phrase structure rules(e.g., a language where every sentence is at least 3000words long).

Page 13: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Theories and frameworks: Other views

Lexical Functional Grammar – 6 / 80

■ Alternative view (NOT LFG): the formal framework shouldnot allow the linguist to formulate rules or describeconstructions that are linguistically impossible.

■ This is a very strong view; e.g. disallows standard phrasestructure rules, since impossible languages can becharacterised with (unconstrained) phrase structure rules(e.g., a language where every sentence is at least 3000words long).

■ The LFG view (also HPSG, other constraint-basedtheories): use a simple, clean formal framework, andformulate linguistic theory as a set of claims stated withreference to the framework.

Page 14: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Theories and frameworks: Other views

Lexical Functional Grammar – 6 / 80

■ Alternative view (NOT LFG): the formal framework shouldnot allow the linguist to formulate rules or describeconstructions that are linguistically impossible.

■ This is a very strong view; e.g. disallows standard phrasestructure rules, since impossible languages can becharacterised with (unconstrained) phrase structure rules(e.g., a language where every sentence is at least 3000words long).

■ The LFG view (also HPSG, other constraint-basedtheories): use a simple, clean formal framework, andformulate linguistic theory as a set of claims stated withreference to the framework.

■ Advantage: No need to throw away or reformulate theframework when revisions are needed to the theory.

Page 15: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G LFG framework

Lexical Functional Grammar – 7 / 80

Formal framework of LFG:

■ Different aspects of linguistic structure are represented indifferent ways, and are related to one another by piecewisecorrespondence (parts of one structure are related to partsof another structure).

Page 16: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G LFG framework

Lexical Functional Grammar – 7 / 80

Formal framework of LFG:

■ Different aspects of linguistic structure are represented indifferent ways, and are related to one another by piecewisecorrespondence (parts of one structure are related to partsof another structure).

■ The core of the formal framework of LFG has remainedremarkably stable since its beginnings in the late 1970s.

Page 17: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G LFG framework

Lexical Functional Grammar – 7 / 80

Formal framework of LFG:

■ Different aspects of linguistic structure are represented indifferent ways, and are related to one another by piecewisecorrespondence (parts of one structure are related to partsof another structure).

■ The core of the formal framework of LFG has remainedremarkably stable since its beginnings in the late 1970s.

■ LFG-based theories of linguistic phenomena have evolvedsubstantially since that time, and continue to evolve as newareas are explored and new theoretical proposals areformulated and evaluated.

Page 18: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G LFG

Lexical Functional Grammar – 8 / 80

Two aspects of syntactic structure:

■ Functional structure is the abstract functional syntacticorganisation of the sentence, familiar from traditionalgrammatical descriptions, representing syntacticpredicate-argument structure and functional relations likesubject and object.

■ Constituent structure is the overt, more concrete level oflinear and hierarchical organisation of words into phrases.

Page 19: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘greet〈subj,obj〉’

subj[pred ‘David’

]

obj[pred ‘Chris’

]

Page 20: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘greet〈subj,obj〉’

subj[pred ‘David’

]

obj[pred ‘Chris’

]

In GB/Principles and Parameters/Minimalism:

■ C-structure = PF or Spellout?

■ F-structure = S-Structure or LF?

Page 21: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Other linguistic levels

Lexical Functional Grammar – 11 / 80

Since the inception of the theory, there has been much work onother linguistic levels and their relation to c-structure andf-structure:

■ Argument structure and argument linking(Bresnan & Zaenen, 1990; Butt, 1995)

■ The syntax-semantics interface: “glue” semantics(Dalrymple, 1999, 2001; Asudeh, 2004): interestingrelations to categorial approaches, though with differentassumptions about the relation to syntactic structure

■ Information structure and its relation to syntax andsemantics (Butt & King, 2000; Dalrymple & Nikolaeva,2010)

■ Prosodic structure and its relation to syntax and semantics(Mycock, 2006)

Page 22: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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

Page 23: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

Page 24: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

■ Abstract syntactic relations (familiar from traditionalgrammar) like subject, object, adjunct

Page 25: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

■ Abstract syntactic relations (familiar from traditionalgrammar) like subject, object, adjunct

■ Locus of subcategorisation

Page 26: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

■ Abstract syntactic relations (familiar from traditionalgrammar) like subject, object, adjunct

■ Locus of subcategorisation

■ Criteria: anaphoric binding patterns, long-distancedependencies, control, honorification, agreement,casemarking, ...

