DOCSLIB.ORG

Phrase Structure： Two Analyses of English Determiners＊

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phrase Structure： Two Analyses of English Determiners＊ View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE 北星論集（短） 第 ８ 号（通巻第４６号） March ２０１０ Dependency Structure vs．Phrase Structure： Two Analyses of English Determiners＊ Takafumi MAEKAWA Contents pendency structure notation used in WG． １Introduction （１）Dependency structure ２ Determiners in WG ２．１ D depends on N ２．２ N depends on D ２．３ Mutual dependency ２．４Problems WG is a monostratal grammatical frame- ３ Determiners in HPSG work，and it dispenses entirely with mul- ３．１ Assumptions tiple levels of syntactic representations and ３．２ Application ４Conclusion transformations that mediate among them． Grammatical relations or functions are shown by explicit labels， such as ‘subj １Introduction （ect）’and‘comp（lement）’． Dependency In this paper，we will be concerned with structure is a pure representation of rela- two types of syntactic representations． tions between head and dependent． The Phrase structure has been adopted as the head is shown as the tail of an arrow， basis for sentence structure by most syn- and the dependent is at the point．１ Note tactic theories．In phrase structures，indi- that the number of nodes is in a one!to! vidual words combine to form constitu- one correspondence to the number of ents． However， Word Grammar （hence- words in the sentence： （１）has three forth WG： Hudson １９８４，１９９０，２００３a， nodes and the sentence which it repre- ２００７） does not acknowledge any unit sents has three words．Consider the corre- larger than a word，and employs depend- sponding phrase structure in（２）． ency structure instead．In this framework， all relationships are word!based．Depend- （２）Phrase structure encies and phrases are alternative ways of representing relationships between words． Some believe that dependency structure and phrase structure are merely notational variants（Gaifman １９６５；Robinson１９７０）． There are，however，significant differences between the two．（１）is an example of de- Key words： Head!Driven Phrase Structure Grammar，Word Grammar，Determiner，Dependency ―51― 北星論集（短） 第 ８ 号（通巻第４６号） There are seven nodes in this phrase （３）Something terrible has happened，but structure： S，two NPs，two Ns，VP and Idon’t know what． V．Note that the dependency structure in （１）has just three nodes．This means that （４）＊Idon’t know what is going to hap- dependency structures are simpler than pen，but I do know happened already． phrase structures． Furthermore， Hudson （２００７：１１８）states that‘each word that Secondly，predicates such as wonder and has at least one dependent is the head of sure require a wh!word（or whether or if ） a phrase which consists of that word plus as its complement．In（５）and（６），cited （the phrases of）all its dependents’，mean- from Hudson（２００３b： ６３３），this require- ing that phrases are implicit in the de- ment is satisfied by who and what，not pendency structure． If phrase structures come and happened ． In these sentences can be derived from dependency struc- what is selected by the higher verb is the tures，phrases are redundant．It looks as wh!word，so the verb must depend on it though dependency structure should be in the subordinate clause． chosen as a basis for syntactic representa- tion rather than phrase structure． （５）I wonder （who）came．＊ Another difference between depend- （６）I’m not sure （what）happened．＊ ency structure and phrase structure is that the former can represent mutual de- What emerges from these pieces of evi- pendency but the latter cannot．The WG dence is that what and happened depend analysis of extraction of wh!words assumes on each other．In the framework of WG， mutual dependency between the wh!word the dependency structure may be either and the verbal head．Let us take the de- of the two diagrams in（７）． pendency structure of a wh!question What happened? for example． The wh!pronoun （７） what is the subject of the verb happened ， and a verb’s subject is one of its depend- ents．This means that what must depend on happened ．However，there is also evi- dence that the verb depends on the wh! word．Hudson（１９９０：３６１!３８２；２００３b； ２００４） argues that the verb is a comple- ment of the wh!pronoun and thus depends on it．Firstly，the wh!pronoun can occur without the verb as in（３），but（４）shows that the verb cannot appear without the Thus，wh!interrogatives may involve a mu- wh!pronoun． These examples are from tual dependency（Hudson １９９０：３６１!３８２， Hudson（２００４：３０）． ２００３b，２００７：１４２）．WG has analysed wh! relatives，that!relatives and free relatives ―52― Dependency Structure vs．Phrase Structure： Two Analyses of English Determiners in this fashion（Hudson １９９０：３８３ff，２００３ ２．１ D depends on N a）．We will also see that WG treats the Hudson（２００４）argues that D depends on relation between determiners and nouns in N mainly based on Van Langendonck’s terms of mutual dependency． Such an （１９９４） evidence． According to Van Lan- analysis where two words are interdepend- gendonck （１９９４：２５０）， the head of NP ent is not possible in phrase structure adjuncts is the noun rather than the de- frameworks． terminer．