Constructions with Lexical Integrity

• Autorzy: Asudeh A. , Dalrymple M. , Toivonen I.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v1i1.56

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Construction Grammar holds that unpredictable form-meaning combinations are not restricted in size. In particular, there may be phrases that have particular meanings that are not predictable from the words that they contain, but which are nonetheless not purely idiosyncratic. In addressing this observation, some construction grammarians have not only weakened the word/phrase distinction, but also denied the lexicon/grammar distinction. In this paper, we consider the word/phrase and lexicon/grammar distinction in light of Lexical-Functional Grammar and its Lexical Integrity Principle. We show that it is not necessary to remove the word/phrase distinction or the lexicon/grammar distinction to capture constructional effects, although we agree that there are important generalizations involving constructions of all sizes that must be captured at both syntactic and semantic levels. We use LFG’s templates, bundles of grammatical descriptions, to factor out grammatical information in such a way that it can be invoked either by words or by construction-specific phrase structure rules. Phrase structure rules that invoke specific templates are thus the equivalent of phrasal constructions in our approach, but Lexical Integrity and the separation of word and phrase are preserved. Constructional effects are captured by systematically allowing words and phrases to contribute comparable information to LFG’s level of functional structure; this is just a generalization of LFG’s usual assumption that “morphology competes with syntax” (Bresnan, 2001).

Słowa kluczowe

EN

syntax; lexicon; semantics; constructions; Lexical Integrity; templates; Swedish; Dutch; LFG; Glue Semantics

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 1, No. 1
• Strony: 1--54
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 81 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Asudeh A.

• Carleton University, Canada
• Oxford University, United Kingdom

autor

Dalrymple M.

• Oxford University, United Kingdom

autor

Toivonen I.

