DOCSLIB.ORG

Wordperfect Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wordperfect Document March 19, 2003 0. Introduction Many languages form predicates productively by combining a N with a V, which combine to form a unit with properties of both the N and the V; usually the combination has the thematic structure of N and the case-marking properties of V. Languages with this construction include English, Japanese and Hindi/Urdu (1a-c) 1) a. We made them a promise [that we would be on time] [English] b. keikoku suru 'do warning, warn' john-wa murahito-ni [ookami-ga kuru-to] keikoku-o shita [Japanese] John-top villager-to wolf-nom come-comp warning do-pf 'John warned the villagers [that the wolf was coming] Grimshaw and Mester 1988:207. c. yaad kar-naa 'do memory, remember' [Hindi/Urdu] ....woo .. apnee priya vastuooN-koo deekh-kar apnee bacpan-kii yaad kar lee-taa 3s self's dear objects -dat see-prt self's childhood memory do take-impf 'Seeing his cherished objects, he would remember his childhood. (Bahl 1974 72-3) The combination of N and V as a single predicate is widespread and productive in the languages which have this process. One such language is Hindi/Urdu. In this paper I base an analysis on the N+P predicates of this language to inquire more closer into the general syntactic and semantic questions which they raise, especially in the context of syntactic analyses conforming to the constraints of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1986, 1995). In particular I want to show the effect of the Principle of Full Interpretation on syntactic derivations well as semantic interpretation at the LF interface. This condition requires that every part of the (LF) representation must be licensed, by being case and theta marked if is an argument, or by assigning its theta roles if it is a predicate (Chomsky 1986: 97-103). One instantiation of Full Interpretation could be found in Higginbotham’s condition (1985) that arguments (receiving a theta roles) must be saturated, that is, they must not have to assign theta roles. The N component of N+ V combinations has a paradoxical nature. The Ns of this construction are event nominals having a complex event structure and a theta array, more like V category heads than Ns. Yet the N is clearly the syntactic object of V. Further, the properties of N +V are strongly 1 influenced by N rather than V. These properties have been explained in much of the previous literature as the result of a lexical composition of a fully specified N with a specially designated ‘light’ lexical version of V, which lacks the normal argument structure of V. I will propose a syntactic rather than lexical derivation for N+V, which relies on a fully specified N merging as the syntactic object of V. But N is not fully saturated , as it has its own theta roles of assign. Successful merger of N as a syntactic object of V requires that the event structures of N and V have to merge. If unification of their event properties takes place, then the remaining arguments are all licensed and no theta roles are left undischarged, satisfying Full Interpretation at LF. The goal of this syntactic proposal is to show that the construction is an instance of a very general syntactic process of merger, theta discharge and case licensing, without special lexical stipulations, other than the specifications of lexical information encoded by N and V. I want to simplify greatly the role of the lexicon in the formation of N+V, to show the effects of Full Interpretation. One consequence is that syntactic licensing by case checking is not identical to semantic licensing via theta assignment. Another is that there are no special lexical ‘light’ verbs, but some verbs are lighter than others, and these are the ones which participate in N+V combinations. Finally I want approach the problem of complex N + V predicates form the point of view of syntactic composition, defining the contribution of syntactic structure to interpretation. The verbal projection is constituted of sub-events and so N+V combinations have an accomplishment interpretation by virtue of N in syntactic object position, corresponding to a sub-event defining a result or end point. 1. The nature of N+V complex predicates These constructions have long been understood to present interesting problems of syntax, morphology and syntax, from a variety of descriptive and theoretical viewpoints. There is a vast array of papers on complex predicates in many languages. See Cattell 1984, Mohanan 1994, Butt 1995, Dubinsky 1997, Karimi-Doostan 1997 and other papers for references to much of this literature. The combination of V with N or another V in Hindi/Urdu has been discussed by Hook 1973, 1979, Verma 1993, Gambhir 1993, Mohanan 1994, Butt 1995 and Butt and Ramchand 2001. It is interesting that there has been from the first discussions, substantial agreement on the properties of the construction, though there are many different approaches to its derivation. Jackendoff’s 1974 paper on English complex predicates of the general type (1) called attention to two features: the construction as a whole has the theta roles and subcategorization properties of N, not V, and the combination of N +V depends on some sort of compatibility in argument structures between N and V. Grimshaw and Mester’s 1988 study of Japanese N + suru, as in (2), conclude that the accusative-marked N forms a NP phrase with its thematic object (internal argument), while the subject and other arguments are outside the NP. These two points are well-grounded in empirical evidence and are important properties which must enter into accounts of the construction, including this one. 1.2 Interface