GPSG, HPSG, LFG

Jack Hoeksema

Syntax in the 1970’s

Rapid growth of transformations:

Movement: Wh-movement, relativisation, topicalization, V2, Subject-Aux inversion, Extraposition, Passivization, Raising to Subject, Raising to Object, Verb Raising,Quantifier Raising, clitic movement, etc.

Deletion: Gapping, RNR, conjunction reduction, VP-deletion, have/be deletion, complementizer deletion, Equi-NP deletion

Leading to

Complex derivations, reaching their apex in generative semantics, with extremely abstract underlying structures related to surface forms by a multitude of transformations

E.g. Postal 1970 ‘On the surface verb remind’

me PERCEIVE [Larry SIMILAR Winston Churchill] =>Larry reminds me of Winston Churchill

Emonds 1970 and 1976

Limit the possibilities of transformations Structure-preserving transformations only So: no tree-pruning, nor tree-building by

means of transformations

Brame 1976: Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics

Chain of mutually dependent transformations: Equi-NP deletion, passive, raising to object

If one falls, so will the others Making the transformational theory a

house of cards

Bresnan 1978: Realistic syntax

Problem with 1960’s transformational syntax was lack of psycholinguistic support

The theory of derivational complexity had fallen apart: it does not predict order of acquisition, nor ease of computation

A more realistic theory would not use transformations in a model of online production

Cf. Joan Bresnan, 1978, “A Realistic Transformational Grammar,” in Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George A.Miller, eds., Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, The MIT Press, (pp. 1-59).

Local transformations or base structure?

John was rescued by Mary < Mary rescued John (transformation)

John was rumoured to be gay (*they rumour John to be gay)

*A Toyota was had by John (< John had a Toyota)

Alternative: two base structures

Like so:

S

NP VP

Mary V NP

rescued John

and so

S

NP VP

John V VP

Vwas PP

P NPrescued

by Mary

The main problem

Long distance movement Could not be done away by

nontransformational means in the same way as the local transformations

Gazdar 1979 (=1981)

Long-distance dependencies without movement by recursive feature-passing

Introducing slash features

S

NP S/NP

John NP

we

VP/NP

V NP/NP

like [e]

And so on

S

NP S/NP

John NP

we

VP/NP

V S/NP

reckon NP VP/NP

Fred prefers NP/NP

[e]

GPSG: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

Let G be a context-free grammar For each rule A -> B C add new rules

A/D -> B C/D and A/D -> B/D C (metarule)

And as well as: X/X -> [e] (for all X) (slash termination)

And: S -> XP S/XP (slash introduction)

Bonus

Coordinate Structure Constraint for free

No need for Across-the-Board convention

Beans, I like but Mary despises. *Beans, I like salad but Mary despises.

Recursive feature passing needed elsewhere in the grammar

E.g. [+rel]: The boy who stole the bike The boy whose brother stole the bike The boy whose brother’s girlfriend stole the

bike All bikes the colour of the handlebars of

which is blue The boy about whose brother we are

speaking

A sample tree with feature passing

NP

NP S’

Det N PP[rel] S’/PP[rel]

the boy P NP[rel]

Det[rel] Nabout

NP

we

VP/PP

V VP/PP

V PP/PPare

speaking [e]

whose brother

Similarities with slash

The boy whose brother and whose sister were abducted

*The boy whose brother and Jim were abducted

Properties of GPSG

Heavy use of features Metarules, next to regular PS rules Later stages: separation of Immediate

Dominance from Linear Precedence General feature passing mechanisms:

Head Feature Convention and Foot Feature Principle

Separating ID from LP

PP -> P NP (in the car) PP -> P PP (from behind the car) VP -> V NP (drive the car) VP -> V PP (drive into the garage)

Or:XP -> X, YP (ID) and X < YP (LP)

OUT:

XP

XP and XP/YP

And out:

XP

XP[rel] and XP

Note:

Not all features “count” for coordination, only foot features do

Masculine + feminine is OK (la femme et l’homme sont venus)

Singular + plural is OK (the boy and the girls are in the yard)

First and second person is OK (Me and you, we are a good team)

Later developments

HPSG: Head-driven phrase structure grammar (1984 – 2005), deriving from the dissertation of Carl Pollard

Adopts the idea from categorial grammar that PS-rules can be discarded because the selection information of lexical heads predicts phrase structure

Is used frequently in computational linguistics

LFG: Lexical Functional Grammar

Joan Bresnan 1980-2005

Properties

Two levels of structure C-structure (tree) F-structure (representation of

grammatical functions) Mappings between C-structure and F-

structure