Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2006, … line Proceedings of …
…
18 pages
1 file
Case and agreement are typically modeled in LFG as f-structure phenomena. Inadequacies of this account suggest an alternative, in which grammatical marking is modeled as a separate projection from f-structure, called g-structure.
2019
Our starting point-because of its relative familiarity-is the treatment of case and agreement in more recent versions of Minimalism (esp. Chomsky 2000; Pesetsky & Torrego 2001; 2007). As in earlier GB and Minimalist approaches (e.g., Chomsky 1980; 1981; 1995), both Case and Agreement (which we capitalise here to distinguish them from the relevant morphological notions) are "abstract" in the sense that, while they do bear a relation to the morphological phenomena of case and agreement, this relation is only indirect. In other words, Case and Agreement within Minimalism are concerned primarily with the distribution of DPs, rather than with morphology (cf. Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2008). The basis of the approach is the operation Agree, which relates a head (a "probe", such as T or v) bearing uninterpretable (and/or "unvalued") phi-features to a "goal" DP, c-commanded by the probe, that bears counterparts of one or more of those features. This results in deletion at LF of the uninterpretable/unvalued features on the probe, ensuring "legibility" at LF. Thus, in a transitive sentence the functional heads T and v, both bearing uninterpretable phi-features and Case, initiate Agree with the DPs they most immediately c-command, the subject and direct object respectively:
How do we say WHEN it happens: Contributions to the …, 1998
An important tenet of LFG is the lexical integrity principle which says that the leaves of c{ structure trees are complete surface words. Given this principle, the morphological component is seen as distinct from the syntax. It can be modelled by sublexical rules as we will illustrate below but the principles that apply to these rules are di erent from those applying in the syntax (see for discussion). The way LFG is set up allows single words and phrases to contribute the same or similar information to an f{structure. For example a form like parla, pass e simple of parler, contributes information similar to that contributed by a parl e, the pass e compos e of the same verb. The framework allows a similar treatment for the two forms as well as the maintenance of lexical integrity and makes it possible to avoid word formation rules in the syntax without losing paradigmatic transparency (see for discussion). These possibilities, however, are not always exploited as well as they could be, and using them transparently is made less easy than it could be by another architectural feature of LFG. The distinction that the architecture of LFG makes between c{structure and f{structure was meant to embody the insight that word order and other constituent structure di erences are not necessarily indicative of profound syntactic di erences among languages. LFG follows here the distinction made e.g. in between coding properties and genuine syntactic characteristics. The f{structure allows us to abstract away from super cial word order di erences to bring out the more fundamental syntactic similarities (or di erences) among languages. This abstracting away from certain di erences is theoretically important but also practically, e.g. in the context of translation. It makes the f{structure into a structure that comes close to the underspeci ed representation used in the Core Language Engine (see , ), which can be argued to be, from a practical point of view, a good candidate for input and output of transfer rules (see ). But the traditional architecture gets us only half way: while it abstracts away from c{structure phenomena, it encodes all the morphological information in the f{structure. This information, however, is to a large extent as much encoding information as word order is. We would like to thank the following people for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article: John Maxwell, who proposed a similar architecture in conversations with the second author, Ron Kaplan, Miriam Butt, Fr ed erique Segond and Veronika Kn uppel. In particular we thank Joan Bresnan for extensive comments and suggestions. The issues she raised could not be discussed in su cient detail in this short contribution. Needless to say that the commentators do not necessarily share the perspective we are taking here. Special thanks go also to Marc Dymetman for judgements on French data. We alone are responsible for remaining errors.
2017
The goal of this paper is to describe verbal agreement in languages like Icelandic in which the finite verb agrees with the nominative SUBJ, if there is one; otherwise, it agrees with a nominative OBJ; otherwise, it shows 3rd person singular features in the default gender (neuter in Icelandic). Special attention is paid to agreement in raising constructions, the raising verb may agree with the nominative OBJ of its infinitival complement. Similar facts occur in English locative inversion (Bresnan, 1994). These facts support the claim that verbs do not specify the Person-Number-Gender (PNG) features of any particular GF in their lexical entries. Instead, they specify the clausal PNG features as the feature structure AGR(EEMENT), which is unified with the AGR of the appropriate GF satisfying a set of OT constraints (as in Alsina & Vigo, 2014).