conditions The conditions on the LF interface restrict the syntactic object so as to exclude combinations which 2 cannot have a conceptual-intensional interpretation. What these conditions are is less clear. Referentially dependent expressions such as anaphors must somehow be associated with syntactic antecedents conforming to the binding conditions of the language in question. The syntactic head- specifier relation may be invoked if anaphors are cliticized in some way to a functional head such as TENSE or AGR, identified the DP in the specific position of the projection (Cole and Sung 1995, Cole, Hermon and Huang 2001). But not much has been said about the consequences of LF interface conditions and what derivations would create violations leading to lack of interpretability at LF. There is a condition on semantic interpretation originally proposed by Higginbotham 1985, and discussed and somewhat restructured by Speas (1990). Though proposed in the context of an earlier theory of syntax, I propose that it constrains LF representations in a way which is appropriate to the Minimalist Program. This condition constrains theta discharge and can be summed up as 2) Arguments are fully saturated (Higginbotham 1985:561) A constituent is saturated if it contains no undischarged theta roles in the array associated with its head. For an argument to be assigned a theta role by a head bearing a theta-array, the argument must not itself have any theta roles which are not discharged. Higginbotham's original proposal is grounded in the concept of government, which defines a local relation of syntax and construal. in D-structure and S-structure, levels of representation abandoned by the Minimalist Program because they are not motivated by interface conditions (phonetic and semantic). Some of the functions of government in defining a close syntactic relation are found in the operation MERGE. Heads merge with phrases which are arguments of the head and discharge one of the head's theta roles. Theta discharge takes place at the same time as MERGE (Chomsky 1995, Ura 2000). Here I propose that it is a condition on LF which constrains possible executions of the operation MERGE, and guarantees a well-formed LF representation. If MERGE takes place combining a theta-marking head with an unsaturated argument phrase, the result is an uninterpretable and ill-formed LF structure. An example of normal MERGE of a head with a theta array and its arguments is shown in ( ). The theta related operations are theta discharge and theta projection (Higginbotham 1985: 560ff, Speas 1990). : 3) a. A friend remembered Sam b. remember <1,2,e> MERGES with Sam, discharging the 2 argument position c. The V head PROJECTS upward, with its theta grid containing one discharged position V<1,2*,e> PROJECT 3 3 V<1,2,e> DP remember Sam MERGE d. The combination in ( c) MERGES with a friend: V<1*,2*,e> PROJECT 3 DP V <1,2*,e> MERGE a friend 3 V<1,2,e> DP remember Sam The theta grid projects upward, allowing the projected phrase to combine with other arguments until all theta roles are discharged. Finally, the event argument e in the theta array is theta bound by TENSE (Higginbotham 1985). The syntactic object formed by these operations can be interpreted at LF. No theta positions are unsaturated. 1 A rough approximation of a the LF representation is given in (2), in a kind of English syntactic order for legibility. The principal feature of this representation, however, is that each position in the theta array is related to some component of the sentence, and this relation will be represented as coindexing, as Higginbotham originally proposed (1985); this coindexing is a means of cross- referencing phrases with the heads which license them, identifying their syntactic and semantic roles. Any equivalent notation or conditions will serve the same purpose. ______________________ | | 4) TENSE(I) [ DP(j) ...[V<1(j), 2(k), e(I)> DP(k)] |________| |__________| The theta grid of V contains no open positions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Noun Group and Verb Group Identification for Hindi
    Noun Group and Verb Group Identification for Hindi Smriti Singh1, Om P. Damani2, Vaijayanthi M. Sarma2 (1) Insideview Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (2) Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT We present algorithms for identifying Hindi Noun Groups and Verb Groups in a given text by using morphotactical constraints and sequencing that apply to the constituents of these groups. We provide a detailed repertoire of the grammatical categories and their markers and an account of their arrangement. The main motivation behind this work on word group identification is to improve the Hindi POS Tagger’s performance by including strictly contextual rules. Our experiments show that the introduction of group identification rules results in improved accuracy of the tagger and in the resolution of several POS ambiguities. The analysis and implementation methods discussed here can be applied straightforwardly to other Indian languages. The linguistic features exploited here are drawn from a range of well-understood grammatical features and are not peculiar to Hindi alone. KEYWORDS : POS tagging, chunking, noun group, verb group. Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical Papers, pages 2491–2506, COLING 2012, Mumbai, December 2012. 2491 1 Introduction Chunking (local word grouping) is often employed to reduce the computational effort at the level of parsing by assigning partial structure to a sentence. A typical chunk, as defined by Abney (1994:257) consists of a single content word surrounded by a constellation of function words, matching a fixed template. Chunks, in computational terms are considered the truncated versions of typical phrase-structure grammar phrases that do not include arguments or adjuncts (Grover and Tobin 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Clusters
