Lexical-Functional Grammar59.108.48.12/lcwm/course/fs/lec/lfgana.pdf · Lexical-Functional Grammar...

Lexical-Functional GrammarAnaphora, Raising, Control

Weiwei Sun

Institute of Computer Science and TechnologyPeking University

May 19, 2015

Anaphora Long-Distance Dependency Raising and Control

Outline

Anaphora

Long-Distance Dependency

Raising and Control

Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 2/33


R-expression, anaphor and pronoun

I R-expression: A DP that gets its meaning by referring to anentity in the world.

I Anaphor: A DP that obligatorily gets its meaning fromanother DP in the sentence.

I Pronoun: A DP that may (but need not) get its meaningfrom another word in the sentence.

(1) a. Felicia wrote a fine paper on Zapotec. (R-expression)

b. Heidi bopped herself on the head with a zucchini.(Anaphor)

c. Aaron said that he played basketball. (Pronoun)



R-expression, anaphor and pronoun

Key observations

Anaphors, R-expressions, and pronouns can only appear in spe-cific parts of the sentence.

(2) *Herself bopped Heidi on the head with a zucchini.

Proposal

Principle A An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain.

Principle B A pronoun must be free in its binding domain.

Principle C An R-expression must be free.



Pronoun incorporation

Pronoun incorporation/pronominal inflection

An incorporated pronoun or pronominal inflection is a boundmorpheme that specifies a complete pronominal f-structure.

I semantic feature: special pred value ‘PRO’

IP

I′

VP

...

I

is

DP

She

subj fDP

pred ’PROi’

bind β

agr α

case κ

subj gI

[agr α

case κ

]Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 4/33


Crosslinguistic analysis

Crosslinguistic concerns

I Morphological words may determine the same kinds offunctional structures as syntactic phrases.

I Grammatical vs. anaphoric agreement

Chichewa

I 18 gender classes (or noun classes)

I S→ NP VP | VP NP

I Verbal inflectional morphology:SubjM-T/A-(DIR)-(ObjM)-Vstem

I The functional specifications of a pronoun is incorporatedwith the functional specifications of the stem to which themorpheme is bound.



Subject marker

Verbal inflectional morphology

SM-T/A-(DIR)-(OM)-Vstem

(3) a.njuchi zi-na-lum-a a-lenje10.bee 10.s-pst-bite-fv 2-hunter‘the bees bite the hunters’

b.zi-na-lum-a a-lenje10.s-pst-bite-fv 2-hunter‘they bite the hunters’

sm-:Vinfl (↑ subj nounclass) = 10optional ((↑ subj pred) =′ PRO′)



Object marker

Verbal inflectional morphology

SM-T/A-(DIR)-(OM)-Vstem

(4) a.njuchi zi-na-wa-lum-a a-lenje10.bee 10.s-pst-2.o-bite-fv 2-hunter‘the bees bite them, the hunters’

b.njuchi zi-na-wa-lum-a10.bee 10.s-pst-2.o-bite-fv‘the bees bite them’

c. *njuchi zi-na-lum-a10.bee 10.s-pst-bite-fv‘the bees bite’

om-:Vinfl (↑ subj nounclass) = 2obligatory (↑ subj pred) =′ PRO′



Pro-drop

njuchi (↑ pred) =′ bee′

(↑ nounclass) = 10zi-na-wa-lum-a (↑ pred) =′ bite〈subj,obj〉’optional ((↑ subj pred) =′ PRO′)

(↑ subj nounclass) = 10obligatory (↑ obj pred) =′ PRO′

(↑ obj nounclass) = 2

X

X↑=↓

zi-na-wa-lum-a

X(↑ subj =↓)

njuchi

pred ’bite⟨subj,obj

⟩’

subj

[pred ’bee’

nounclass 10

]

obj

[pred ’PRO’

nounclass 2

]



Pro-drop

njuchi (↑ pred) =′ bee′

(↑ nounclass) = 10zi-na-wa-lum-a (↑ pred) =′ bite〈subj,obj〉’optional ((↑ subj pred) =′ PRO′)

(↑ subj nounclass) = 10obligatory (↑ obj pred) =′ PRO′

(↑ obj nounclass) = 2

X

X↑=↓

zi-na-wa-lum-a

pred ’bite⟨subj,obj

⟩’

subj

[pred ’PRO’

nounclass 10

]

obj

[pred ’PRO’

nounclass 2

]



Anaphoric agreement

I The object marker in Chichewa is used as an anaphoricpronoun.

I The object is a dislocated topic, not a direct object NP.I Functional uniqueness ⇒ Independent NPs that cooccur with

these pronominal inflections must have nonargument functions,like dislocated topics.

I The agreement in gender class is the anaphoric agreement.

