File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/88/c88-2104_metho.xml
Size: 17,277 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:12:07
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="C88-2104"> <Title>Notes: I am indebted to Eva Haji~ov&, Petr Sgail,</Title> <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="494" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> Abstract : </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> This paper motivates and T~roposes a~J(\]irl~ ~ new feature of s sj,'ntactio function to the feature system of CPSG. Later , it shows its necessity in number of synt~ctic constructs , such as passivization, extraposi-\[;Jon , coordination etc. But ~ddlng such fea~ ture is not understood as a mere technicalit.~ , an~ thus some implications for the explan~vtor)< power of the theory are also discusse(! o 1. Remarks on the Notation of PP T}~e notion of Prepositional Phrase has a fJ. rm and long standing tradition in the An~ /:J o-.laxor, linguistic framework , including r~P\[~C~. The classical Continental tradition, on the other h~ind, does not use this term for \]~nf<uage description in majority of frame~.;or\]:s developed and treats prepositions pre4omJnantl,v as markers of nouns. In this pay, er, I will adhere to this approach.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The most important reason for doing this is the fact ~hat , on the assumption of existence of PP, it is impossible to generate s~ich sentences as (1) in the GPSG context.free framework.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (I) I went there with John and with Paul, who met each other before.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The point is, that in (I), on the assumption ~f the existence of PP, we find a PP-coordi-r~tion, resulting in a PP, rather than an NP one. Consequently, the relative clause must be sister of this PP rather than of an NP.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> lint this is (at \].east in my opinion) hardly a~ acceptable solution, both intuitively and formally. Even an attempt to cope with this oroblom by means of rightward &quot;Across-the-Poard&quot; extraposition would not make things better, since such a solution would presume phrases as &quot;John who met each other&quot; to be correct English NP's. I do not wish to pursue this further here, the problem is more thoroughly described in (01iva,88) from both intuitive and formal viewpoints. What I really wanted to do was to motivate the decision of avoiding the term PP in this paper (and, possibly, the necessity of omitting it from the CPSG framewor\]e altogether), which will be reflected in the notation of rules. Thus , assuming otherwise the notation familiar from (Oazdar,Klein,Pullum and Sag,85) , the category PP {\[PFOR~ z\]} will he reoasted as ~Pf\[PREP z \]} , which should road as &quot;NP marked with preposition ~ &quot; As a special value of the feature PREP, the value &quot;nil&quot; ought to be introduced, with the meaning that there is no preposition marking the NP in question (i.e., the category NP~\[PREP nil\]} in the new notation is exactly equivalent to the simple NP in the notation of (Gazdar ,~(lein ,Pullum and Sag ,85)).</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="494" end_page="494" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 2deg The Szn__tactic Function Feature </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper, I shall try to show some of the problems connected with omitting the traditional notion of (syntactic) function in GPSG, and their possible solutionsdeg The payoffs of the notion mentioned can be seen e.g. on the classification of adver-~ bials: each adverbial modifier, whether expressed by an NP {PREP} , by an adverb, by a subordinated clause or otherwise, has its more specific meaning (&quot;function&quot;) in the sentence. With specific lexlcal units, e.g.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> with the verb &quot;put&quot;, this is so obvious that a &quot;semantic&quot; classification was proposed even in some of the syntactical approaches, cfo (Bresnan and Grimshaw,78), and later transferred into GPSG without change, as can be seen on the presence of the feature L0C and related lexical rule introducing &quot;put&quot; (2). (2) VP----~ H\[6\] ,NP,PP\[+LOC} Further, two more such features, viz. MANNER and TEMP, were, unfortunately again with no systematic motivation, proposed as &quot;possible solution&quot; for some problems of coordination in (Sag,Gazdar,Wasow and Weisler,85). These features LOC,MANNER,TEZP are, of course, nothing else than function markers on adverbial modifiers (of location, of manner, of time)deg Now the time has come to introdfice these modifiers more systematically; but I add two arguments in favour of such systemization before. First, the rule (2), explicitly stipulating the complement as PP (or, alternatively, as NP {PREP\] ) , does not provide the theory with the power to generate any of (3).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (3)a. I have put my spectacles somewhere, but now I cannot recall where it was.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> b. She put it where I wanted it.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> The second argument comes again from coordi-nation; neither under the traditional &quot;categorial harmony&quot; nor under the newly proposed theory of (Sag,Gazdar,Wasow and Weisler,85), the contrast in (4) could be explained.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> (4) a. She was killed by her husband and by his mistress.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> bo She was killed by a hammer and by an axe.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> c. *She was killed by her husband and by a hammer.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> Under the &quot;functional&quot; approach, however, we find in (4)a the coordination of a_~nts (&quot;deep subjects&quot;), in (4)b the coordination of instruments; but in (4)c an attempt to coordinate a~ and instrument is involved, which makes this string ungrammatical.