He points out that the meaning It seems， then， that we have good of the noun decides if the NP adjunct is reason for adopting dependency structure possible．The eligible nouns refer to times rather than phrase structure as the basis （８），places（９）and manners（１０）．２ for syntactic representation． The goal of this paper is to compare （８）I overslept each morning． Hudson’s（２００４）dependency!based account （９）Put it this side of the line． of English determiners in WG with Van （１０）It’sbesttodoitmy way． Eynde’s（２００５，２００６） phrase!based ac- count in Head!Driven Phrase Structure （１１） is not acceptable because the noun Grammar（henceforth HPSG： Pollard and does not belong to any of the above se- Sag １９８７，１９９４）．We will show that in an mantic categories． empirically adequate analysis of English de- terminers the role of head must be disso- （１１）＊I overslept each house． ciated from the role of selector．We will argue that this conclusion leads to ruling Whether or not NP adjuncts are possible out the dependency account． is not only decided by the meaning of the The organisation of the paper is as fol- noun concerned．It is also decided by the lows．In section ２，we consider how WG noun itself．Consider（１２）． deals with the determiners．Section ３ then look at the HPSG analysis of determiners （１２）I did it the usual way ／＊manner． put forth by Van Eynde（２００５，２００６）．In the final section，we offer some concluding （１２）shows that way canbeusedasan remarks． adjunct although its synonym manner can- not． Similarly， the noun cannot be re- placed by a personal pronoun such as it． ２ Determiners in WG In this section we will consider two kinds （１３）I saw him this morning． of data．In ２．１ we will look at evidence （１４）＊Isawhimit． which might show that determiners de- pend on nouns； in ２．２ we will look at The above facts show that whether or not evidence for the opposite conclusion．The a noun can be used in an NP adjunct de- examples in this section are cited from pends on the noun involved and on its Hudson（２００４）unless otherwise indicated． meaning．Therefore，it is quite reasonable ―53― 北星論集（短） 第 ８ 号（通巻第４６号） to say that the noun rather than the de- way as （１７）， where extraposition is terminer is the head of NP adjuncts． blocked by names of ．The grammaticality Second， singular， countable common of this example shows that people，rather nouns need determiners， but others do than some， is a direct dependent of the not．This means that whether D is neces- verb． If the head of a phrase is， as sary or not is decided by N． Hudson （２００４：１２） defines， the word Third，common nouns allow no more which is associated with words outside than one determiner in English． This is that phrase， the head of some people quite similar to verbs and prepositions should be people，not some． which typically allow no more than one It seems，then，we can conclude that complement． D must depend on N． Finally， let us consider extraposition from NP． The NP people who have been ２．２ N depends on D waiting ten years is continuous in（１５），but We have seen some evidence that D de- therelativeclauseisextraposedin（１６）． pends on N．In this subsection，however， we will look at some data that lead us to （１５） People [who have been waiting ten the opposite conclusion： N depends on years] are still on the list． D．Hudson（２００４）gives three kinds of evi- dence． （１６）People are still on the list [who have Many European languages allow a been waiting ten years]． preposition and a definite article to fuse intoasinglewordform．Oneexampleis However， extraporision is not possible if French du，which is a fusion of a preposi- the antecedent noun（people，in this case） tion de and a definite article le． is deeply embedded（Hudson ２００４：２０）． （１９）du（＝ de le）village‘from the vil- （１７）＊Names of people are still on the list lage’ [who have been waiting ten years]． This fusion only occurs in a PP where the This means that extraposition is only al- article introduces an NP which is the com- lowed if the antecedent noun is a direct plement of the preposition． Let us com- dependent of the verb to which the rela- pare this with the infinitival clause le voir tive clause is attached（are，in this case）． hier in（２０），where it is impossible to fuse Now，look at the following data． de le into du． （１８）Some people are still on the list [who （２０）J’ai oubli! de le voir hier． have been waiting ten years]． I have forgotton of him to!see yesterday ‘I forgot to see him yesterday．’ If people depends on some in（１８），extra- position should be prohibited in the same Assuming that all the definite articles can ―54― Dependency Structure vs．Phrase Structure： Two Analyses of English Determiners be used as object pronouns
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology
    UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05b2s4wg ISBN 978-3946234043 Author Schütze, Carson T Publication Date 2016-02-01 DOI 10.17169/langsci.b89.101 Data Availability The data associated with this publication are managed by: Language Science Press, Berlin Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language Classics in Linguistics 2 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language science press Carson T. Schütze. 2019. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology (Classics in Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/89 © 2019, Carson T. Schütze Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-02-9 (Digital) 978-3-946234-03-6 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-04-3 (Softcover) 978-1-523743-32-2