(5) a. My mother, she is a really good sport.

b. She is a really good sport, my mother.



Semantics-oriented analysis (1)

Example

(6) Davidi compared Chris to himselfi.

pred ’compare⟨subj,obj,oblgoal

⟩’

subj[pred ’david’

]obj

[pred ’chris’

]oblgoal

[pred ’PRO’

prontype REFL

]

Semantic in nature

Anaphoric binding relations are semantic in nature, having to dowith coreference between a pronoun and its antecedent.



Semantics-oriented analysis (2)

Multiple parallel structures

I LFG views language as being made up of multipledimensions of structure.

Proposal

I antecedent in the semantic structure of thepronoun/anaphor.[

antecendent σ(g)]

I Mapping from f-structure to s-structure: σ

σ(f):[antecendent σ(g)

]



Example (1)

Single sentence

(7) Davidi compared Chris to himselfi.

pred ’compare⟨subj,obj,oblgoal

⟩’

subj d[pred ’david’

]obj

[pred ’chris’

]oblgoal p

[pred ’PRO’

prontype REFL

]

⇓ σ

σ(p)[antecendent σ(d)



Example (2)

Mini-discourse

(8) a. David arrived.f

pred ’arrive⟨subj

⟩’

subj g[pred ’david’

]

b. He yawned.h

pred ’yawn⟨subj

⟩’

subj i[pred ’PRO’

]

σ(i)[antecendent σ(g)

]



Binding domain (1)

Example

(9) Davidi wrapped the blanket around himselfi.

pred ’wrap⟨subj,obj

⟩’


]obj

[pred ’blanket’

]

adj

pred ’around

⟨obj

⟩’

obj

[pred ’PRO’

prontype REFL

]

The antecedent of himself may also appear in an f-structure thatdoes not contain the pronoun.



Binding domain (2)

Example

(10) *Davidi thought that Chris had seen himselfi.

pred ’think⟨subj,comp

⟩’


]

comp

pred ’see

⟨subj,obj

⟩’

subj[pred ’chris’

]obj

[pred ’PRO’

prontype REFL

]

Himself cannot appear in a sentence with no antecedent, or withan antecedent in a syntactically unacceptable relation to it.



Positive binding constraints

Key idea

Explore binding constraints defined in terms of f-structural rela-tions.

Proposal

The antecedent of the English reflexive pronoun must appear inthe Minimal Complete Nucleus containing the pronoun.

Minimal Complete Nucleus containing f

The smallest f-structure that contains f and a subj function.

( gf∗ gfpro f )¬(→ subj)

Inside-out constraint: (gf f) = g ≡ g[gf f



Crosslinguistic concerns

Observation

I Languages with multiple anaphorsI provide evidence for expanding the range of constraints

that anaphors can obeyI demonstrate that constraints on anaphoric binding must be

specified lexically, not universally.

I Different anaphoric elements in the same language mayobey different anaphoric binding constraints.

I Coargument Domain:( gf∗ gfpro f )¬(→ pred)

I Minimal Finite Domain:( gf∗ gfpro f )¬(→ tense)

I Root Domain: (gf∗ gfpro f)



Positive binding constraints (cont)

(11) *Davidi’s father nominated himselfi.

pred ’nominate⟨subj,obj

⟩’

subj

spec [pred ’david’

]pred ’father’

obj

[pred ’PRO’

prontype REFL

]

F-command

The antecedent of an anaphor is generally required to f-commandthe anaphor: ((gf∗ gfpro f) gfante)

Example

(( gf∗ gfpro f ) subj)¬(→ tense)



Negative binding constraints

Observation

I Different anaphoric elements in the same language mayobey different negative constraints.

I Negative constraints must be lexically associated with eachanaphoric element.

(12) *Davidi nominated himi.pred ’nominate

⟨subj,obj

⟩’


]obj

[pred ’PRO’

]

Proposal

The antecedent of the English pronoun, like him must not appearin the Coargument Domain containing the pronoun.



Outline

Anaphora


Raising and Control



Relative clause

(13) a man who Chris saw

NP

N′

CP

C′

IP

I′

VP

V

saw

NP

N

Chris

NP

N

who

N′

N

man

Det

a

pred ’man’

spec[pred ’A’

]

adj

topic 1

[pred ’PRO’

prontype REL

]relpro 1

pred ’see⟨subj,obj

⟩’


]obj 1



Relative clause

(14) a man whose book Chris read

NP

N′

CP

C′

IP

I′

VP

V

saw

NP

N

Chris

NP

N′

N

book

Det

whose

N′

N

man

Det

a

pred ’man’

spec[pred ’A’

]

adj

topic 1

spec[pred ’PRO’

prontype REL

]pred ’book’

relpro 1

pred ’see⟨subj,obj

⟩’