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> Thus, it seems to be advantageous to add one more item to the feature system of GPSG, namely the feature of function (let it be called FUNC, hence) of the phrase in the sentence. Its values will mark the adverbial modifiers of place (lee), direction (dir), manner (mod), instrument (instr), purpose (purp), ss well as other functions of phrases, such as subject (subj), direct object (dobJ), indirect object (iobj), predicative (prd), resu\]t (eff), agent of passive sentences (ag) etc., as is usual in the Prague Linguistic School. Further, the example (4) and the related discussion guides us to add FUNC to the set of Head-features.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> Next, we shall consider the following triads o~ examples, all generated by the standard GPSG grammar.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> (5) a. Kim gave Sandy the book. b.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> The book was given Sandy (by Kim).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> Co Sandy was given the book (by Kim).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> (6) a. We considered him a friend.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> be He was considered a friend (by us).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> e.*A friend was considered him (by us).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> (7) a. The king made him a duke.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> he }~e was made a duke (by the king).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> e.*A duke was made him (by the king).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> The problem is clear: the Passive Metarule (8) applied on rules introducing NP's as sisters of V 0 even in cases these NP:s were not direct objects, which was not always correct. (8) Passive Metarule '4P -----> W ,NP II V~'{pas\]- ~--~-~ W,(~P{\[ P~,P by\]) ) Similarly, (8) can apply to the ID-rules (9)a,(10)a :introducing &quot;there&quot;-oonstructions and clefts , respectively, yielding (9)b , (10)b, which is again obviously wrong.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="21"> (9)a. V.~{\[AGR NP(there,\[PLUR Z\]}\]} , ~r\[221 ,NP {\[PLUR 4} b, VP{\[AGR NP{there,\[PLUR /'\]},pas} H b2\] ,(NP {\[PRF, P by\]}:) (10)a. VP (+it} --'---> H \[4/4\] ,NP ,S{+R} b. VP {+it,pas\] H\[Zl4\] ,S{+R} ,(NP{\[PREP by\]} ) One more such example can be constructed if we apply the Extraposition Metarule (tl) to the rule (12)a and let the Passive Metarule (8) apply to the result, as sketched in (12)a ,b ,Co (11) Extraposltlon Metarule ~ (\[AGR S\]} ------> W x2 {lAiR ~P{it\]\]} ---%w,s (12)a. VP{\[AGR S\]} .... *Hb0\] ,NP That Lee was elected bothered Kim. b.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="22"> VP \[\[AGR NP(it}\]} -----~ Hi20\] ,NP,S It bothered Kim that Lee was elected.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="23"> s. VP {\[AGR NP{it~,pa~ --~ tt be\] ,s ,(NP {\[P~P by\]} ) *It was bothered (by Kim) that Lee was elected.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="24"> Note that in (12)c, &quot;it&quot; serves as a dummy subject, i.e. it is not a personal pronoun which could be replaced by the referred noun as in &quot;It (=the child) was bothered that Lee was elected.&quot;.* And even if this were not the case, the presence of the optional NP {\[PREP by\]} would in any ease rule the grammatJeality of such sentences out.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="25"> Thus, some strings are generated by the standard GPSG grammar that are ungrammatical while, on the other hand, such sentences as (13) cannot be generated by the grammar, sin9e the verb &quot;hope&quot; is introduced by an ID-rule as in (14), where the role of direct object is played by a subordinated clause rather than by an accusative NP, and thus the construction cannot undergo passivization via the Passive Metarule (8). Similar situation occurs with &quot;concede&quot; etc., cf. (15). (13) That he would sing was hoped by everybody.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="26"> (14) VP--~ II,S{fin) (15) VP ~H,(~P{\[PI~m ) to\]} ) ,~\]{fin\] Thus we arrive to the basic insight concerning passivization: that, generally, such verbs may be passivized which s~bcategprize ~gr direct object, irrespectively to the means by which this diFeet..pb~ect is realised</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="494" end_page="495" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> (NP S ...): </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Another important point in &quot;the j)assivizatlon process (as viewed in transformational grammars) is that the direct ob'e~ in active construction becomes the sub~@_~% in the passive one. In the GPSG framework, this shift must be reflected in the passive counterpart of the active ID-rule , otherwise the grammar will generate (16)b as the passive counterpart of (16)a, while, again, i% will not be possible to generate (13), for the FSD11, assumed in (Gazdar,Klein,Pullum and Sag,85) and repeated here as (17), will force the \[AOR NPffNF0m~ norm\]}\] to be Instantiated on the V O and thus will rule out the possibility of non-NP subject occurring in {he sentence I .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (16)a. Everybody hoped that he would sing.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> b.*He was hoped (by everybody).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> (17) FSD11: {iv,+\] ,\[.BAR ,0\]} ~ {\[A~R NP{\[NFOI~ norm\]}\]} To make the transition of (active) direct ob-Ject to (passive) subject explicit, we first mark all the direct objects in the lexical ID-rules in the metagrammar wlth the feature-value pair \[FUNC dobj\] , and, second, augment the Passive Netarule with the requirement that the passive VP agree with the category of active direct object. Thus we arrive to the shape (18) of Passive Metarule for Direct Objects.