Lexical-Functional Grammar An Introduction

Transcription

1 Lexical-Functional Grammar An Introduction Anke Lenzing Paderborn University, Germany Summer School on PT and SLA Ghent University, September 2012

2 LFG A Generative Grammar Aims: to understand how human beings acquire and use grammar to develop a psychologically realistic model of language to represent underlying linguistic knowledge focus: syntactic component system that is purely internal to language

3 Key assumptions in LFG Nonderviational approach to syntax Unification grammar unification of lexical features plays a central role in the process of sentence generation Constraint-based theory of syntax different aspects of linguistic structure are realised by different but related linguistic representations

4 Parallel projection architecture levels of linguistic representation exist in parallel and are linked by specific mapping principles Lexicalist approach: grammars are lexically driven - lexicon plays a major role in sentence generation

5 Levels of linguistic representation Different aspects of linguistic structure are represented in different ways Three main different levels of linguistic representation Argument Structure (a-structure) Functional Structure (f-structure) Constituent Structure (c-structure)

6 LFG - Levels of Linguistic Representation A-structure chase <agent patient/theme> [-r/-o] [-r/+o] languagespecific F-structure SUBJ OBJ universal C-structure The two small children are chasing that dog language-specific Bresnan (2001) 6

7 Two aspects of syntactic structure Two different levels that represent syntactic structure: F-structure: abstract functional organisation of the sentence encompasses universal aspects of grammar largely invariant across languages C-structure: overt, more concrete level of phrase structure configurations represented as phrase structure trees language-specific Based on Darlrymple 2001, Bresnan 2001, Falk 2001 & Lenzing (forthc.)

8 What is present in f-structure? F-structure encompasses grammatical functions and features Grammatical functions: SUBJ, OBJ, OBL etc. Semantic feature: PRED Functional features: person, number, tense, case etc.

9 Grammatical functions and their classification Based on Dalrymple (2001), Bresnan (2001), Falk (2001) & Lenzing (forthc.)

10 Core argument functions: Subjects & Objects in English realised as NPs/DPs John gives Mary a book. Subj Obj Obj θ Argument functions Noncore argument functions: Obliques arguments with explicit indication of particular thematic role in English realised as PPs which indicate thematic role John gives a book to Linda. Subj Obj Obl goal

11 Complements: COMP (contains internal SUBJ phrase) John complained that Mary snored. COMP XCOMP (SUBJ specified outside the phrase) Cleaning the house keeps John busy. XCOMP

12 Non-argument functions Adjuncts: modifiers can have different structural forms John bought the book on Saturday Adj Mary intentionally crashed her car. Adj

13 Topic & Focus - grammaticized discourse functions Topic: known information, topic of discourse (what the sentence is about) Focus: new information Q:What did you name your cat? A: ROSIE I named her. FOC Q:What did you name your pets? A: My dog, I named Harold. My cat, I named Rosie. TOP TOP example taken from Bresnan 2001: 97

14 Classification of grammatical functions Lenzing (forthc.), based on Bresnan (2001)

15 Other features in f-structure PRED: semantic feature represents meaningful elements Functional features: denote the grammatical properties of a word e.g. person, gender, number, case, tense, aspect

16 Formal representation of f-structure attribute-value structure Uniqueness Condition: every attribute has a unique value (Bresnan 2001: 47) Bresnan 2001: 47

17 Lions live in the forest. Bresnan 2001: 46f. An attribute can be a symbol (e.g. SUBJ, OBJ, TENSE, NUM, PRED) A value can be a symbol (e.g. PL, PRES) a semantic form (e.g. lion ) an f-structure

18 NP a boy Feature unification *a boys a, D ( DEFINITE) = - a, D ( DEFINITE) = - ( NUMBER) = SG ( NUMBER) = SG ( PERSON) = 3 ( PERSON) = 3 boy, N ( PRED) = boy DEF - PRED ( NUMBER) = SG ( PERSON) = 3 boy NUM SG PERS 3 Unification of features NUM & PERSON boys, N ( PRED) = boy ( NUMBER) = PL ( PERSON) = 3 * DEF - PRED boy NUM SG / PL PERS 3 No unification of NUM (violates Uniqueness Condition)

19 Wellformedness conditions on f-structures Uniqueness condition Every f-structure attribute has a unique value Completeness Condition F-structure must be complete Coherence Condition All argument functions in f-structure have to be designated by a PRED Examples: Lenzing (forthc.)

20 C-structure Surface syntactic organisation of phrases and sentences Depicted in terms of phrase structure trees C-structures differ across languages Distinction between endocentric & lexocentric languages Based on Dalrymple (2001), Bresnan (2001), Falk (2001) & Lenzing (forthc.)

