DOCSLIB.ORG

1. Case and Agreement. the Big Picture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1. Case and Agreement. the Big Picture CASE AND AGREEMENT The Really Big Picture SOURCES BHATT, RAJESH. 2005. LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT IN HINDI-URDU. NATURAL LANGUAGE & Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery LINGUISTIC THEORY 23:757–807. 2 BLAKE, BARRY J. 2001. CASE: 2ND EDITION. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS: CAMBRIDGE. Our Roadmap BUTT, MIRIAM. 2006. THEORIES OF CASE. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS: CAMBRIDGE. CORBETT, GREVILLE. 2006. AGREEMENT. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS: CAMBRIDGE. (not necessarily in this order) HRISTOV, BOZHIL P. 2013. PRONOMINAL CASE ASSIGNMENT IN ENGLISH. JOURNAL OF • A broad overview of case and the LINGUISTICS 49:567-611. KRATZER, ANGELIKA. 1996. SEVERING THE EXTERNAL ARGUMENT FROM ITS VERB. IN ROORYCK, complexities in even a case-simple JOHAN, AND LAURIE ZARING, EDS. PHRASE STRUCTURE AND THE LEXICON, 109-137. NEW YORK: language such as English SPRINGER. KRATZER, ANGELIKA. 2002. TELICITY AND THE MEANING OF OBJECTIVE CASE. MS. UNIVERSITY OF • The complicated and elusive MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST. relationship between case and MCFADDEN, THOMAS. 2006. DEFAULT CASE AND THE STATUS OF COMPOUND CATEGORIES IN meaning DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY. IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE 30TH ANNUAL PENN LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM. AVAILABLE AT HTTP://LING.AUF.NET/LINGBUZZ/000323. • Nominative-Accusative systems PYLKKÄNEN, LIINA. 2008. INTRODUCING ARGUMENTS. MIT PRESS: CAMBRIDGE, MA. • Ergative-Absolutive systems SAMEK-LODOVICI, VIERI. 2003. AGREEMENT IMPOVERISHMENT UNDER SUBJECT INVERSION – A CROSS-LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS. IN G. FANSELOW, AND C. FÉRY, EDS., • How case and agreement RESOLVING CONFLICTS IN GRAMMAR. LINGUISTISCHE BERICHTE SONDERHEFT 11:49-82. *generally*interact in both kinds of SIGURÐSSON, HALLDÓR ÁRMANN. 1991. "ICELANDIC CASE-MARKED PRO AND THE LICENSING systems OF LEXICAL ARGUMENTS." NATURAL LANGUAGE & LINGUISTIC THEORY 9(2): 327-63. SIGURÐSSON, HALLDÓR ÁRMANN. 1996. ICELANDIC FINITE VERB AGREEMENT. WORKING PAPERS IN • Empirical issues related to agreement SCANDINAVIAN SYNTAX 57, 1–46. SIGURÐSSON, HALLDÓR ÁRMANN. 2006. AGREE IN SYNTAX. AGREEMENT IN SIGNS. IN BOECKX, CEDRIC, ED. AGREEMENT SYSTEMS, 201-237. JOHN BENJAMINS: AMSTERDAM. TALLERMAN, MAGGIE. 2005. UNDERSTANDING SYNTAX. LONDON: HODDER EDUCATION CASE 101 IT’S GONNA GET A LOT MORE COMPLICATED! • Very generally… 4 “Case is a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads.” [Blake 2001:1] Turkish is spoken by Mehmet adam-a elma-lar – ı ver-di about 72 million ppl. Mehmet.nom man-dat apple-plural-acc give-past.3sg (ethnologue.com) ‘Mehmet gave the apples to the man.’ [Blake 2001:1] • Here, the ”head” is the verb and the cases indicate the relationship that each noun has to the verb. • We’ll see that the terminology and the relationships between different words get murkier. • The nominative noun is the subject. • There’s no overt marking. We’ll come back to the idea of “abstract” case. • The accusative noun is the direct object. • The dative noun is the indirect object. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery 5 • Of course, this is an over- THE BASIC DIVISION simplification. BETWEEN CASE SYSTEMS •There are many more cases in the world’s languages. Languages that have case marking are generally classified as •Dative, Locative, having a nominative-accusative pattern or an ergative- Genitive, Partitive, absolutive pattern. Vocative, etc. •AND, both nom-acc and Nominative Accusative erg-abs systems tend to be much more complicated than this categorization suggests. A= subject of transitive S=subject of intransitive O=object of transitive •In particular, ergative languages tend to not be “purely” ergative. They show Ergative Absolutive some other pattern in some contexts. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery LATIN: ANOTHER LANGUAGE WITH 6 This is the declension for NOMINATIVE SUBJECTS AND feminine nouns. There’s a different declension for ACCUSATIVE DIRECT OBJECTS porta ‘door’ masculine nouns. sg pl In general… nominative porta portae nominative=subject genitive portae portarum genitive=possessive dative portae portis dative=indirect object accusative portam portas accusative=direct object ablative porta portis ablative=expresses source, location, and instrument vocative porta portis • e.g. – seen by the consul; in Italy; by (Butt 2006:3) hand Important: Each form in the paradigm does not vocative=person/thing being have to be unique. Syncretism is when languages addressed use the same morphological form to indicate different information. • e.g. – John, are you ready? Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery : The person(s) speaking 7 : The person(s) being addressed SO little CASE IN : The person(s)/thing(s) being spoken about ENGLISH: singular: One person/thing Number PRONOUNS plural: More than one person/thing Pronouns in English masculine: Male gendered thing or person display these pieces Gender feminine: Female gendered thing or person of information neutral (neuter): Some animals, inanimate things, or a non- specific gender for a person subject: The doer of the action - Nominative Role in object of the verb: The person/thing that the action is being done to - Accusative Sentence object of the preposition: The noun that follows a preposition - Accusative (or Dative, which has the same form) Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Usseryowner/possessor: The person/thing that possesses someone/something else - Genitive 8 PERSONAL PRONOUNS Subject Object Possessive IN ENGLISH (Nominative) (Accusative) (Genitive) 1st person -singular I me my/mine She likes us. / *Her likes we. -plural we us our/ours She went to the store with him/*he. 2nd person That is her book./That book of hers is on the -singular you you your/yours table./*That is hers book. -plural you you your/yours •The prepositional genitive is odd with non- humans and inanimates. 3rd person •The dog had lost its bone. •?That bone of its was in the backyard. -singular he, she, it him, her, it his, her/hers, its Ø We’ll see later that even English isn’t so -plural they them their/theirs straightforward. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery 9 CASE MARKING AND WORD ORDER •The very general observation is that languages with lots of case marking – e.g. Latin, German – have freer word order and that languages with little/no case marking have more fixed word order – e.g. English, Mandarin. Tallerman 2005:155 •BUT, Icelandic has lots of case and fairly fixed order and Bulgarian has little case and somewhat free order. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery 10 DOES CASE MAP TO MEANING? Again, it’s complicated… GRAMMATICAL VS SEMANTIC ROLES11 • Agent • Grammatical Roles: subject, The performer of an action. direct object, indirect object, • Experiencer object of preposition Non-volitional participants of an action. • Theme/Patient The person or thing that an action/activity is done to. • Basic Semantic/Thematic • Source Roles (for now) The starting point for a movement or a transfer of possession. • These are also called theta • Goal roles in the literature. The end point for a movement or a transfer of possession. • Location The place where an action occurs. • Instrument The thing used to accomplish an action. • Benefactor The person or thing that benefits from someone else’s actions. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery SOME THEMATIC ROLES ARE REQUIRED AND OTHERS ARE 12 OPTIONAL (i) Most first-year college students buy expensive textbooks. agent theme/patient (ii) Eric admires his basketball coach. experiencer theme/patient (iii)Julia traveled (from Beijing to Moscow). agent source goal (iv)The butcher cut slabs of beef (in the walk-in fridge) (with a sharp knife). agent theme/patient location instrument (v)The aspiring underling wrote the report (for her supervisor). agent theme/patient benefactor (meaning that the supervisor was supposed to write the report but the underling wrote it in order to earn brownie points) Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery 13 • Applicatives: “extra” objects of a verb that generally The ice melted. indicate possession, • Intransitive causation, or a kind of John melted the ice. benefactive relationship. • Transitive John melted me some ice. • Languages can encode • Ditransitive?? thematic roles in different ways. *Mary laughed Sue. (Mary made Sue laugh.) Examples from: Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. *Mary spoke Sue. Introducing arguments. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. (examples 1 and 4) (Mary spoke for Sue.) Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery SEMANTIC ROLES ON VERBS14 •Venda is spoken by about 1.3 million people in South Africa and Zimbabwe. a) Mahada o-nok-a. snow 3sg.past-melt-fv appl = applicative ‘The snow melted. fv = final vowel v Our first taste of agreement on verbs. b) Mukasa o-nok-is-a mahada. v 3sg = 3rd person singular. Mukasa 3sg.past-melt-cause-fv snow ‘Mukasa melted the snow.’ v The verb is agreeing with the subject in each c) Mukasa o-nok-is-el-a Katonga mahada. sentence. Mukasa 3sg.past-melt-cause-appl-fv Katonga snow ‘Mukasa melted Katonga the snow.’ v AND, the verb shows semantic roles. (Mukasa melted the snow for Katonga.) • Examples from: Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. (EX 2) Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery 15 d) Mukasa o-se-is-a Katonga. Mukasa 3sg.past-laugh-cause-fv Katonga MORE WAYS IN WHICH VENDA ‘Mukasa made Katonga laugh.’ MORPHOLOGICALLY ENCODES THEMATIC ROLES e) Mukasa o-amb-el-a Katonga. Mukasa 3sg.past-speak-appl-fv Katonga ‘Mukasa spoke for Katonga.’ Examples from: Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. (example 3) Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery BACK TO NOUNS AND CASE 16 If the world were simple… Agent/Experiencer → Subject → Nominative “Seeer”=Agent= Patient/Theme → Direct Object → Accusative Nominative (i)Der Hund sah den Vogel. the.nom dog.nom saw the.acc bird.acc ‘The dog saw the bird.’ SEE (ii) Den Vogel sah der Hund the.acc bird.acc saw the.nom dog.nom ‘The dog saw the bird.’ (Tallerman 2005:112) “Seeee”=Patient/ • The bird has more emphasis with this word order. Theme= Accusative • Topicalization in English. • In German, the determiner shows the case, not the noun.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • English Dative Alternation and Evidence for a Thematic Strategy in Adult SLA
    UCLA Issues in Applied Linguistics Title English Dative Alternation and Evidence for a Thematic Strategy in Adult SLA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/64d102q5 Journal Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(1) ISSN 1050-4273 Author Davies, William D Publication Date 1994-06-30 DOI 10.5070/L451005171 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California English Dative Alternation and Evidence for a Thematic Strategy in Adult SLA William D. Davies University of Iowa INTRODUCTION A body of recent work in second language acquisition is concerned with applying constructs from Chomsky's conception of Universal Grammar in both constructing an overall theory of SLA and explaining various phenomena in L2 learners (e.g., Flynn, 1984, 1987; Hilles, 1986; Phinney, 1987; White, 1985a, 1985b; papers in Flynn and O'Neil, 1988). A key linguistic construct that has received relatively little attention in SLA research is thematic roles—notions such as AGENT, THEME, GOAL, LOCATION, SOURCE, and others that are believed to contribute to semantic encoding and decoding. Although thematic roles (alternatively, thematic relations, semantic roles, case roles, 9-roles) have long been part of modem linguistic theory (cf. Gruber, 1965; Fillmore, 1968; Jackendoff, 1972), they have enjoyed increased popularity in the recent linguistic literature owing in part to their central role in Chomsky's (1981) government and binding (GB) theory, as embodied in the G-Criterion.^ Various formulations of the 9-Criterion have been proposed, but the simple formulation in (1) will suffice here. (1) e-Criterion (Chomsky 1981, p. 36): Each argument bears one and only one H-role, and each H-role is assigned to one and only one argument.
    [Show full text]
  • PUMICE: a Multi-Modal Agent That Learns Concepts and Conditionals
    PUMICE: A Multi-Modal Agent that Learns Concepts and Conditionals from Natural Language and Demonstrations Toby Jia-Jun Li1, Marissa Radensky2, Justin Jia1, Kirielle Singarajah1, Tom M. Mitchell1, Brad A. Myers1 1Carnegie Mellon University, 2Amherst College {tobyli, tom.mitchell, bam}@cs.cmu.edu, {justinj1, ksingara}@andrew.cmu.edu, [email protected] Figure 1. Example structure of how PUMICE learns the concepts and procedures in the command “If it’s hot, order a cup of Iced Cappuccino.” The numbers indicate the order of utterances. The screenshot on the right shows the conversational interface of PUMICE. In this interactive parsing process, the agent learns how to query the current temperature, how to order any kind of drink from Starbucks, and the generalized concept of “hot” as “a temperature (of something) is greater than another temperature”. ABSTRACT CCS Concepts Natural language programming is a promising approach to •Human-centered computing ! Natural language inter­ enable end users to instruct new tasks for intelligent agents. faces; However, our formative study found that end users would of­ ten use unclear, ambiguous or vague concepts when naturally Author Keywords instructing tasks in natural language, especially when spec­ Programming by Demonstration; Natural Language Pro­ ifying conditionals. Existing systems have limited support gramming; End User Development; Multi-modal Interaction. for letting the user teach agents new concepts or explaining unclear concepts. In this paper, we describe a new multi- INTRODUCTION modal domain-independent approach that combines natural The goal of end user development (EUD) is to empower language programming and programming-by-demonstration users with little or no programming expertise to program [43].