]obj 1



Relative clause

Annotated PS rule

CP → RelP C′

(↑ topic)=↓ ↑=↓(↑ topic)=(↑ RTopicPath)

(↑ relpro)=(↑ TopicRelPath)(↑ relpro prontype)=c REL



Wh-question

(15) who does Chris like

CP

C′

IP

I′

VP

V

like

NP

N

Chris

C

does

NP

N

who

focus 1

[pred ’PRO’

prontype WH

]q 1

pred ’like⟨subj,obj

⟩’


]obj 1



Outline

Anaphora


Raising and Control



Raising

(16) David seemed to yawn.

pred ’seem⟨xcomp

⟩subj’

subj 1

[pred ’david’

]xcomp

pred ’yawn⟨subj

⟩’

subj 1

I Raising verbs in English and other languages exemplify

functional control.I The subj of the raising verb funtionally controls the subj of

the subordinate complement.

I Functional control verbs require as an argument an opencomplement xcomp.



Raising

(17) David believed Chris to know the answer.

pred ’believe⟨subj,xcomp

⟩obj’


]obj 1

[pred ’chris’

]

xcomp

pred ’know

⟨subj,obj

⟩’

subj 1

obj

[pred ’answer’

spec THE

]



Functional constraints

PS Rule

V′ → V (NP) (VP)↑=↓ (↑ obj) =↓ (↑ xcomp) =↓

Lexicon entries

seemed V (↑ pred) =′ seem〈xcomp〉subj′(↑ subj) = (↑ xcomp subj)

believed V (↑ pred) =′ believe〈subj,xcomp〉obj′(↑ obj) = (↑ xcomp subj)

David seemed to yawn

P319. Textbook.On whiteboard



Anaphoric control

(18) David tried to leave.

pred ’try⟨subj,comp

⟩’


]comp

pred ’leave⟨subj

⟩’

subj[pred ’PRO’

]

Anaphoric control contrasts with functional control

I The subordinate complement in an anaphoric controlconstruction is comp, not xcomp.

I The relation in anaphoric controlI is semantically much closer to an anaphoric binding relationI does not involve alertsyntactic identity



Anaphoric control (cont)

(19) David convinced Chris to leave.

pred ’convince⟨subj,obj,comp

⟩’


]obj

[pred ’chris’

]comp

pred ’leave⟨subj

⟩’

subj[pred ’PRO’

]



Anaphoric vs. functional control

I In an anaphoric control construction, the anaphoricallycontrolled subj of the subordinate comp is syntacticallyindependent from the matrix controller.

⇒ Syntactic restrictions imposed on the subject of the comp isnot relevant for the matrix controller.

Example

VP complement drop is impossible for xcomp, but possible forcomp argument of many predicates:

(20) a. *[Did David really yawn?] He seemed.

b. *[Did Chris really know the answer?] David believedhim.

(21) a. [Did David really leave?] He tried.

b. [Will Chris leave?] If David can convince him.



Two types of anaphoric control constructions

Obligatory anaphoric control

Coreference is required between an argument of the matrix clauseand the controlled position in the subordinate clause.

I An anaphor in an anaphoric control construction may beassigned an antecedent by the rules of sentence grammar.

Arbitrary anaphoric control

No coreference constraints are imposed by the control verb.

I The controlled argument in the subordinate clause finds itsreferent in a way very similar to an ordinary pronoun,



Obligatory anaphoric control

PS Rule

V′ → V (NP) (VP)↑=↓ (↑ obj) =↓ (↑ xcomp|comp) =↓

Lexicon entries

tried V (↑ pred) =′ try〈subjcomp〉′(↑ comp subj pred) =′ PRO′

convinced V (↑ pred) =′ convince〈subj,obj,comp〉′(↑ comp subj pred) =′ PRO′



Arbitrary anaphoric control

(22) David gestured to follow Chris.

pred ’gesture⟨subj,comp

⟩’


]

comp

pred ’follow

⟨subj,obj

⟩’

subj[pred ’PRO’

]obj

[pred ’chris’

]

I Meaning: David gestured for some unspecified individual(s)

to follow Chris.I Syntactically, obligatory and arbitrary control constructions

do not differ.

gesture V (↑ pred) =′ gesture〈subj,comp〉′(↑ comp subj pred) =′ PRO′



Reading

I Lexical Functional GrammarI 11.1, 11.2I 12.1, 12.3, 12.5


Lexical-Functional Grammar59.108.48.12/lcwm/course/fs/lec/lfgana.pdf · Lexical-Functional Grammar...

Documents

Transcript of Lexical-Functional Grammar59.108.48.12/lcwm/course/fs/lec/lfgana.pdf · Lexical-Functional Grammar...