    Chapter 2 Feature Clusters 1. Introduction The goal of this Chapter is to address certain issues that pertain to the properties of feature clusters and the rules that govern their co-occurrences. Feature clusters come as fully specified (e.g. [+c+m] associated with people in (1a)) and ‘underspecified’ (e.g. [-c] associated with acquaintances in (1a)). Such partitioning of feature clusters raises the question of the implications of notions such as ‘underspecified’ and ‘fully specified’ in syntactic and semantic terms. The sharp contrast between the grammaticality of the middle derivation in (1b) and ungrammaticality of (1c) takes the investigation into rules that regulate the co-realization of feature clusters of the base-verb (1a). Another issue that is discussed in this Chapter is the status of arguments versus adjuncts in the Theta System. This topic is also of importance for tackling the issue of middles in Chapter 4 since – intriguingly enough – whereas (1c) is not an acceptable middle derivation in English, (1d) is. (1a) People[+c+m] don’t send expensive presents to acquaintances[-c] (1b) Expensive presents send easily. (1c) *Expensive presents send acquaintances easily. (1d) Expensive presents do not send easily to foreign countries. In section 2 of this Chapter, the properties of feature clusters with respect to syntax and semantics are examined. Section 3 sets the background for Section 4 by addressing the issue of conditions on thematic roles that have been assumed in the literature. Section 4 deals with conditions that govern the co-occurrences of feature clusters in the Theta System. The discussion in section 4 will necessitate the discussion of adjunct versus argument status of certain phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • Diachrony of Ergative Future
    • THE EVOLUTION OF THE TENSE-ASPECT SYSTEM IN HINDI/URDU: THE STATUS OF THE ERGATIVE ALGNMENT Annie Montaut INALCO, Paris Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universität Konstanz Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors) 2006 CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ Abstract The paper deals with the diachrony of the past and perfect system in Indo-Aryan with special reference to Hindi/Urdu. Starting from the acknowledgement of ergativity as a typologically atypical feature among the family of Indo-European languages and as specific to the Western group of Indo-Aryan dialects, I first show that such an evolution has been central to the Romance languages too and that non ergative Indo-Aryan languages have not ignored the structure but at a certain point went further along the same historical logic as have Roman languages. I will then propose an analysis of the structure as a predication of localization similar to other stative predications (mainly with “dative” subjects) in Indo-Aryan, supporting this claim by an attempt of etymologic inquiry into the markers for “ergative” case in Indo- Aryan. Introduction When George Grierson, in the full rise of language classification at the turn of the last century, 1 classified the languages of India, he defined for Indo-Aryan an inner circle supposedly closer to the original Aryan stock, characterized by the lack of conjugation in the past. This inner circle included Hindi/Urdu and Eastern Panjabi, which indeed exhibit no personal endings in the definite past, but only gender-number agreement, therefore pertaining more to the adjectival/nominal class for their morphology (calâ, go-MSG “went”, kiyâ, do- MSG “did”, bola, speak-MSG “spoke”).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Syntax of Scope Anna Szabolcsi January 1999 Submitted to Baltin—Collins, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
    1 The Syntax of Scope Anna Szabolcsi January 1999 Submitted to Baltin—Collins, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory 1. Introduction This chapter reviews some representative examples of scopal dependency and focuses on the issue of how the scope of quantifiers is determined. In particular, we will ask to what extent independently motivated syntactic considerations decide, delimit, or interact with scope interpretation. Many of the theories to be reviewed postulate a level of representation called Logical Form (LF). Originally, this level was invented for the purpose of determining quantifier scope. In current Minimalist theory, all output conditions (the theta-criterion, the case filter, subjacency, binding theory, etc.) are checked at LF. Thus, the study of LF is enormously broader than the study of the syntax of scope. The present chapter will not attempt to cover this broader topic. 1.1 Scope relations We are going to take the following definition as a point of departure: (1) The scope of an operator is the domain within which it has the ability to affect the interpretation of other expressions. Some uncontroversial examples of an operator having scope over an expression and affecting some aspect of its interpretation are as follows: Quantifier -- quantifier Quantifier -- pronoun Quantifier -- negative polarity item (NPI) Examples (2a,b) each have a reading on which every boy affects the interpretation of a planet by inducing referential variation: the planets can vary with the boys. In (2c), the teachers cannot vary with the boys. (2) a. Every boy named a planet. `for every boy, there is a possibly different planet that he named' b.