Page 27: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 13 / 80

What information does functional structure represent?

■ Abstract syntactic relations (familiar from traditionalgrammar) like subject, object, adjunct

■ Locus of subcategorisation

■ Criteria: anaphoric binding patterns, long-distancedependencies, control, honorification, agreement,casemarking, ...

■ F-structure vocabulary is universal across languages

Page 28: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

tense past

subj

[pred ‘David’

num sg

]

Page 29: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

tense past

subj

[pred ‘David’

num sg

]

■ pred, tense num: attributes

Page 30: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

tense past

subj

[pred ‘David’

num sg

]

■ pred, tense num: attributes

■ ‘go〈subj〉’, David, sg: values

Page 31: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

tense past

subj

[pred ‘David’

num sg

]

■ pred, tense num: attributes

■ ‘go〈subj〉’, David, sg: values

■ past, sg: symbols (a kind of value)

Page 32: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Functional structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 14 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

tense past

subj

[pred ‘David’

num sg

]

■ pred, tense num: attributes

■ ‘go〈subj〉’, David, sg: values

■ past, sg: symbols (a kind of value)

■ ‘boy’, ‘go〈subj〉’: semantic forms

Page 33: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G F-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 15 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

tense past

subj

[pred ‘David’

num sg

]

adj{[

pred ‘quickly’]}

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

Page 34: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G F-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 16 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

tense past

subj

[pred ‘David’

num sg

]

adj{[

pred ‘quickly’]}

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

Page 35: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Sets of f-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 17 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

tense past

subj

[pred ‘David’

]

[pred ‘George’

]

adj{[

pred ‘quickly’]}

Sets of f-structures represent:

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

Page 36: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Sets of f-structures

Lexical Functional Grammar – 17 / 80

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

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 oneconjunct)

Page 37: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 functionaldescription.

Page 38: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G More Complex Descriptions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 19 / 80

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

f

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

subj g

[pred ‘David’

num sg

]

Page 39: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Finding the Right F-structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 20 / 80

Hindi verbs show person, number, and gender agreement:

Ram

Ramcalegaa

go.future

‘Ram will go.’

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

calegaa (f pred) = ‘go〈subj〉’(f subj case) = nom(f subj pers) = 3(f subj num) = sg(f subj gend) = masc

(f subj) = g

Page 40: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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) = ‘go〈subj〉’(f subj) = g

f

pred ‘go〈subj〉’

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

Page 41: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Formal descriptions: LFG vs HPSG

Lexical Functional Grammar – 22 / 80

■ HPSG takes a different view of formal descriptions fromLFG. The HPSG view goes back to Functional UnificationGrammar (Kay, 1984), where unification (an operation onstructures) was used to combine structures:

■ in HPSG, the constraints look (as much as possible) likethe structures.

■ That is why you sometimes see a set of instructions in whatlooks like a representation – it is actually a constraint ordescription in the (apparent) form of a structure.

Page 42: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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

Page 43: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 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)

Page 44: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 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 equationsthat characterise a construction.

Page 45: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 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 equationsthat 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 thanlinguistic objects).

Page 46: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 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 equationsthat 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 thanlinguistic objects).

■ Templates can be associated with words or with units thatare bigger than words, and are used to describeconstructions in the Construction Grammar sense.

Page 47: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 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 equationsthat 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 thanlinguistic objects).

■ Templates can be associated with words or with units thatare bigger than words, and are used to describeconstructions in the Construction Grammar sense.

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

Page 48: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Semantic Forms

Lexical Functional Grammar – 25 / 80

Subcategorisation requirements are imposed at f-structure (notc-structure) – a predicate specifies a set of grammaticalfunctions, and the phrase structure grammar of the languagedetermines where in the tree these functions can appear.Subcategorisation requirements are specified by semantic forms:

(f pred) = ‘go〈subj〉’

Semantic forms have argument lists that list the arguments theyrequire.

Page 49: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Grammatical functions

Lexical Functional Grammar – 26 / 80

Non-argument topic Discourse functionfocus

Argument Core subj(governable) obj Non-discourse function

objθNon-core oblθ

compNon-argument adj(unct)

(from Borjars & Vincent 2004)

Page 50: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Completeness

Lexical Functional Grammar – 27 / 80

Completeness requires: All arguments which are listed in thesemantic form must be present.

