DOCSLIB.ORG

Processing English with a Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. We discuss the prospects for stage do not extend beyond the specification of a extending domain-independence to the lexical system that can efficiently extract literal meaning semantics as well, and thus to the logical semantic from isolated sentences of arbitrarily complex representations. grammatical structure. Future systems will exploit the literal meaning thus extracted in more ambitious applications that involve pragmatic I. INTRODUCTION reasoning and discourse manipulation. This paper is an interim progress report on The system embodies two features that linguistic research carried out at Hewlett-Packard simultaneously promote extensibility, facilitate Laboratories since the summer of 1981. The modification, and increase efficiency. The first is research had three goals: (1) demonstrating the that its grammar is context-free in the informal computational tractability of Generalized Phrase sense sometimes (rather misleadingly) used in Structure Grammar (GPSG), (2) implementing a discussions of the autonomy of grammar and GPSG system covering a large fragment of English, pragmatics: the syntactic rules and the semantic and (3) establishing the feasibility of using GPSG translation rules are independent of the specific for interactions with an inferencing knowledge application domain. Our rules are not devised ad base. hoc with a particular application or type of interaction in mind. Instead, they are motivated Section 2 describes the general architecture by recent theoretical developments in natural of the system. Section 3 discusses the grammar language syntax, and evaluated by the usual and the lexicon. A brief dicussion of the parsing linguistic canons of simplicity and generality. No technique used in found in Section 4. Section 5 changes in the knowledge base or other exigencies discusses the semantics of the system, and Section deriving from a particular context of application 6 presents ~ detailed example of a parse-tree can introduce a problem for the grammar (as complete with semantics. Some typical examples distinct, of course, from the lexicon). that the system can handle are given in the Appendix. The second relevant feature is that the grammar ir the- system is context-free in the sense The system is based on recent developments of formal language theory. This makes the in syntax and semantics, reflecting a modular view extensive mathematical literature on context-free in which grammatical structure an~ abstract logical phrase structure grammars (CF-PSG's) directly structure have independent status. The relevant to the enterprise, and permits utilization understanding of a sentence occurs in a number of of all the well-known techniques for the stages, distinct from each other and governed by computational implementation of context-free different principles of organization. We are grammars. It might seem anachronistic to base a opposed to the idea that language understanding language understanding system on context-free 74 parsing. As Pratt (1975, 423) observes: "It is translation rule. The syntax-semantics match is fashionable these days to want to avoid all realized as follows: each rule is a triple consisting reference to context-free grammars beyond warning of a rule name, a syntactic statement (~ormally a students that they are unfit for computer local condition on node admissibility), and a consumption as far as computational linguistics is semantic translation, specifying how the concerned." Moreover, widely accepted arguments higher-order logic representations of the daughter have been given in the linguistics literature to the nodes combine to yield the correct translation for effect that some human languages are not even the mother. = weakly context-free and thus cannot possibly be described by a CF-PSG. However, Gazdar and The present GPSG system has five Pullum (1982) answer all of these arguments, components : showing that they are either formally invalid or empirically unsupported or both. It seems 1. Grammar appropriate, therefore, to take a renewed interest a. Lexicon in the possibility of CF-PSG description of human b. Rules and Metarules languages, both in computational linguistics and in 2. Parser and Grammar Compiler linguistic research generally. 3. Semantics Handler 4. Disambiguator 5. HIRE database 2. COMPONENTSOF THE SYSTEM 3. GRAMMARAND LEXICON The linguistic basis of the GPSG linguistic system resides in the work reported in Gazdar The grammar that has been implemented thus (1981, 1982) and Gazdar, Pullum, and Sag (1981). 1 far is only a subset of a much larger GPSG These papers argue on empirical and theoretical grammar that we have defined on paper. It grounds that context-freeness is a desirable nevertheless describes a broad sampling of the constraint on grammars. It clearly would not be basic constructions of English, including a variety so desirable, however, if (1) it led to lost of prepositional phrase constructions, noun-noun generalizations or (2) it resulted in an compounds, the auxiliary system, genitives, unmanageable number of rules in the grammar. questions and relative clauses, passives, and Gazdar (1982) proposes a way of simultaneously existential sentences. avoiding these two problems. Linguistic generalizations can be captured in a context-free Each entry in the lexicon contains two kinds grammar with a metagrammor, i.e. a higher-level of information about a lexical item, syntactic and grammar that generates the actual grammar as its semantic. The syntactic part of an entry consists language. The metagrammar has two kinds of of a syntactic feature specification; this includes, statements: inter alia, information about any irregular morphology the item may have, and what is known (1) Rule schemata. These are in the linguistic literature as strict basically like ordinary rules, except that subcategorization information. In our terms the they contain variables ranging over latter is information linking lexical items of a categories and features. particular category to specific environments in which that category is introduced by phrase (2) Metarules. These are implicational structure rules. Presence in the lexical entry for statements, written in the form ===>B, an item I of the feature R (where R is the name which capture relations between rules. A of a rule) indicates that / may appear in metarule ===>t~ is interpreted as saying, structures admitted by R, and absence indicates "for every rule that is an instantiation of that it may not. the schema =, there is a corresponding rule of form [5." Here 13 will be @(~), where 8 The semantic information in a lexical entry is issome mapping specified partly by the sometimes simple, directly linking a lexical item general theory of grammar and partly in with some HIRE predicate or relation. With verbs the metarule formulation. For instance, or prepositions, there is also a specification of it is taken to be part of the theory of what case roles to associate with particular grammar that @ preserves unchanged the arguments (cf. below for discussion of case roles). subcategorization (rule name) features of Expressions that make a complex logical rules (cf. below). contribution to the sentence in which they appear witl in general have complicated translations. Thus every has the translation- The GPSG system also assumes the Rule-to-Rule Hypothesis, first advanced by Richard Montague, which requires that each syntactic rule be associated with a single semantic 2. There is a theoretical issue here about whether semantic translation rules need to be stipulated for each syntactic rule or whether there is a general way of predicting their form. See I. See also Gazdar, Pullum, Sag, and Wasow Klein
Recommended publications
  • 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