    [Show full text]
  • A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory
    A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory Robert J. Kuhns Artificial Intelligence Center Arthur D. Little, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Abstrae_~t For the purposes (and space limitations) of A parser which is founded on Chomskyts this paper we only briefly describe the theories Government-Binding Theory and implemented in of X-bar, Theta, Control, and Binding. We also PROLOG is described. By focussing on systems of will present three principles, viz., Theta- constraints as proposed by this theory, the Criterion, Projection Principle, and Binding system is capable of parsing without an Conditions. elaborate rule set and subcategorization features on lexical items. In addition to the 2.1 X-Bar Theory parse, theta, binding, and control relations are determined simultaneously. X-bar theory is one part of GB-theory which captures eross-categorial relations and 1. Introduction specifies the constraints on underlying structures. The two general schemata of X-bar A number of recent research efforts have theory are: explicitly grounded parser design on linguistic theory (e.g., Bayer et al. (1985), Berwick and Weinberg (1984), Marcus (1980), Reyle and Frey (1)a. X~Specifier (1983), and Wehrli (1983)). Although many of these parsers are based on generative grammar, b. X-------~X Complement and transformational grammar in particular, with few exceptions (Wehrli (1983)) the modular The types of categories that may precede or approach as suggested by this theory has been follow a head are similar and Specifier and lagging (Barton (1984)). Moreover, Chomsky Complement represent this commonality of the (1986) has recently suggested that rule-based pre-head and post-head categories, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Parameters Set out from Europe
    Principles and Parameters Set Out from Europe Mark Baker MIT Linguistics 50th Anniversary, 9 December 2011 1. The Opportunity Afforded (1980-1995) The conception of universal principles plus finite discrete parameters of variation offered: The hope and challenge of simultaneously doing justice to both the similarities and the differences among languages. The discovery and expectation of patterns in crosslinguistic variation. These were first presented with respect to “medium- sized” differences in European languages: The subjacency parameter (Rizzi, 1982) The pro-drop parameter (Chomsky, 1981; Kayne, 1984; Rizzi, 1982) They were then perhaps extended to the largest differences among languages around the world: The configurationality parameter(s) (Hale, 1983) “The more languages differ, the more they are the same” Example 1: Mohawk (Baker, 1988, 1991, 1996) Mohawk seems nonconfigurational, with no “syntactic” evidence of a VP containing the object and not the subject: (1) a. Sak wa-ha-hninu-’ ne ka-nakt-a’. Sak FACT-3mS-buy-PUNC NE 3n-bed-NSF b. Sak kanakta wahahninu’ c. Kanakta’ wahahninu’ ne Sak d. Kanakta’ Sak wahahninu’ e. Wahahninu’ ne Sak ne kanakta’ f. Wahahninu’ ne kanakta’ ne Sak g. Wahahninu’ ne kanakta’ h. Kanakta’ wahahninu’ i. Sak wahahninu’ j. Wahahninu’ ne Sak k. Wahahninu. All: ‘Sak/he bought a bed/it.’ There are also no differences between subject and object in binding (Condition C, neither c- commands the other) or wh-extraction (both are islands, no “subject condition”) (Baker 1992) Mohawk is polysynthetic (agreement, noun incorporation, applicative, causative, directionals…): (2) a. Sak wa-ha-nakt-a-hninu-’ Sak FACT-3mS-bed-Ø-buy-PUNC ‘Sak bought the bed.’ 1 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 92 (2014) 1–32 ! 2
    WORKING PAPERS IN SCANDINAVIAN SYNTAX 92 Elisabet Engdahl & Filippa Lindahl Preposed object pronouns in mainland Scandinavian 1–32 Katarina Lundin An unexpected gap with unexpected restrictions 33–57 Dennis Ott Controlling for movement: Reply to Wood (2012) 58–65 Halldór Ármann Sigur!sson About pronouns 65–98 June 2014 Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax ISSN: 1100-097x Johan Brandtler ed. Centre for Languages and Literature Box 201 S-221 00 Lund, Sweden Preface: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax is an electronic publication for current articles relating to the study of Scandinavian syntax. The articles appearing herein are previously unpublished reports of ongoing research activities and may subsequently appear, revised or unrevised, in other publications. The WPSS homepage: http://project.sol.lu.se/grimm/working-papers-in-scandinavian-syntax/ The 93rd volume of WPSS will be published in December 2014. Papers intended for publication should be submitted no later than October 15, 2014. Contact: Johan Brandtler, editor [email protected]! Preposed object pronouns in mainland Scandinavian* Elisabet Engdahl & Filippa Lindahl University of Gothenburg Abstract We report on a study of preposed object pronouns using the Scandinavian Dialect Corpus. In other Germanic languages, e.g. Dutch and German, preposing of un- stressed object pronouns is restricted, compared with subject pronouns. In Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, we find several examples of preposed pronouns, ranging from completely unstressed to emphatically stressed pronouns. We have investi- gated the type of relation between the anaphoric pronoun and its antecedent and found that the most common pattern is rheme-topic chaining followed by topic- topic chaining and left dislocation with preposing.
    [Show full text]
  • Handout 1: Basic Notions in Argument Structure
    Handout 1: Basic Notions in Argument Structure Seminar The verb phrase and the syntax-semantics interface , Andrew McIntyre 1 Introduction 1.1 Some basic concepts Part of the knowledge we have about certain linguistic expressions is that they must or may appear with certain other expressions (their arguments ) in order to be interpreted semantically and in order to produce a syntactically well-formed phrase/sentence. (1) John put the book near the door put takes John, the book and near the door as arguments near takes the door and arguably the book as arguments (2) Fred’s reliance on Mary reliance takes on Mary and Fred as arguments (3) John is fond of his stamp collection fond takes his stamp collection and John as arguments An expression taking an argument is called a predicate in modern & philosophical terminology (distinguish from old terminology where predicate = verb phrase). An argument can itself be a predicate (4) Gertrude got angry (in some theories, angry is an argument of get , and Gertrude is an argument of both get and angry ) Some linguists say that arguments can be shared by two predicates, e.g. in (1) the book might be taken to be an argument of both put and near . Argument structure (valency) : the (study of) the arguments taken by expressions. In syntax, we say a predicate (e.g. a verb) has, takes, subcategorises for, selects this or that (or so-and-so many) argument(s). You cannot say you know a word unless you know its argument structure. A word’s argument structure must be mentioned in its lexical entry (=the information associated with the word in the mental lexicon , i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Review: Syntax Fall 2007
    Final Review: Syntax Fall 2007 Jean Mark Gawron San Diego State University December 12, 2007 1 Control and Raising Key: S Subject O Object C Control R Raising For example, SOR = Subject(to)-Object Raising. Example answers: 1.1 seem a. Identify the control type [subject/object]. What NP is understood as controller of the infinitive (does or is expected to do or tries to do or ... the action described by the verb in infinitival form) John tries to go Subject SSR, SC John seems to go Subject SSR, SC John is likely to go Subject SSR, SC John is eager to go Subject SSR, SC Mary persuaded John to go Object SOR, OC Mary expected John to go Object SOR, OC Mary promised John to go Subject SSR, SC The control type of seem is subject! b. Produce relevant examples: (1) a. Itseemstoberaining b. There seems to be a problem c. The chips seems to be down. d. It seems to be obvious that John is a fool. e. The police seem to have caught the burglar. f. The burglar seems to have been caught by the police. c. Example construction i. Construct embedded clause: (a) itrains. Simpleexample;dummysubject * John rains Testing dummy subjecthood ittorain Putintoinfinitivalform ii. Embed (a) ∆ seem [CP it to rain] Embed under seem [ctd.] it seem [CP t torain] Moveit— it seems [CP t to rain] Add tense, agreement (to main verb) d. Other examples (b) itisraining. Alternativeexample;dummysubject *Johnisraining Testingdummysubjecthood ittoberaining Putintoinfinitivalform ∆ seem [CP it to be raining] Embed under seem it seem [CP t toberaining] Moveit— it seems [CP t to be raining] Add tense, agreement (to main verb) (c) Thechipsaredown.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Thematic Phase and the Architecture of Grammar Julia Horvath and Tal Siloni 1. Introduction This Paper Directly Addresses