(f pred) = ‘go〈subj〉’

“Go” must have a subj.

Page 51: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Coherence

Lexical Functional Grammar – 28 / 80

Coherence requires: No arguments which are not listed in thesemantic form may be present.

(f pred) = ‘go〈subj〉’

“Go” may not have a obj.

Page 52: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Coherence

Lexical Functional Grammar – 28 / 80

Coherence requires: No arguments which are not listed in thesemantic form may be present.

(f pred) = ‘go〈subj〉’

“Go” may not have a obj.

Completeness and coherence are the equivalent (more or less) ofthe Theta Criterion of GB theory, or the Valence Principle andRoot Condition of HPSG.

Page 53: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Semantic Forms and Uniqueness

Lexical Functional Grammar – 29 / 80

*watiman.abs

ka

presparnka-mi

run-nonpastkarnta

woman.abs

‘The man runs the woman.’ (Warlpiri)

wati (g pred) = ‘man’karnta (g pred) = ‘woman’

Each use of a semantic form is unique.

Page 54: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Conflicting Semantic Forms

Lexical Functional Grammar – 30 / 80

wati (g pred) = ‘man’karnta (g pred) = ‘woman’

Ill-formed f-structure:

pred ‘run〈subj〉’

tense pres

subj g[pred ‘man’/‘woman’

]

Page 55: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Optionality

Lexical Functional Grammar – 31 / 80

njuchi

beeszi-na-lum-a

subj-past-bite-indicativealenje

hunters

‘The bees bit the hunters.’ (Chichewa)

zi-na-lum-a

subj-past-bite-indicativealenje

hunters

‘They bit the hunters.’

zi-na-lum-a: ((f subj pred) = ‘pro’)

zi-na-lum-a optionally contributes a pred for its subj.

Page 56: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Overt subject

Lexical Functional Grammar – 32 / 80

njuchi

beeszi-na-lum-a

subj-past-bite-indicativealenje

hunters

‘The bees bit the hunters.’

f

pred ‘bite〈subj,obj〉’

subj

[pred ‘bees’

nounclass 10

]

obj

[pred ‘hunters’

nounclass 2

]

Page 57: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G No overt subject

Lexical Functional Grammar – 33 / 80

zi-na-lum-a

subj-past-bite-indicativealenje

hunters

‘They bit the hunters.’

f

pred ‘bite〈subj,obj〉’

subj

[pred ‘pro’

nounclass 10

]

obj

[pred ‘hunters’

nounclass 2

]

Page 58: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Optionality: Clitics

Lexical Functional Grammar – 34 / 80

Juan

Juanvio

sawa

prepPedro.

Pedro

‘Juan saw Pedro.’ (Spanish)

Juan

Juanlo

acc.masc.sg.cliticvio.

saw

‘Juan saw him.’

Juan

Juanlo

acc.masc.sg.cliticvio

sawa

prepPedro.

Pedro

‘Juan saw Pedro.’

Page 59: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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

Page 60: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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.

Page 61: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Optionality: Clitics

Lexical Functional Grammar – 36 / 80

Juan

Juanlo

acc.masc.sg.cliticvio

sawa

prepPedro.

Pedro

‘Juan saw Pedro.’

Page 62: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Optionality: Clitics

Lexical Functional Grammar – 36 / 80

Juan

Juanlo

acc.masc.sg.cliticvio

sawa

prepPedro.

Pedro

‘Juan saw Pedro.’

pred ‘see〈subj,obj〉’

subj

pred ‘Juan’

gend masc

num sg

obj f

pred ‘Pedro’

gend masc

num sg

Page 63: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Optionality and clitic doubling

Lexical Functional Grammar – 37 / 80

Juan

Juanlo

acc.masc.sg.cliticvio.

saw

‘Juan saw him.’

pred ‘see〈subj,obj〉’

subj

pred ‘Juan’

gend masc

num sg

obj f

pred ‘pro’

gend masc

num sg

Page 64: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘greet〈subj,obj〉’

subj[pred ‘David’

]

obj[pred ‘Chris’

]

Page 65: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Motivating Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 39 / 80

What information does constituent structure represent?

Page 66: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Motivating Constituent Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 39 / 80

What information does constituent structure represent?