    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.
  • Syntax III Assignment I (Team B): Transformations Julie Winkler

    Syntax III Assignment I (Team B): Transformations Julie Winkler

    Syntax III Assignment I (Team B): Transformations Julie Winkler, Andrew Pedelty, Kelsey Kraus, Travis Heller, Josue Torres, Nicholas Primrose, Philip King A layout of this paper: I. Transformations! An Introduction a. What b. Why c. What Not II. A-Syntax: Operations on Arguments Pre-Surface Structure III. Morphology: Form and Function a. Lexical assumptions: b. VP Internal Subject Raising Hypothesis c. Form Rules d. Morpho-Syntactic Rules: e. Further Questions IV. A-Bar Syntax a. Not A-Syntax: Movement on the Surface. b. Islands c. Features & Percolation: Not Just for Subcats d. Successive Cyclic Movement V. Where Do We Go From Here? a. Summary 1 I. Introduction Before going into the specifics of transformational syntax as we've learned it, it behooves us to consider transformations on a high level. What are they, how do they operate, and, very importantly, why do we have them? We should also make a distinction regarding the purpose of this paper, which is not to provide a complete or authoritative enumeration of all transformational operations (likely an impossible endeavour), but rather to investigate those operations and affirm our understanding of the framework in which they exist. I. a. What What are transformations? A transformation (Xn) takes an existing syntactic structure and renders a new construction by performing one or more of the following three operations upon it: movement, deletion, or insertion. These operations are constrained by a number of rules and traditionally adhered-to constraints. Furthermore, it has been mentioned that semi- legitimate syntactic theories have eschewed certain of these operations while retaining sufficient descriptive power.
  • Introduction to Transformational Grammar