    The Thematic Phase and the Architecture of Grammar Julia Horvath and Tal Siloni 1. Introduction This paper directly addresses the controversy around the division of labor between the lexicon and syntax. The last decade has seen a centralization of the operational load in the syntactic component. Prevalent trends in syntactic theory form predicates syntactically by the merger of various heads that compose the event and introduce arguments. The traditional lexicon is reduced to non-computational lists of minimal building blocks (Borer 2005, Marantz 1997, Ramchand 2008, Pylkkänen 2008, among others). The Theta System (Reinhart 2002, this volume), in contrast, assumes that the lexicon is an active component of the grammar, containing information about events and their participants, and allowing the application of valence changing operations. Although Reinhart's work does not explicitly discuss the controversy around the division of labor between these components of grammar, it does provide support for the operational role of the lexicon. Additional evidence in favor of this direction is offered in works such as Horvath and Siloni (2008), Horvath and Siloni (2009), Horvath and Siloni (2011), Hron (2011), Marelj (2004), Meltzer (2011), Reinhart and Siloni (2005), Siloni (2002, 2008, 2012), among others. This paper examines the background and reasons for the rise of anti-lexicalist views of grammar, and undertakes a comparative assessment of these two distinct approaches to the architecture of grammar. Section 2 starts with a historical survey of the developments that led linguists to transfer functions previously attributed to the lexical component to the syntax. Section 3 shows that two major empirical difficulties regarding argument realization that seemed to favor the transfer, can in fact be handled under an active lexicon approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Development and Analysis of Verb Frame Lexicon for Hindi
    Linguistics and Literature Studies 5(1): 1-22, 2017 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/lls.2017.050101 Development and Analysis of Verb Frame Lexicon for Hindi Rafiya Begum*, Dipti Misra Sharma Language Technology and Research Center, India Copyright©2017 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License Abstract A verb frame (VF) captures various syntactic relatively flexible word order [2,3]. There is a debate in the distributions where a verb can be expected to occur in a literature whether the notions subject and object can at all be language. The argument structure of Hindi verbs (for various defined for ILs [4]. Behavioral properties are the only criteria senses) is captured in the verb frames (VFs). The Hindi verbs based on which one can confidently identify grammatical were also classified based on their argument structure. The functions in Hindi [5]; Marking semantic properties such as main objective of this work is to create a linguistic resource thematic roles as dependency relations is problematic too. of Hindi verb frames which would: (i)Help the annotators in Thematic roles are abstract notions and require higher the annotation of the dependency relations for various verbs; semantic features which are difficult to formulate and to (ii)Prove to be useful in parsing and for other Natural extract. Therefore, a grammatical model which can account Language Processing (NLP) applications; (iii)Be helpful for for most of the linguistic phenomena in ILs and would also scholars interested in the linguistic study of the Hindi verbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Review: Syntax Fall 2007
    Final Review: Syntax Fall 2007 Jean Mark Gawron San Diego State University December 10, 2008 1 Theta Criterion 1.1 There are three ways the criterion can be violated: a. Too many arguments b. Too few arguments c. The wrong kind of argument i. Syntactically ii. Semantically Evaluate this claim: the following sentence under the indicated coindexing, is a theta- criterion violation. (1) Johni believes that hei is a genius. Justification: One guy, John, has 2 theta roles. True or False? False. Read theta-criterion (p. 225) (2) a. Each argument is assigned one and only one theta role. b. Each theta role is assigned to one and only one argument. Restating (more explicitly) (3) a. Each argument position of a predicate is assigned one and only one theta role.by the predicate b. Each theta role of a predicate is assigned to one and only one argument of the predicate. Observations: 1.1 The Theta-criterion does not preclude coreference between NP arguments, even between arguments in the same clause. But each NP must receive its own theta role from the predicate that it is an argument of. Thus NPs in separate clauses must receive tehta roles from separate predicates. 1.2 The theta criterion does preclude a predicate from assigning theta roles to NPs other than its OWN subject and complements. For example, a verb may not assign roles to NPs in another clause. 1.3 The theta criterion is not only about verbs. It is about ANY head and its complements and/or subject. (4) a. *Thebookofpoetryofprose b.
    [Show full text]