This paper describes a number of verbal argument marking patterns found in the world's languages and provides HPSG analyses for them. In addition to commonly-occurring variations of morphosyntactic alignment (e.g. nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive), this paper also presents analyses of more complex phenomena, including ergativity splits, Austronesianstyle focus-case systems, and direct-inverse systems and their interaction with case.
2016
Reviewed by Francesco-Alessio Ursini, Stockholms Universitet The Modular Architecture of Grammar presents a state-of-the-art introduction to automodular grammar, a theory based on Fodor's (1983) modularity of mind hypothesis. According to the Modularity of Grammar Hypothesis, autonomous modules generate linguistic representations (e.g. sentence structures, propositions), but do not interact (p.7). The representations that these systems generate, however, are connected via mapping principles governed by the interface (meta-)module. The theoretical consequences of this assumption are far-reaching. For instance, the theory lacks movement operations or hierarchical levels of representation, and syntax does not have a central function in the architecture (cf. GB and Distributed Morphology: Chomsky 1981, Halle & Marantz 1993). The theory is tested against a wide set of data, including some well-known but still controversial problems. It presents an interesting representational alternative to derivational theories, and can provide several stimulating points of reflection for theoretically-inclined linguists. Below, I summarize the contents of the book. Chapter 1 introduces the two central modules of this architecture: semantics and syntax. The semantic module generates Function/Argument (FA) structures, which determine how the meanings of lexical items, phrases and sentences are composed. The syntax module generates phrase/sentence structure, as standardly assumed in generative frameworks. The syntactic rules of representation come in a standard, if conservative generative format (e.g. S→NP, VP). The semantic rules also come in a conservative, categorial format. For instance, an object of type Fap is a function that takes an argument object of type a as an input, and returns a type p proposition as a result (cf. Cresswell 1973). Lexical items are initially defined as pairings of F/A and syntactic representations, which include information about category and distribution. For instance, the intransitive verb sneeze has F/A type Fa and syntactic category "V in [VP ___]" (i.e. it is a verb in a VP). Chapter 2 presents the interface module and its three core principles. The first is lexical correspondence: each lexical item must have a representation in each module/dimension. The second is categorial correspondence: categories from different modules are mapped in a homogenous way (e.g. NPs to arguments, propositions to sentences). The third is geometric correspondence: relations from one dimension (e.g. c-command in syntax) must correspond to relation in another dimension (e.g. scope in semantics). Since the theory assumes that different rules generate syntactic and semantic representations, which are however connected via precise mappings, it predicts that discrepancies and asymmetries among representations can arise. For instance, copular sentences such as Sally is a carpenter are analysed as including lexical correspondence discrepancies. The copula and indefinite article are treated as having null semantic representations, the NPs Sally and carpenter as having semantic representations that combine to form a proposition (i.e. argument for Sally, predicate for carpenter). The interface module maps these NPs to respectively argument and predicate type representations, and copula and indefinite article to null representations. Hence, lexical and categorial correspondence are maintained even if not all syntactic representations correspond to non-null semantic representations. Chapter 3 adds the role (also event, cognitive) structure module, which determines the event structure and thematic roles associated to lexical items and sentences. Only three roles are postulated: proto-agent, proto-patient, and ancillary participant (cf. Dowty 1991). Thus, the role structure of a verb such as put can be represented as "RS: "put" (type), AGT, PAT, ANC". Notably, role structures are assumed to be "flat" sequences including event type and roles. The assumption of a distinct role structure module is motivated via the analysis of voice
Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 2000
Jurnal RASI, 2021
DABIR: Digital Archive of Brief notes & Iran Review, 2024
Tasavvur / Tekirdağ İlahiyat Dergisi, 2024
en Arriola, Salvador; Garranzo, Rafael y Ruiz Jiménez, Laura (Coords.): La Renovación de la Cooperación Iberoamericana. Transformaciones para una agenda 2015, Madrid, AECID-SEGIB, 2013
Latin American Antiquity, 2021
MAKALH AKUNTANSI PERPAJAKAN, 2020
Resmat, 2003
Káñina, 2018
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2015
Epj Web of Conferences, 2015
Physical Review Letters, 2005
CHALLENGES FACING PHILOSOPHY IN UNITED …, 2004