    Introduction to Transformational Grammar

    Introduction to Transformational Grammar Kyle Johnson University of Massachusetts at Amherst Fall 2004 Contents Preface iii 1 The Subject Matter 1 1.1 Linguisticsaslearningtheory . 1 1.2 The evidential basis of syntactic theory . 7 2 Phrase Structure 15 2.1 SubstitutionClasses............................. 16 2.2 Phrases .................................... 20 2.3 Xphrases................................... 29 2.4 ArgumentsandModifiers ......................... 41 3 Positioning Arguments 57 3.1 Expletives and the Extended Projection Principle . ..... 58 3.2 Case Theory and ordering complements . 61 3.3 Small Clauses and the Derived Subjects Hypothesis . ... 68 3.4 PROandControlInfinitives . .. .. .. .. .. .. 79 3.5 Evidence for Argument Movement from Quantifier Float . 83 3.6 Towards a typology of infinitive types . 92 3.7 Constraints on Argument Movement and the typology of verbs . 97 4 Verb Movement 105 4.1 The “Classic” Verb Movement account . 106 4.2 Head Movement’s role in “Verb Second” word order . 115 4.3 The Pollockian revolution: exploded IPs . 123 4.4 Features and covert movement . 136 5 Determiner Phrases and Noun Movement 149 5.1 TheDPHypothesis ............................. 151 5.2 NounMovement............................... 155 Contents 6 Complement Structure 179 6.1 Nouns and the θ-rolestheyassign .................... 180 6.2 Double Object constructions and Larsonian shells . 195 6.3 Complement structure and Object Shift . 207 7 Subjects and Complex Predicates 229 7.1 Gettingintotherightposition . 229 7.2 SubjectArguments ............................. 233 7.2.1 ArgumentStructure ........................ 235 7.2.2 The syntactic benefits of ν .................... 245 7.3 The relative positions of µP and νP: Evidence from ‘again’ . 246 7.4 The Minimal Link Condition and Romance causatives . 254 7.5 RemainingProblems ............................ 271 7.5.1 The main verb in English is too high .
  • 3 Derivation and Representation in Modern Transformational Syntax

    3 Derivation and Representation in Modern Transformational Syntax

    62 Howard Lasnik 3 Derivation and Representation in Modern Transformational Syntax HOWARD LASNIK 0 Introduction The general issue of derivational vs. representational approaches to syntax has received considerable attention throughout the history of generative gram- mar. Internal to the major derivational approach, transformational grammar, a related issue arises: are well-formedness conditions imposed specifically at the particular levels of representation1 made available in the theory, or are they imposed “internal” to the derivation leading to those levels? This second question will be the topic of this chapter. Like the first question, it is a subtle one, perhaps even more subtle than the first, but since Chomsky (1973), there has been increasing investigation of it, and important argument and evidence have been brought to bear. I will be examining a range of arguments, some old and some new, concerning (i) locality constraints on movement, and (ii) the property forcing (overt) movement, especially as this issue arises within the “minimalist” program of Chomsky (1995b). 1 Locality of Movement: Subjacency and the ECP The apparent contradiction between unbounded movement as in (1) and strict locality as in (2) has long played a central role in syntactic investigations in general and studies of the role of derivation in particular: (1) Who do you think Mary said John likes (2) ?*Who did you ask whether Mary knows why John likes Based on the unacceptability of such examples as (2), Chomsky (1973), reject- ing earlier views (including the highly influential Ross 1967a) proposed that Derivation and Representation 63 long distance movement is never possible. (1) must then be the result of a series of short movements, short movements that are, for some reason, not available in the derivation of (2).
  • Acquiring Verb Subcategorization from Spanish Corpora

    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 .
  • 66 EMPTY CATEGORIES in TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES Abstract

    66 EMPTY CATEGORIES in TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES Abstract

    JL3T Journal of Linguistics, Literature & Language Teaching EMPTY CATEGORIES IN TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES Ruly Adha IAIN Langsa [email protected] Abstract There are three theories that are always developed in any study of language, namely theory of language structure, theory of language acquisition, and theory of language use. Among those three theories, theory of language structure is regarded as the most important one. It is assumed that if someone knows the structure of language, he/she can develop theories about how language is acquired and used. It makes Chomsky interested in developing the theory of language structure. Chomsky introduced a theory of grammar called Transformational Generative Grammar or Transformational Syntax. Transformational Syntax is a method of sentence fomation which applies some syntactic rules (or also called transformational rules). Transformational rules consist of three types, namely movement transformation, deletion transformation, and substitution transformation. When those transformational rules are applied in a sentence, they will leave empty categories. Empty categories can be in the form of Complementizer (Comp), Trace, and PRO. The objectives of this article are to elaborate those empty categories; to show their appearance in the transformational rules; and to describe the characteristics of each empty category. Comp, Trace, and PRO can be found in movement and deletion transformation. In this article, tree diagram and bracketing are used as the methods of sentence analysis. Keywords Empty Categories, Transformational Rules, Comp, Trace, PRO JL3T. Vol. V, No. 1 June 2019 66 JL3T Journal of Linguistics, Literature & Language Teaching INTRODUCTION Chomsky (in Radford, 1988) states that there are three inter-related theories which any detailed study of language ultimately seeks to develop, namely: 1.
  • Transformational Grammar and Problems of Syntactic Ambiguity in English