21 Endocentric languages highly hierarchical c-structures C-structure Lexocentric languages flat c-structures all arguments sisters of the verb Dalrymple 2001: 55 The two small children are chasing that dog English grammatical functions encoded in c- structure configurations representation in terms of X -theory all phrases have heads of the same category Warlpiri grammatical functions encoded by lexical means, e.g. case agreement and morphology existence of nonprojective category S

22 Principle of Lexical Integrity Lexicalist approach to syntax: Morphologically complete words are leaves of the c- structure tree and each leaf corresponds to one and only one c-structure node. (Bresnan 2001: 92) words cannot be divided into smaller syntactic units word formation & formation of phrases and sentences two distinct processes

23 Lexicalist vs. syntactic approach word formation: morphological process word formation: syntactic process

24 From c-structure to f-structure Sources of f-structure: f-structure associated with lexical entries phrase structure rules carrying functional annotations c- and f-structure are related by the function phiф Dalrymple (2001)

25 Adapted from Dalrymple (2001: 120f.) C- to f-structure mapping

26 Argument Structure What is an argument? Argument (working definition): entity required for the action expressed by the verb to take place different verbs require different numbers of arguments arguments differ with respect to their semantic role Examples: freeze, hit, put

27 Argument Structure 3 types of information encoded in a-structure: predicator & its argument roles hierarchical order of roles according to prominence syntactic classification of roles Semantic side Syntactic side

28 Thematic Hierarchy of Roles Thematic Hierarchy: agent>beneficiary>experiencer/goal>instrument>patient/theme>locative structures the thematic roles of verbs encodes prominence relations among a set of semantic notions language-independent Ordering of thematic roles in terms of their prominence: tickle <agent, patient> put <agent, patient/theme, locative>

29 Restrictions thematic roles Syntactic features I grammatical functions Patient/theme SUBJ or OBJ John kicks the ball. (OBJ) The ball was kicked by John. (SUBJ) *John kicks to the ball. (*OBL) Instruments SUBJ or OBL ɵ The knife killed the king.(subj) The man killed the king with the knife. (OBL ɵ ) *The man killed the king the knife. (OBJ ɵ ) Subj no restrictions John tickled Sam. (Agent) Sam was hit by John. (Patient) The knife killed the king. (Instrument) Under the table is a good place to hide. (Locative) OBJ ɵ extremely restricted Mary gave John the book. (Theme) adapted from Payne, J.,( n.d.)

30 Syntactic Features II Classification of basic argument functions SUBJ, OBJ, OBJ ɵ, OBL ɵ : [ +/-r] thematically restricted or not [ +/-o] objective or not -r +r -o subj obl ɵ +o obj obj ɵ Bresnan 2001

31 Lexical Mapping Theory (a- to f-structure mapping) Key principles: a) intrinsic role classifications agent encoding principle: intrinsic value of agent = [-o] b) morpholexical operations suppression of agent in passives: a-structure: painted <agent, patient/theme> f-structure: [-o] Ø [-r] SUBJ morpholexical operation The wall was painted.

32 c) default classifications highest thematic role is assigned SUBJ function, all others are assigned non-subject functions + Wellformedness conditions a-structure : place < agent patient/theme locative > [-o] [-r] [-o] intrinsic role class. [-r] [+r] default class. SUBJ/OBJ wellformedn.cond. (Function/arg. Biuniqueness) f-structure: SUBJ OBJ OBL θ

33 A- to f- and c-to f-structure mapping

34 Typological & psychological plausibility Typological plausibility: LFG accounts for both configurational & nonconfigurational languages nonderivational approach; parallel projection architecture Psychological plausibility: Feature unification psychologically plausible process Non-derivational theories more plausible than transformational theories as these are non-local whereas language processing is a local process

35 LFG psychological plausibility II Psycholinguistic constraints in language processing (cf. Dalrymple (2001: 430 ); Kaplan and Bresnan (1982: xxxix ff.)): Creativity Finite Capacity Reliability Order-Free Composition Universality These constraints can be resolved by LFG

36 Bibliography Alsina, A. (1996). The role of argument structure in grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Bresnan, J. (ed.) (1982) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Bresnan, J. (2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bresnan, J., & Kanerva, J. M. (1989). Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(1), Dalrymple, M. (2001). Syntax and semantics. Lexical functional grammar. Vol. 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Falk, Y. (2001). Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.). The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp ). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kroeger, P. R. (2004). Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kroeger, P. R. (2005). Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lenzing, A. "Lexical-Functional Grammar" in: Lenzing, A. (forthc.) The Development of the Grammatical System in Early Second Language Acquisition The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Payne, J. (n.d.) Seminar manuscript.