    [Show full text]
  • CAS LX 522 Syntax I
    It is likely… CAS LX 522 IP This satisfies the EPP in Syntax I both clauses. The main DPj I′ clause has Mary in SpecIP. Mary The embedded clause has Vi+I VP is the trace in SpecIP. V AP Week 14b. PRO and control ti This specific instance of A- A IP movement, where we move a likely subject from an embedded DP I′ clause to a higher clause is tj generally called subject raising. I VP to leave Reluctance to leave Reluctance to leave Now, consider: Reluctant has two θ-roles to assign. Mary is reluctant to leave. One to the one feeling the reluctance (Experiencer) One to the proposition about which the reluctance holds (Proposition) This looks very similar to Mary is likely to leave. Can we draw the same kind of tree for it? Leave has one θ-role to assign. To the one doing the leaving (Agent). How many θ-roles does reluctant assign? In Mary is reluctant to leave, what θ-role does Mary get? IP Reluctance to leave Reluctance… DPi I′ Mary Vj+I VP In Mary is reluctant to leave, is V AP Mary is doing the leaving, gets Agent t Mary is reluctant to leave. j t from leave. i A′ Reluctant assigns its θ- Mary is showing the reluctance, gets θ roles within AP as A θ IP Experiencer from reluctant. required, Mary moves reluctant up to SpecIP in the main I′ clause by Spellout. ? And we have a problem: I vP But what gets the θ-role to Mary appears to be getting two θ-roles, from leave, and what v′ in violation of the θ-criterion.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek and Latin Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes
    GREEK AND LATIN ROOTS, PREFIXES, AND SUFFIXES This is a resource pack that I put together for myself to teach roots, prefixes, and suffixes as part of a separate vocabulary class (short weekly sessions). It is a combination of helpful resources that I have found on the web as well as some tips of my own (such as the simple lesson plan). Lesson Plan Ideas ........................................................................................................... 3 Simple Lesson Plan for Word Study: ........................................................................... 3 Lesson Plan Idea 2 ...................................................................................................... 3 Background Information .................................................................................................. 5 Why Study Word Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes? ......................................................... 6 Latin and Greek Word Elements .............................................................................. 6 Latin Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes .......................................................................... 6 Root, Prefix, and Suffix Lists ........................................................................................... 8 List 1: MEGA root list ................................................................................................... 9 List 2: Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes .......................................................................... 32 List 3: Prefix List ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Language Structure: Phrases “Productivity” a Property of Language • Definition – Language Is an Open System
    Language Structure: Phrases “Productivity” a property of Language • Definition – Language is an open system. We can produce potentially an infinite number of different messages by combining elements differently. • Example – Words into phrases. An Example of Productivity • Human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features. (24 words) • I think that human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features, which are fascinating in and of themselves. (33 words) • I have always thought, and I have spent many years verifying, that human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features, which are fascinating in and of themselves. (42 words) • Although mainstream some people might not agree with me, I have always thought… Creating Infinite Messages • Discrete elements – Words, Phrases • Selection – Ease, Meaning, Identity • Combination – Rules of organization Models of Word reCombination 1. Word chains (Markov model) Phrase-level meaning is derived from understanding each word as it is presented in the context of immediately adjacent words. 2. Hierarchical model There are long-distant dependencies between words in a phrase, and these inform the meaning of the entire phrase. Markov Model Rule: Select and concatenate (according to meaning and what types of words should occur next to each other). bites bites bites Man over over over jumps jumps jumps house house house Markov Model • Assumption −Only adjacent words are meaningfully (and lawfully) related.