    Transformational Grammar and Problems of Syntactic Ambiguity in English

    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses 1968 Transformational Grammar and Problems of Syntactic Ambiguity in English Shirlie Jeanette Verley Central Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Liberal Studies Commons, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons Recommended Citation Verley, Shirlie Jeanette, "Transformational Grammar and Problems of Syntactic Ambiguity in English" (1968). All Master's Theses. 976. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/976 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR AND PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY IN ENGLISH A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty Central Washington State College In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Education by Shirlie Jeanette Verley August, 1968 uol3u:qsa A'\ '8.mqsuau3 a80110J •ne1s UO:i)}U'.1_Sllh\ f!:UlUC>J ~PJ ~ NOU!J3TIO:) i'4133dS APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ________________________________ D. W. Cummings, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN _________________________________ Lyman B. Hagen _________________________________ Donald G. Goetschius ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank, first, my chairman, Dr. D. W. Cummings for his assistance and guidance in the writing of this thesis. Next, I wish to thank Dr. Lyman Hagen and Dr. Don Goetschius for their participation on the committee. Last, my very personal thanks to my family, Gene, Sue, Steve and Shane for their patience. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I.
  • Theories of Syntax, Semantics and Discourse Interpretation for Natural Language

    Theories of Syntax, Semantics and Discourse Interpretation for Natural Language

    Theories of Syntax, Semantics and Discourse Interpretation for Natural Language Ted Briscoe Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge c Ted Briscoe (3 sessions, Michaelmas Term 2011) October 26, 2011 Abstract This handout builds on the Intro to Linguistics material by presenting formal theories of aspects of language. We mostly focus on the formalisa- tions of aspects of the subtasks syntactic, semantic and discourse interpre- tation, rather than computational approximations to solve them, because it is useful to thoroughly understand the problem you are trying to solve before you start to solve it. This handout is not meant to replace text- books – see Intro to Linguistics for readings and references herein. Please red each section in advance of the session, attempt the exercises, and be prepared to ask and answer questions on the material covered. Contents 1 (Context-free) Phrase Structure Grammar 2 1.1 Derivations . 3 1.2 Ambiguity . 4 1.3 Inadequacies of CF PSG . 6 1.4 Unification and Features . 7 2 Compositional Semantics 10 2.1 Predicates & Arguments . 10 2.2 NP Semantics . 12 2.3 Scope Ambiguities . 15 2.4 Intensionality . 16 2.5 Word Meaning . 18 2.6 Theorem Proving . 19 3 Discourse Processing 21 3.1 Abductive Inference . 22 1 3.2 Scripts and Plans . 23 3.3 Shallow, Knowledge-Poor Anaphora Resolution . 23 1 (Context-free) Phrase Structure Grammar A generative grammar is a finite set of rules which define the (infinite) set of grammatical sentences of some language. Here are some example rules for English: a) S → NP VP b) NP → Det N c) NP → Nname d) VP → Vt NP These rules assign the sentence The people love Sandy the same analysis and phrase structure tree that was proposed in the Intro.
  • The Syntactic Power of Transformational Rules in Shona

    The Syntactic Power of Transformational Rules in Shona

    Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-8435 An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.20, 2016 The Syntactic Power of Transformational Rules in Shona Isaac Mhute Faculty of Arts and Education, Department of Language and Media studies, Zimbabwe Open University, Masvingo Regional Campus Abstract The paper ventures into the Linguistic branch of syntax with the goal of finding out how much power transformational rules possess in Shona sentences. Focus is on the effects that application of various transformational rules may have on the various components of the sentences. It has been realised that transformational rules have the power to rearrange, delete or add some words into sentences. In the process forms of the words may also be altered for various reasons. It was also demonstrated that at times one finds himself bound to apply certain rules or risk making people draw various implications in response. Keywords: Shona, syntactic, transformation, power, linguistic, rules Introduction and Brief Literature Review Fowler (1971) asserts that the grammarian’s task is to describe sentences in such a way as to account for what native mature speakers of the language know about those sentences. Fowler further observes that one kind of generative grammar that performs these tasks particularly well is called a transformational grammar. Transformational grammar is a grammar that recognizes deep structure and surface structure distinction in syntax and employs certain formally distinctive kinds of linguistic rules linking the two distinct levels. Fowler (ibid) also describes transformational rules as rules that relate sentences to each other adding that this is done by relating partially overlapping derivations.
  • Dependency Grammars