■ Represents hierarchical phrasal groupings

Page 67: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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, notsemantic intuitions or facts about abstract functionalsyntactic structure

Page 68: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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, notsemantic intuitions or facts about abstract functionalsyntactic structure

■ Varies greatly across languages

Page 69: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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.

Page 70: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ofphrase structure position, or that subjects must alwaysappear in a particular position in the tree.

Page 71: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ofphrase structure position, or that subjects must alwaysappear in a particular position in the tree.

■ However, there are structure-function mappinggeneralisations which state that phrases with particularfunctions tend to appear in particular phrase structurepositions.

Page 72: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ofphrase structure position, or that subjects must alwaysappear in a particular position in the tree.

■ However, there are structure-function mappinggeneralisations which state that phrases with particularfunctions tend to appear in particular phrase structurepositions.

■ In English, the specifier of IP is associated with the subjectfunction; in other languages, it is associated with TOPIC orFOCUS. More below.

Page 73: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Lexical Integrity

Lexical Functional Grammar – 41 / 80

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

Page 74: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Lexical Integrity

Lexical Functional Grammar – 41 / 80

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

English: cause to run

Japanese: hasirasetarun.caus.past

pred ‘cause〈subj,obj,xcomp〉’

subj [ ]

obj [ ]

xcomp

pred ‘run〈subj〉’

subj

Words in one language can express the same f-structure asphrases in another language: Lexical Integrity holds atc-structure, not f-structure.

Page 75: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Economy of Expression

Lexical Functional Grammar – 42 / 80

Economy of Expression (Bresnan, 2001): All syntactic phrasestructure nodes are optional, and are not used unless required byindependent principles (completeness, coherence, semanticexpressivity).

CP

C′

C

Is

IP

NP

N

David

I′

VP

V

yawning

Page 76: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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?’

Page 77: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘greet〈subj,obj〉’

subj[pred ‘David’

]

obj[pred ‘Chris’

]

Page 78: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G C- and F-Structure

Lexical Functional Grammar – 45 / 80

V

greeted

[pred ‘greet〈subj,obj〉’

tense past

φ function relates c-structure nodes to f-structures.

(Function: Every c-structure node corresponds to exactly onef-structure.)

Page 79: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Many Corresponding Nodes

Lexical Functional Grammar – 46 / 80

VP

V′

V

greeted

[pred ‘greet〈subj, obj〉’

tense past

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

Page 80: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G No Corresponding Node

Lexical Functional Grammar – 47 / 80

S

V

kowareta

break.past

pred ‘break〈subj〉’

tense past

subj[pred ‘pro’

]

φ

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

Page 81: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G No Corresponding Node

Lexical Functional Grammar – 47 / 80

S

V

kowareta

break.past

pred ‘break〈subj〉’

tense past

subj[pred ‘pro’

]

φ

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

These are formal, mathematical facts about thec-structure/f-structure relation. What are the linguistic facts?

Page 82: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Mapping regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 48 / 80

C-structure heads are f-structure heads:

VP

V′

V

greeted

[pred ‘greet〈subj, obj〉’

tense past

Page 83: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Mapping Regularities

Lexical Functional Grammar – 49 / 80

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

Page 84: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘yawn〈subj〉’

subj[pred ‘David’

]

Page 85: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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

Puskin

Pushkin

pred ‘write〈subj,obj〉’

topic

{[pred

‘EugeneOnegin’

]}

subj[pred ‘Pushkin’

]

obj

Page 86: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘do〈subj,obj〉’

topic[pred ‘Ivan’

]

subj

focus[pred ‘what’

]

obj

Page 87: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘eat〈subj,obj〉’

focus[pred ‘what’

]

subj[pred ‘David’

]

obj

Page 88: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘get〈subj,obj,oblsource〉’

focus[pred ‘Mikko’

]

oblsource

topic[pred ‘Anna’

]

subj

obj[pred ‘flowers’

]

Page 89: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘yawn〈subj〉’

subj[pred ‘David’

]

Page 90: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Complements: Functional Categories

Lexical Functional Grammar – 55 / 80

IP

NP

N

Anna

Anna

I′

I

budet

future

VP

V′

V

citat’

read.inf

NP

N

knigu

book

pred ‘read〈subj,obj〉’

tense future

topic{[

pred ‘Anna’]}

subj

obj[pred ‘book’