    [Show full text]
  • Processing English with a Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar
    PROCESSING ENGLISH WITH A GENERALIZED PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAMMAR Jean Mark Gawron, Jonathan King, John Lamping, Egon Loebner, Eo Anne Paulson, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow Computer Research Center Hewlett Packard Company 1501 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 ABSTRACT can be achieved without detailed syntactic analysis. There is, of course, a massive This paper describes a natural language pragmatic component to human linguistic processing system implemented at Hewlett-Packard's interaction. But we hold that pragmatic inference Computer Research Center. The system's main makes use of a logically prior grammatical and components are: a Generalized Phrase Structure semantic analysis. This can be fruitfully modeled Grammar (GPSG); a top-down parser; a logic and exploited even in the complete absence of any transducer that outputs a first-order logical modeling of pragmatic inferencing capability. representation; and a "disambiguator" that uses However, this does not entail an incompatibility sortal information to convert "normal-form" between our work and research on modeling first-order logical expressions into the query discourse organization and conversational language for HIRE, a relational database hosted in interaction directly= Ultimately, a successful the SPHERE system. We argue that theoretical language understanding system wilt require both developments in GPSG syntax and in Montague kinds of research, combining the advantages of semantics have specific advantages to bring to this precise, grammar-driven analysis of utterance domain of computational linguistics. The syntax structure and pragmatic inferencing based on and semantics of the system are totally discourse structures and knowledge of the world. domain-independent, and thus, in principle, We stress, however, that our concerns at this highly portable.
    [Show full text]
  • 24.902F15 Class 13 Pro Versus
    Unpronounced subjects 1 We have seen PRO, the subject of infinitives and gerunds: 1. I want [PRO to dance in the park] 2. [PRO dancing in the park] was a good idea 2 There are languages that have unpronounced subjects in tensed clauses. Obviously, English is not among those languages: 3. irθe (Greek) came.3sg ‘he came’ or ‘she came’ 4. *came Languages like Greek, which permit this phenomenon are called “pro-drop” languages. 3 What is the status of this unpronounced subject in pro-drop languages? Is it PRO or something else? Something with the same or different properties from PRO? Let’s follow the convention of calling the unpronounced subject in tensed clauses “little pro”, as opposed to “big PRO”. What are the differences between pro and PRO? 4 -A Nominative NP can appear instead of pro. Not so for PRO: 5. i Katerina irθe the Katerina came.3sg ‘Katerina came’ 6. *I hope he/I to come 7. *he to read this book would be great 5 -pro can refer to any individual as long as Binding Condition B is respected. That is, pro is not “controlled”. Not so for OC PRO. 8. i Katerinak nomizi oti prok/m irθe stin ora tis the K thinks that came on-the time her ‘Katerinak thinks that shek/m /hem came on time’ 9. Katerinak wants [PROk/*m to leave] 6 -pro can yield sloppy or strict readings under ellipsis, exactly like pronouns. Not so OC PRO. 10. i Katerinak nomizi oti prok/m irθe stin ora tis the K thinks that came on-the time her ke i Maria episis and the Maria also ‘Katerinak thinks that shek came on time and Maria does too’ =…Maria thinks that Katerina came on time strict …Maria thinks that Maria came on time sloppy 7 11.