    Dependency Grammars

    Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Dependency Grammars Syntactic Theory Winter Semester 2009/2010 Antske Fokkens Department of Computational Linguistics Saarland University 27 October 2009 Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar 1/42 Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Outline 1 Introduction 2 Phrase Structures 3 Dependency Grammars Introduction Dependency relations Properties of Dependencies Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar 2/42 Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Outline 1 Introduction 2 Phrase Structures 3 Dependency Grammars Introduction Dependency relations Properties of Dependencies Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar 3/42 Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Overview of this lecture In the next three lectures, we will discuss Dependency Grammars: Dependencies and Phrase Structures: basic objectives of syntactic analysis properties of phrase structure grammars Basic definitions of Dependencies What are dependencies? Example analyses Differences and Relations between Dependencies and Phrase Structures Syntactic Theory/CL and Dependencies Meaning to Text Theory Prague Dependency Treebank Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar 4/42 Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Syntactic Analysis Syntax investigates the structure of expressions Some reasons for performing syntactic analysis: To understand something about how language works To analyze language: how can we relate speech/written text to meaning? Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar
  • Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar And

    Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar And

    Book Reviews Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag (The Ohio State University and Stanford University) Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Learning and Information and Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (Studies in contemporary linguistics, edited by John Goldsmith, James D. McCawley, and Jerrold M. Sadock), 1994, xi+440 pp; hardbound, ISBN 0-226-67446-0, $80.00, £63.95; paperbound, ISBN 0-226-67447-9, $34.95, £27.95 German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar John Nerbonne, Klaus Netter, and Carl Pollard (editors) (Rijksuniversiteit Gronigen, DFKI Saarbr~icken, and The Ohio State University) Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Learning and Information (CSLI lecture notes 46), 1994, xi+404 pp; distributed by the University of Chicago Press; hardbound, ISBN 1-881526-30-5, $49.95, £39.95; paperbound, ISBN 1-881526-29-1, $21.95, £17.50 Reviewed by Jean-Pierre Koenig State University of New York at Buffalo It has been almost ten years since the classic Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (Gazdar, Klein, Pullum, and Sag 1985) appeared. And like its predecessor, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar will probably become a classic too. Head-driven phrase struc- ture grammar (HPSG) is the state of the art in what Pullum and Zwicky (1991) have called category-based syntax, and this book makes available to a wide audience recent developments in a grammatical framework used extensively in syntactically oriented research in natural language processing. Moreover, of the grammatical theories using inheritance-based grammars, a widespread tradition in the NLP community, HPSG achieves the widest coverage (vide the special issues of Computational Linguistics de- voted to this topic in 1992).
  • Chapter One Phrase Structure in Principles and Parameters Syntax

    Chapter One Phrase Structure in Principles and Parameters Syntax

    8 Phrase Structure in Principles and Parameters Syntax Chapter one Phrase Structure in Principles and Parameters Syntax The issues This chapter explains and analyzes the concepts which we examine in the three alternative P & P approaches to PS. As these concepts are to orient and guide us through the subsequent chapters, it is crucial that we have a tolerably clear under- standing of them at the outset. However, it is not necessary to try for absolute clarity (whatever that might be) – largely because it is not possible. It is not possible, of course, because ultimately theoretical concepts such as the ones we explore in this chapter can only be truly well understood within a particular theoretical setting. One of the signal benefits of working at the end of the 20th century is that we no longer labor under the delusion that in empirical inquiry we must “define our terms”, preferably at the outset. We discover what our terms mean in a constant, reciprocal process of refining and bootstrapping as we engage in both theoretical and analytic work.1 So, we shall rough out the contours of our investigations here, and in the later chapters we will see just how they are sharpened and articulated in different settings. We have already listed some concepts and questions explored in this chapter.2 I repeat that listing now. 1 The relation of argument structure to syntactic structure: What is the position of Subjects in PS? What are the statuses of Adjuncts (that is, non-argument modifiers of a Head) and adjunctions (that is, the results of non-substitution movement)? 2 Headedness & endocentricity: Are all constructions endocentric? Is there a unique Head? 3 Functional vs.