]

Page 91: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘greet〈subj,obj〉’

subj[pred ‘David’

]

obj[pred ‘Chris’

]

Page 92: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘give〈subj,obj,objtheme〉’

subj[pred ‘David’

]

obj[pred ‘Chris’

]

objtheme

spec

[pred ‘a’

]

pred ‘book’

Page 93: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F GConstraining the c-structure/f-structurecorrespondence

Lexical Functional Grammar – 58 / 80

V′

V

yawned

[pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

Page 94: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F GConstraining the c-structure/f-structurecorrespondence

Lexical Functional Grammar – 58 / 80

V′

V

yawned

[pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

V′ −→ V

Page 95: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Local F-Structure Reference

Lexical Functional Grammar – 59 / 80

V′

V

yawned

[pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

V′ −→ V

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

the c-structure to f-structure function: φ

Page 96: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Rule Annotation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 60 / 80

V′

V

yawned

[pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

Page 97: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Rule Annotation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 60 / 80

V′

V

yawned

[pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

V′ −→ Vφ(∗) = φ(∗)

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

Page 98: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

Page 99: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

V′ −→ V↑= ↓

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

Page 100: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 62 / 80

V′ −→ V↑= ↓

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

Page 101: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 62 / 80

V′ −→ V↑= ↓

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

V′

V↑ = ↓

Page 102: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 62 / 80

V′ −→ V↑= ↓

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

V′

V↑ = ↓

Page 103: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 62 / 80

V′ −→ V↑= ↓

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

V′

V↑ = ↓

[ ]

Page 104: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G More rules

Lexical Functional Grammar – 63 / 80

V′ −→ Vφ(∗) = φ(∗)

NP(φ(∗) obj) = φ(∗)

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

In simpler form:

V′ −→ V↑= ↓

NP(↑ obj) = ↓

Page 105: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 64 / 80

V′ −→ V↑= ↓

NP(↑ obj) = ↓

Page 106: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Using the Notation

Lexical Functional Grammar – 64 / 80

V′ −→ V↑= ↓

NP(↑ obj) = ↓

V′

V NP

[obj [ ]

]

Page 107: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Terminal nodes

Lexical Functional Grammar – 65 / 80

V

yawned

[pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

]

Page 108: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Terminal nodes

Lexical Functional Grammar – 65 / 80

V

yawned

[pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

]

Expressible as:

V −→ yawned

(↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

Page 109: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Terminal nodes

Lexical Functional Grammar – 65 / 80

V

yawned

[pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

]

Expressible as:

V −→ yawned

(↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

Standard form:

yawned V (↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

Page 110: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Phrase structure rules: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 66 / 80

IP −→(

NP(↑ subj) = ↓

) (I′

↑= ↓

)

I′ −→(

I↑= ↓

) (VP↑= ↓

)

VP −→(

V↑= ↓

)

NP −→(

N↑= ↓

)

Page 111: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Lexical entries: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 67 / 80

yawned V (↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

David N (↑ pred) = ‘David’

Page 112: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Lexical entries: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 67 / 80

yawned V (↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

David N (↑ pred) = ‘David’

(Standard LFG practice: include only features relevant foranalysis under discussion.)

Page 113: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP

NP(↑ subj) = ↓

N↑ = ↓

David

(↑ pred) = ‘David’

I′

↑ = ↓

VP↑ = ↓

V↑ = ↓

yawned

(↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

Page 114: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP

NP(↑ subj) = ↓

N↑ = ↓

David

(fn pred) = ‘David’

I′

↑ = ↓

VP↑ = ↓

V↑ = ↓

yawned

(↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

Page 115: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP

NP(↑ subj) = ↓

Nfnp = fn

David

(fn pred) = ‘David’

I′

↑ = ↓

VP↑ = ↓

V↑ = ↓

yawned

(↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

Page 116: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP

NP(fip subj) = fnp

Nfnp = fn

David

(fn pred) = ‘David’

I′

↑ = ↓

VP↑ = ↓

V↑ = ↓

yawned

(↑ pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(↑ tense) = past

Page 117: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP

NP(fip subj) = fnp

Nfnp = fn

David

(fn pred) = ‘David’