    [Show full text]
  • The Strategy of Case-Marking
    Case marking strategies Helen de Hoop & Andrej Malchukov1 Radboud University Nijmegen DRAFT January 2006 Abstract Two strategies of case marking in natural languages are discussed. These are defined as two violable constraints whose effects are shown to converge in the case of differential object marking but diverge in the case of differential subject marking. The strength of the case bearing arguments will be shown to be of utmost importance for case marking as well as voice alternations. The strength of arguments can be viewed as a function of their discourse prominence. The analysis of the case marking patterns we find cross-linguistically is couched in a bidirectional OT analysis. 1. Assumptions In this section we wish to put forward our three basic assumptions: (1) In ergative-absolutive systems ergative case is assigned to the first argument x of a two-place relation R(x,y). (2) In nominative-accusative systems accusative case is assigned to the second argument y of a two-place relation R(x,y). (3) Morphologically unmarked case can be the absence of case. The first two assumptions deal with the linking between the first (highest) and second (lowest) argument in a transitive sentence and the type of case marking. For reasons of convenience, we will refer to these arguments quite sloppily as the subject and the object respectively, although we are aware of the fact that the labels subject and object may not be appropriate in all contexts, dependent on how they are actually defined. In many languages, ergative and accusative case are assigned only or mainly in transitive sentences, while in intransitive sentences ergative and accusative case are usually not assigned.
    [Show full text]
  • Definiteness Determined by Syntax: a Case Study in Tagalog 1 Introduction
    Definiteness determined by syntax: A case study in Tagalog1 James N. Collins Abstract Using Tagalog as a case study, this paper provides an analysis of a cross-linguistically well attested phenomenon, namely, cases in which a bare NP’s syntactic position is linked to its interpretation as definite or indefinite. Previous approaches to this phenomenon, including analyses of Tagalog, appeal to specialized interpretational rules, such as Diesing’s Mapping Hypothesis. I argue that the patterns fall out of general compositional principles so long as type-shifting operators are available to the gram- matical system. I begin by weighing in a long-standing issue for the semantic analysis of Tagalog: the interpretational distinction between genitive and nominative transitive patients. I show that bare NP patients are interpreted as definites if marked with nominative case and as narrow scope indefinites if marked with genitive case. Bare NPs are understood as basically predicative; their quantificational force is determined by their syntactic position. If they are syntactically local to the selecting verb, they are existentially quantified by the verb itself. If they occupy a derived position, such as the subject position, they must type-shift in order to avoid a type-mismatch, generating a definite interpretation. Thus the paper develops a theory of how the position of an NP is linked to its interpretation, as well as providing a compositional treatment of NP-interpretation in a language which lacks definite articles but demonstrates other morphosyntactic strategies for signaling (in)definiteness. 1 Introduction Not every language signals definiteness via articles. Several languages (such as Russian, Kazakh, Korean etc.) lack articles altogether.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Declension, That Is, Consonant-Stem Nouns; Patterns I
    Chapter 7: Third-Declension Nouns Chapter 7 covers the following: third declension, that is, consonant-stem nouns; patterns in the formation of the nominative singular of third declension; and the agreement between third- declension nouns and first/second-declension adjectives. At the end of the lesson, we’ll review the vocabulary which you should memorize in this chapter. There is only one important rule to remember here: the genitive singular ending in third declension is -is . We’ve already encountered first- and second-declension nouns. Now we’ll address the third. A fair question to ask, and one which some of you may be asking, is why is there a third declension at all? Third declension is Latin’s “catch-all” category for nouns. Into it have been put all nouns whose bases end with consonants ─ any consonant! That makes third declension very different from first and second declension. First declension, as you’ll remember, is dominated by a-stem nouns like femina and cura . Second declension is dominated by o- or u-stem nouns like amicus or oculus . Those vowels give those declensions a certain consistency, but the same is not true of third declension where one form, the nominative singular, is affected by the fact that its ending -s runs into the wide variety of consonants found at the ends of the bases of third-declension nouns, and the collision of those consonants causes irregular forms to appear in the nominative singular. That’s the bad news. The good news is that only one case and number is affected by this, the nominative singular.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.1. Government 3.2 Agreement