    [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]
  • Reports 9, the Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian -English Contrastive Project
    *CUM? RESUME , FL 006 501 ED 108 465 A / . AUTHOR- c" FiApovic, Rudolf, Ed. TITLE Reports 9, the YugOslav Serbo-Croatian -English Contrastive Project. INSTITUTION Center for Applied Linguistics,Washington, D.C.; Zagreb Univ. (Yugoslavia). Inst. ofLinguistics. PUB DATE 74 ; NOTE 126p. AVAILABLE FROMInititut Za Lingvistiku, Filozofski Fakultet, Box 171, 41001 Zagreb, Yugoslavia (13.00) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$6.97 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Adjectives; Annotated Bibliographiesk*Contrastive Linguistics; Descriptive Linguistics; Determiners (Languages); English; Gia.mmar; Semantics; *Sentence Structure; *Serbocroatian; lavic Languages; *Structural Analysis; Synchroclinguistics; Syntax; Verbs ABSTRACT, The ninth volume in this seriescontains seven articles dealing with various aspects ofEnglish - Serbo-Croatian contrastive analysis. They are: "A Noteon Modifiers of Comparatives in English and Serbo-Croatian," byNaples Browne; "Superlative Structures in English and TheirCorrespondents in Serbo-Croatian," by Vladimir Ivir; "Semantic Aspects of AdjectiveComparison in English and Serbo-Croatian," by ,Vladimir Ivir;"Passive Sentences in English and Serbo-Croatian," byL/iljana Mihailovic; "The Definite Determiner in English and Serbo-Croatian,"by Olga Miseska Tonic; 'Englishand Serbo-Croatian VH-Wordt, their Derivatives andCorrelates," by Olga Miseska Tosic; and "An AnnOtatedBibliography of Research in Scientific and Technical Language," by L.Selinker, L. Trimble, and T. Huckin. (AN) *********************11*************************************************
    [Show full text]
  • On Multi-Functionality of Determiners in Grammar and Discourse
    愛知教育大学研究報告，５On Multi-Functionality７（人文・社会科学編） of Determiners in Grammar，pp.２ and７～３ Discourse５, March,２００８ On Multi-Functionality of Determiners in Grammar and Discourse Tomoko YASUTAKE Department of Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language, Aichi University of Education, Kariya, Aichi４４８―８５４２ Japan ０．Introduction This paper aims to shed light on the involuted workings of function words in English. Focusing on the articles and the in- definite determiners, I propose a new understanding of the concept of meaning in grammar and discourse. Drawing on evidence from present-day English, I point out that each determiner carries more than one function and different layers of meaning. The indefinite article a(n) is a prototypical example of multi-functional grammatical item: it signifies ‘oneness’ as its core lexical meaning and marks ‘hearer-new’ information at the same time. Functions of other determiners, however, are not so well recog- nized. More often than not, one of the functions stands out and attracts attention, while all the others are backgrounded, unrec- ognized or neglected. In some cases, multiple functions tend to be treated as polysemy. The new approach to multi- functionality of determiners permits better understanding of linguistic meanings than have hitherto been possible. １．Determiners in English A determiner is a grammatical element whose main role is to co-occur with nouns to express such semantic notions as quantity, number, possession, and definiteness; e.g. the, a, this, some, my, much. These words ‘determine’ the way in which the noun phrase is to be interpreted (e.g. acarvs. the car vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquiring Verb Subcategorization from Spanish Corpora
    Acquiring Verb Subcategorization from Spanish Corpora Grzegorz ChrupaÃla [email protected] Universitat de Barcelona Department of General Linguistics PhD Program “Cognitive Science and Language” Supervised by Dr. Irene Castell´onMasalles September 2003 Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Verb Subcategorization in Linguistic Theory 7 2.1 Introduction . 7 2.2 Government-Binding and related approaches . 7 2.3 Categorial Grammar . 9 2.4 Lexical-Functional Grammar . 11 2.5 Generalized Phrase-Structure Grammar . 12 2.6 Head-Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar . 14 2.7 Discussion . 17 3 Diathesis Alternations 19 3.1 Introduction . 19 3.2 Diathesis . 19 3.2.1 Alternations . 20 3.3 Diathesis alternations in Spanish . 21 3.3.1 Change of focus . 22 3.3.2 Underspecification . 26 3.3.3 Resultative construction . 27 3.3.4 Middle construction . 27 3.3.5 Conclusions . 29 4 Verb classification 30 4.1 Introduction . 30 4.2 Semantic decomposition . 30 4.3 Levin classes . 32 4.3.1 Beth Levin’s classification . 32 4.3.2 Intersective Levin Classes . 33 4.4 Spanish: verbs of change and verbs of path . 35 4.4.1 Verbs of change . 35 4.4.2 Verbs of path . 37 4.4.3 Discussion . 39 4.5 Lexicographical databases . 40 1 4.5.1 WordNet . 40 4.5.2 VerbNet . 41 4.5.3 FrameNet . 42 5 Subcategorization Acquisition 44 5.1 Evaluation measures . 45 5.1.1 Precision, recall and the F-measure . 45 5.1.2 Types and tokens . 46 5.2 SF acquisition systems . 47 5.2.1 Raw text .