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (18) Passive Metarule for Direct Objects</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Several remarks concerning (18): first, the &quot;variable&quot; X stands for the same category in the whole me~arule, and this is also 'the case with Y. Second, the bracket pairs &quot;(&quot; and &quot;)&quot; mark off mutually bound optionality when used around the same category - in this rule -the case is that of (\[AGR X\]) and (X), i.eo conoerning \[AGR X\] , either there is \[AGP X\] in the mother of the pattern rule and then, consequen1/21y, X {\[FUNC ag\]} occurs as the licens-ing category of optional agent complement in the target rule, or there is no \[AO}~ X\] in the pattern rule ana then just {\[FUNC ag\]}is the licensing category of the optional agent, all other features \].eft to later instantiation. This is important to allow for (19)a,b; note, however, that the verbs in %hls example are of different subcategorization classes V\[2\] and V\[20\] , respectively 2.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> (19)a. Lee was bothered by K im.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> b. Lee was bothered (that) Kim was elected.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> To prevent strings like those in (20) to be ~enerated, we have to introduce FSD (21) which marks all categories containing \[~'T~NC ag\] as NP{\[PREP by\]\] ; if this does not contradict some other principle of feature instantiation (which is not the case with &quot;bother&quot; in (19)b, because here the agent is already marked as S by the licensing rule) 3 (20)a. *Lee was bothered Kim.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> b. *Lee was bothered after Kim.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> (21) FSD: {\[FUNC ag\]}~\[N,+\], \[V,-\] ,\[PREP by\]} Further, to prevent (22) %o be generated, it is necessary to add FCR (29) to the metagrammar. This move, however, together with exam-Dies (24) and analogs ((24)b will be of particular interest), will lead us to a profound reconsideration of the roles and mutual relations of features COMP/PREP and FUNC. The matter is that, given the metagrammar in its current shape, (24)b cannot be generated, because FUNC is considered to be a Head feature and -thus, in virtue of the Head Feature Convention, \[FUNC subj\] will be forced on the second subject sentence; but since this will be lacking the \[COMP that\] specification, it will bemarked as unacceptable by (23).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> (22)a. *For us to be elected bothers Sandy.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> b. *Kim was elected bothers Sandy.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> (23) FCJ~: s {\[r~c sub j\]} ~{\[COMP that\]} (24) a. ThatKim was elected and that Sandy was dismissed bothered Lee.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> b. That Kim was elected and Sandy was dismissed bothered Lee.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> IIow to solve this problem ? For inspiration, \].et us turn to the classical and well-known analogy between verbs with complementizers and nouns with prepositions , shown in (25) ,(26).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> (25)a. That Sandy was dismissed bothered I, ee. bo*Sandy was dismissed bothered Leedeg (26)ao Kim waited for Leslie.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> b.~Kim waited Lesliedeg At first glance, there is some disci.epancy between (24)b and (25)b, in respect to the basic idea of coordination in (Gazdar,Klein, Pullum and Sag,85), namely that each member of a coordinated construction should be able to appear alone in place of the entire coordination structure. The same case will be, naturally, that of (26)b and (27)deg (27) Kim waited fox. Lee and Leslie.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> Of course, the matter is that in (24)b and (27) the COMP and. PREP, respectively, belong to the whole coordination, not to its first member solely, and -thus extracting the second member to stand alone as shown in (25)b,(26)b is wrong - it is, in fact, not the whole second member being extracted; one its indivisible part gets lost somehow, and thus it is only natural that the resulting string is ungrammatical. The second observation %o be made is by far more important in its scope: from the comparison of examples (25)a vs.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> (25)b and (26)a vs. (26)b, it i.s clear that the role of constituent having some function in the sentence can be played only by a fuli/f__~eeified phrase of the appropriate type (i.e., in (25), the role of (sentential) sub-ject by a sentence containing &quot;that&quot;-complement, in (26), the role of (prepositional) object by a noun phrase containing the concerned preposition). And the same holds also vice versa, i.e. no underspeclfied phrase can play the role of the constituent having the function in question. In other words, whenever the complement or preposition is expan.ded in the generation process, the &quot;rest&quot; of the phrase must not be any more marked as having the function the &quot;whole&quot; phrase has. This is just what is expressed in the COMP and PREP expansion rules (28)a,b.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="21"> (28) Z~ Inil l\[coMP *U \[\[coMP ni~/ b. N~\[FU'C~\]I--~{\[S,~CAT ~J}, N~iF~NC hi@</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="495" end_page="496" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> \[\[PREP ~\]\] I\[PREP ni\]l\] </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Not only that these rules cope correctly wlth all problems which we mentioned in this respect, but (more importantly) they shed light on the mutual relations between oom~lementizers ~ositions and syntactic functions~ that th_~ar~ust mirror images of eaoho%which cannot exist ~.</Paragraph> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>