    e-Content Submission to INFLIBNET Subject name: Linguistics Paper name: Grammatical Categories Paper Coordinator name Ayesha Kidwai and contact: Module name A Framework for Grammatical Features -II Content Writer (CW) Ayesha Kidwai Name Email id [email protected] Phone 9968655009 E-Text Self Learn Self Assessment Learn More Story Board Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Features as Values 3. Contextual Features 3.1. Government 3.2 Agreement 4. A formal description of features and their values 5. Conclusion References 1 1. Introduction In this unit, we adopt (and adapt) the typology of features developed by Kibort (2008) (but not necessarily all her analyses of individual features) as the descriptive device we shall use to describe grammatical categories in terms of features. Sections 2 and 3 are devoted to this exercise, while Section 4 specifies the annotation schema we shall employ to denote features and values. 2. Features and Values Intuitively, a feature is expressed by a set of values, and is really known only through them. For example, a statement that a language has the feature [number] can be evaluated to be true only if the language can be shown to express some of the values of that feature: SINGULAR, PLURAL, DUAL, PAUCAL, etc. In other words, recalling our definitions of distribution in Unit 2, a feature creates a set out of values that are in contrastive distribution, by employing a single parameter (meaning or grammatical function) that unifies these values. The name of the feature is the property that is used to construct the set. Let us therefore employ (1) as our first working definition of a feature: (1) A feature names the property that unifies a set of values in contrastive distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Term Declension, the Three Basic Qualities of Latin Nouns, That
    Chapter 2: First Declension Chapter 2 covers the following: the term declension, the three basic qualities of Latin nouns, that is, case, number and gender, basic sentence structure, subject, verb, direct object and so on, the six cases of Latin nouns and the uses of those cases, the formation of the different cases in Latin, and the way adjectives agree with nouns. At the end of this lesson we’ll review the vocabulary you should memorize in this chapter. Declension. As with conjugation, the term declension has two meanings in Latin. It means, first, the process of joining a case ending onto a noun base. Second, it is a term used to refer to one of the five categories of nouns distinguished by the sound ending the noun base: /a/, /ŏ/ or /ŭ/, a consonant or /ĭ/, /ū/, /ē/. First, let’s look at the three basic characteristics of every Latin noun: case, number and gender. All Latin nouns and adjectives have these three grammatical qualities. First, case: how the noun functions in a sentence, that is, is it the subject, the direct object, the object of a preposition or any of many other uses? Second, number: singular or plural. And third, gender: masculine, feminine or neuter. Every noun in Latin will have one case, one number and one gender, and only one of each of these qualities. In other words, a noun in a sentence cannot be both singular and plural, or masculine and feminine. Whenever asked ─ and I will ask ─ you should be able to give the correct answer for all three qualities.
    [Show full text]
  • Definiteness and Determinacy
    Linguistics and Philosophy manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Definiteness and Determinacy Elizabeth Coppock · David Beaver the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Defi- niteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a (weak) uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate (and thus denote an individual) or indeterminate (functioning as an existential quantifier). The latter option is observed in examples like `Anna didn't give the only invited talk at the conference', which, on its indeterminate reading, implies that there is nothing in the extension of `only invited talk at the conference'. The paper also offers a resolution of the issue of whether posses- sives are inherently indefinite or definite, suggesting that, like indefinites, they do not mark definiteness lexically, but like definites, they typically yield determinate readings due to a general preference for the shifting operation that produces them. Keywords definiteness · descriptions · possessives · predicates · type-shifting We thank Dag Haug, Reinhard Muskens, Luca Crniˇc,Cleo Condoravdi, Lucas
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Gothic
    Introduction to Gothic By David Salo Organized to PDF by CommanderK Table of Contents 3..........................................................................................................INTRODUCTION 4...........................................................................................................I. Masculine 4...........................................................................................................II. Feminine 4..............................................................................................................III. Neuter 7........................................................................................................GOTHIC SOUNDS: 7............................................................................................................Consonants 8..................................................................................................................Vowels 9....................................................................................................................LESSON 1 9.................................................................................................Verbs: Strong verbs 9..........................................................................................................Present Stem 12.................................................................................................................Nouns 14...................................................................................................................LESSON 2 14...........................................................................................Strong