    [Show full text]
  • Experimenting with Pro-Drop in Spanish1
    Andrea Pešková Experimenting with Pro-drop in Spanish1 Abstract This paper investigates the omission and expression of pronominal subjects (PS) in Buenos Aires Spanish based on data from a production experiment. The use of PS is a linguistic phenomenon demonstrating that the grammar of a language needs to be considered independently of its usage. Despite the fact that the observed Spanish variety is a consistent pro-drop language with rich verbal agreement, the data from the present study provide evidence for a quite frequent use of overt PS, even in non-focal, non- contrastive and non-ambiguous contexts. This result thus supports previous corpus- based empirical research and contradicts the traditional explanation given by grammarians that overtly realized PS in Spanish are used to avoid possible ambiguities or to mark contrast and emphasis. Moreover, the elicited semi-spontaneous data indicate that the expression of PS is optional; however, this optionality is associated with different linguistic factors. The statistical analysis of the data shows the following ranking of the effects of these factors: grammatical persons > verb semantics > (syntactic) clause type > (semantic) sentence type. 1. Introduction It is well known that Spanish is a pro-drop (“pronoun-dropping”) or null- subject language whose grammar permits the omission of pronominal 1 A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the international conference Variation and typology: New trends in syntactic research in Helsinki (August 2011). I am grateful to the audience for their fruitful discussions and useful commentaries. I would also like to thank the editors, Susann Fischer, Ingo Feldhausen, Christoph Gabriel and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Noun Phrase “The Big Blue Ball”
    SI485i : NLP Set 7 Syntax and Parsing Syntax • Grammar, or syntax: • The kind of implicit knowledge of your native language that you had mastered by the time you were 3 years old • Not the kind of stuff you were later taught in “grammar” school • Verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc. • Rules: “verbs take noun subjects”… 2 Example • “Fed raises interest rates” 3 Example 2 “I saw the man on the hill with a telescope.” 4 Example 3 • “I saw her duck” 5 Syntax • Linguists like to argue • Phrase-structure grammars, transformational syntax, X- bar theory, principles and parameters, government and binding, GPSG, HPSG, LFG, relational grammar, minimalism.... And on and on. 6 Syntax Why should you care? • Email recovery … n-grams only made local decisions. • Author detection … couldn’t model word structure • Sentiment … don’t know what sentiment is targeted at • Many many other applications: • Grammar checkers • Dialogue management • Question answering • Information extraction • Machine translation 7 Syntax • Key notions that we’ll cover • Part of speech • Constituency • Ordering • Grammatical Relations • Key formalism • Context-free grammars • Resources • Treebanks 8 Word Classes, or Parts of Speech • 8 (ish) traditional parts of speech • Noun, verb, adjective, preposition, adverb, article, interjection, pronoun, conjunction, etc. • Lots of debate within linguistics about the number, nature, and universality of these • We’ll completely ignore this debate. 9 POS examples • N noun chair, bandwidth, pacing • V verb study, debate, munch • ADJ adjective purple, tall, ridiculous • ADV adverb unfortunately, slowly • P preposition of, by, to • PRO pronoun I, me, mine • DET determiner the, a, that, those 10 POS Tagging • The process of assigning a part-of-speech or lexical class marker to each word in a collection.
    [Show full text]