I′

↑ = ↓

VP↑ = ↓

V↑ = ↓

yawned

(fv pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(fv tense) = past

Page 118: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP

NP(fip subj) = fnp

Nfnp = fn

David

(fn pred) = ‘David’

I′

↑ = ↓

VP↑ = ↓

Vfvp = fv

yawned

(fv pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(fv tense) = past

Page 119: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP

NP(fip subj) = fnp

Nfnp = fn

David

(fn pred) = ‘David’

I′

↑ = ↓

VPfi′ = fvp

Vfvp = fv

yawned

(fv pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(fv tense) = past

Page 120: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Analysis: English

Lexical Functional Grammar – 68 / 80

IP

NP(fip subj) = fnp

Nfnp = fn

David

(fn pred) = ‘David’

I′

fip = fi′

VPfi′ = fvp

Vfvp = fv

yawned

(fv pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(fv tense) = past

Page 121: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Solving the Description

Lexical Functional Grammar – 69 / 80

(fip subj) = fnpfnp = fn(fn pred) = ‘David’fip = fi′

fi′ = fvpfvp = fv(fv pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(fv tense) = past

fipfi′

fvpfv

pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

subjfnpfn

[pred ‘David’

]

Page 122: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Final result

Lexical Functional Grammar – 70 / 80

IP

NP(fip subj) = fnp

Nfnp = fn

David

(fn pred) = ‘David’

I′

fip = fi′

VPfi′ = fvp

Vfvp = fv

yawned

(fv pred) = ‘yawn〈subj〉’(fv tense) = past

pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’

tense past

subj[pred ‘David’

]

Page 123: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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↑= ↓

}∗

Page 124: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Warlpiri verbs

Lexical Functional Grammar – 72 / 80

panti-rni V (↑ pred) = ‘spear〈subj,obj〉’((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj case) = erg((↑ obj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ obj case) = abs

Page 125: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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) = ‘spear〈subj,obj〉’((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj case) = erg

((↑ obj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ obj case) = abs

pred ‘spear〈subj,obj〉’

focus

[pred ‘man’

case erg

]

subj

obj

[pred ‘kangaroo’

case abs

]

Page 126: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 areunordered

Page 127: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Chichewa verbs

Lexical Functional Grammar – 75 / 80

zi-na-wa-lum-a V (↑ pred) = ‘bite〈subj,obj〉’((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj nounclass) = 10(↑ obj pred) = ‘pro’(↑ obj nounclass) = 2

Page 128: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Chichewa

Lexical Functional Grammar – 76 / 80

S

NP(↑ subj)=↓

njuchi

bees

(↑ pred) = ‘bees’(↑ nounclass) = 10

VP↑=↓

V′

↑=↓

V

zi-na-wa-lum-a

subj-past-obj-bite-indicative

(↑ pred) = ‘bite〈subj,obj〉’((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj nounclass) = 10(↑ obj pred) = ‘pro’(↑ obj nounclass) = 2

pred ‘bite〈subj,obj〉’

subj

[pred ‘bees’

nounclass 10

]

obj

[pred ‘pro’

nounclass 2

]

Page 129: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Chichewa

Lexical Functional Grammar – 77 / 80

S

VP↑=↓

V′

↑=↓

V

zi-na-lum-a

subj-past-obj-bite-indicative

(↑ pred) = ‘bite〈subj,obj〉’((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj nounclass) = 10

NP(↑ obj)=↓

alenje

hunters

(↑ pred) = ‘hunter’(↑ nounclass) = 10

pred ‘bite〈subj,obj〉’

subj

[pred ‘pro’

nounclass 10

]

obj

[pred ‘hunter’

nounclass 2

]

Page 130: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

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 meetingseach term for discussion of issues in LFG, including studentpresentations:http://se-lfg.tk/

Page 131: Lexical Functional Grammar - University of Essex · Nontransformational, constraint-based theories (Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction

L F G Bibliography

Lexical Functional Grammar – 79 / 80

Lexical Functional Gramma

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 thelexicon-syntax interface. In Miriam Butt & Tracy HollowayKing(editors), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2007 Conference. URLhttp://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/13/lfg08.htm

Borjars, Kersti & Nigel Vincent. 2004. Introduction to LFG.Slides from the Winter School in LFG and ComputationalLinguistics, University of Canterbury.

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In JoanBresnan (editor), The Mental Representation of Grammatical

Relations, pp. 3–86. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.