    [Show full text]
  • Oksana's BU Paper
    ACQUISITION of GENDER in RUSSIAN * Oksana Tarasenkova University of Connecticut 1 The Background In adult Russian grammar the gender feature of nouns is closely related to their declension class. Their relationship was a controversial question that evoked two opposing views regarding the way gender is represented in adult Russian grammar. The representatives of one view argue for gender to be derived from the noun declension class (Declension-to Gender account, Corbett 1982), while proponents of the opposite account argue for the reversed pattern, where the inflectional morphology can be predicted from the information on the noun gender along with a phonological cue (Gender-to-Declension account, Vinogradov 1960, Thelin 1975, Crockett 1976 among others). My goal is to focus on children’s acquisition of gender in Russian in order to compare these two major divisions of research. They provide different morphological analyses of gender forms in Russian; therefore this debate makes different predictions about the acquisition of gender by children. I tested these opposing predictions using children’s data gathered from an experiment to identify what exactly children rely on when assigning gender to nouns. The experiment results support the Declension-to-Gender view and provide evidence that children are significantly more successful at assigning gender to the novel nouns relying on the nominal declension paradigm rather than on the adjectival agreement. The way gender is represented in adults’ competence grammar might not necessarily be the correct model of children’s acquisition of gender. The child has to learn the gender of a significant number of nouns and extract the declensional paradigms first in order to then be able to learn and apply these redundancy rules for novel nouns.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2106.08037V1 [Cs.CL] 15 Jun 2021 Alternative Ways the World Could Be
    The Possible, the Plausible, and the Desirable: Event-Based Modality Detection for Language Processing Valentina Pyatkin∗ Shoval Sadde∗ Aynat Rubinstein Bar Ilan University Bar Ilan University Hebrew University of Jerusalem [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Paul Portner Reut Tsarfaty Georgetown University Bar Ilan University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract (1) a. We presented a paper at ACL’19. Modality is the linguistic ability to describe b. We did not present a paper at ACL’20. events with added information such as how de- sirable, plausible, or feasible they are. Modal- The propositional content p =“present a paper at ity is important for many NLP downstream ACL’X” can be easily verified for sentences (1a)- tasks such as the detection of hedging, uncer- (1b) by looking up the proceedings of the confer- tainty, speculation, and more. Previous studies ence to (dis)prove the existence of the relevant pub- that address modality detection in NLP often p restrict modal expressions to a closed syntac- lication. The same proposition is still referred to tic class, and the modal sense labels are vastly in sentences (2a)–(2d), but now in each one, p is different across different studies, lacking an ac- described from a different perspective: cepted standard. Furthermore, these senses are often analyzed independently of the events that (2) a. We aim to present a paper at ACL’21. they modify. This work builds on the theoreti- b. We want to present a paper at ACL’21. cal foundations of the Georgetown Gradable Modal Expressions (GME) work by Rubin- c.
    [Show full text]
  • Dative Shift) • Interactions Among Lexical Rules 2
    Grammar Development with LFG and XLE Miriam Butt University of Konstanz Last Time • LFG and XLE basics • C-structure and f-structure • Functional annotation • Unification/Consistency, Completenes and Coherence • Templates • XLE Walkthrough This Time: Lesson 3 1. Lexical Rules • Passive • English Dative Alternation (Dative Shift) • Interactions among Lexical Rules 2. Different types of functional equations/constraints Lexical rules (vs. Transformations) ! A feature that LFG is very well known for is the Lexical Rule. ! At the time LFG was invented, generalizations between certain types of sentences were thought of in terms of syntactic transformations. ! A famous example involved the passive. ! Linguistic Observation: active clauses are related to passive clauses via a generalizable rule. » Active: The tiger chased the cat. » Passive: The cat was chased by the tiger. Transformations ! For example, within Transformational Grammar the rule for the English passive looked something like this: NP1 V NP2 → NP2 AUX V by NP1 ! In our example: NP1 = the tiger NP2 = the cat V = chased Aux = was ! Over time, however, it was realized that this was not the best way to express what happens with passives across languages. Lexical rules ! Work by David Perlmutter and Paul Postal showed that the relationship between active and passive was best understood in terms of grammatical relations. ! In LFG terms, this was formulated in terms of a Lexical Rule: – OBJ → SUBJ – SUBJ → Adjunct or OBL-AG (OBL agent) ! Verbs which allow for the passive encode this rule as part of their lexical entry. Lexical rules ! Not all verbs allow for passivization. ! Passives are generally formed with agentive (di)transitive verbs.
    [Show full text]