• Carleton University, Canada

Bibliografia

• [1] Farrell Ackerman and Gregory Stump (2004), Paradigms and Periphrastic Expression: A Study in Realization-Based Lexicalism, in Louisa Sadler and Andrew Spencer, editors, Projecting Morphology, pp. 111-157, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [2] Farrell Ackerman and Gert Webelhuth (1998), A Theory of Predicates, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [3] Alex Alsina (1993), Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
• [4] Stephen R. Anderson (1992), A-Morphous Morphology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [5] Mark Aronoff (1993), Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [6] Ash Asudeh (2004), Resumption as Resource Management, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
• [7] Ash Asudeh (2006), Direct Compositionality and the Architecture of LFG, in Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [8] Ash Asudeh (2012), The Logic of Pronominal Resumption, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [9] Ash Asudeh, Mary Dalrymple, and Ida Toivonen (2008), Constructions with Lexical Integrity: Templates as the Lexicon-Syntax Interface, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, pp. 68-88, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [10] Ash Asudeh and Gianluca Giorgolo (2012), Flexible Composition for Optional and Derived Arguments, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, pp. 64-84, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [11] Kenneth R. Beesley and Lauri Karttunen (2000), Finite-State Non-Concatenative Morphotactics, in Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology (SIGPHON-2000), pp. 1-12.
• [12] Kenneth R. Beesley and Lauri Karttunen (2003), Finite-State Morphology, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [13] James P. Blevins (2006), Word-Based Morphology, Journal of Linguistics, 42: 531-573.
• [14] Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag, editors (2012), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [15] Geert Booij (2005a), Compounding and Derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology, in Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, editors, Morphology and its Demarcation, pp. 109-132, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
• [16] Geert Booij (2005b), Construction-Dependent Morphology, Lingue e Linguaggio, 12: 31-46.
• [17] Geert Booij (2009), Lexical Integrity as a Formal Universal: A Constructionist View, in S. Scalise et al., editors, Universals of Language Today, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, pp. 83-100, Springer.
• [18] Joan Bresnan (1998), Morphology Competes with Syntax: Explaining Typological Variation in Weak Crossover Effects, in Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, editors, Is the Best Good Enough? Proceedings from the Workshop on Optimality in Syntax, The MIT Press, invited paper presented at the MIT Workshop on Optimality in Syntax, May 1995.
• [19] Joan Bresnan (2001), Lexical-Functional Syntax, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
• [20] Joan Bresnan and Sam A. Mchombo (1995), The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13 (2): 181-254.
• [21] Joan Bresnan and Annie Zaenen (1990), Deep Unaccusativity in LFG, in Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell, and Errapel Mejías-Bikandi, editors, Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective, pp. 45-57, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [22] Charles L. Buchanan (1918), Ornstein and Modern Music, The Musical Quarterly, 4 (2): 174-183.
• [23] Miriam Butt (1995), The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu, Dissertations in Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, revised and corrected version of 1993 Stanford University dissertation.
• [24] Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Anette Frank (1997), An Architecture for Linking Theory in LFG, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference.
• [25] Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (2005), Restriction for Morphological Valency Alternations: The Urdu Causative, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference.
• [26] Miriam Butt, Tracy Holloway King, and John T. Maxwell (2003), Productive encoding of Urdu complex predicates in the ParGram Project, in Proceedings of the EACL03 Workshop on Computational Linguistics for South Asian Languages: Expanding Synergies with Europe, pp. 9-13.
• [27] Noam Chomsky (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [28] Dick Crouch, Mary Dalrymple, Ron Kaplan, Tracy King, John Maxwell, and Paula Newman (2012), XLE Documentation, Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA, URL http://www2.parc.com/isl/groups/nltt/xle/doc/xle.html.
• [29] Peter W. Culicover and Ray Jackendoff (1999), The View from the Periphery: The English Comparative Correlative, Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (4): 543-572.
• [30] Mary Dalrymple, editor (1999), Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [31] Mary Dalrymple (2001), Lexical Functional Grammar, volume 34 of Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, New York, NY.
• [32] Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, and Tracy Holloway King (2004), Linguistic Generalizations over Descriptions, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference.
• [33] Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, III, and Annie Zaenen, editors (1995), Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [34] Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Edwin Williams (1987), On the Definition of Word, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [35] Yehuda N. Falk (2001), Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [36] Charles Fillmore (1988), The Mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’, in Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster, editors, Proceedings of Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 35-55, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
• [37] Charles J. Fillmore, Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor (1988), Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone, Language, 64 (3): 501-538.
• [38] Jonathan Ginzburg and Ivan A. Sag (2000), Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [39] Adele E. Goldberg (1995), Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• [40] Adele E. Goldberg (2006), Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [41] Adele E. Goldberg and Ray Jackendoff (2004), The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions, Language, 80 (3): 532-568.
• [42] Morris Halle and Alec Marantz (1993), Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, in The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 111-176, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [43] Morris Halle and Alec Marantz (1994), Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology, in Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley, editors, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, pp. 275-288, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
• [44] Susan E. Haviland and Herbert H. Clark (1974), What’s New? Acquiring New Information as a Process in Comprehension, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13 (5): 512-521.
• [45] Ray Jackendoff (1973), The Base Rules for Prepositional Phrases, in Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, editors, A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 345-356, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
• [46] Ray Jackendoff (1992), Babe Ruth Homered His Way into the Hearts of America, in Stowell and Wehrli (1992), pp. 155-178.
• [47] Ray S. Jackendoff (1990), Semantic Structures, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [48] Ray S. Jackendoff (2007), Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [49] Theo M. V. Janssen (1997), Compositionality, in Handbook of Logic and Language, pp. 419-473, The MIT Press/Elsevier, Cambridge and Amsterdam.
• [50] Aravind K. Joshi, K. Vijay-Shanker, and David Weir (1991), The Convergence of Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms, in Peter Sells, Stuart Shieber, and Thomas Wasow, editors, Foundational Issues in Natural Language Processing, pp. 31-81, MIT Press.
• [51] Ronald M. Kaplan (1987), Three Seductions of Computational Psycholinguistics, in Peter Whitelock, Mary McGee Wood, Harold L. Somers, Rod Johnson, and Paul Bennett, editors, Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, pp. 149-188, Academic Press, London, also published as CCL/UMIST Report No. 86.2: Alvey/ICL Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications: Transcripts of Presentations and Discussions. Center for Computational Linguistics, University of Manchester. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995, 337-367).
• [52] Ronald M. Kaplan and Jürgen Wedekind (1993), Restriction and Correspondence-Based Translation, in Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the EACL, Utrecht, European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
• [53] Paul Kay and Charles J. Fillmore (1999), Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? Construction, Language, 75 (1): 1-33.
• [54] Robert Malouf (1998), Categories, Prototypes, and Default Inheritance, in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Formal Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, and Categorial Grammar, pp. 207-216, Saarbrücken.
• [55] Alec Marantz (1992), The Way-Construction and the Semantics of Direct Arguments in English: A Reply to Jackendoff, in Stowell and Wehrli (1992), pp. 179-188.
• [56] Alec P. Marantz (1997), No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon, in A. Dimitriadis and L. Siegel, editors, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, volume 4.2, pp. 201-226, University of Pennsylvania.
• [57] Yo Matsumoto (1996), Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion ‘Word’, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Studies in Japanese Linguistics series, CSLI Publications/Kuroiso Publishers, Stanford/Tokyo. Revised and corrected version of 1992 Stanford University dissertation, On the wordhood of complex predicates in Japanese.
• [58] Laura Michaelis (2010), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, in Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, editors, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [59] Tara Mohanan (1994), Arguments in Hindi, Dissertations in Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, reprinted version of 1990 Stanford University dissertation.
• [60] Tara Mohanan (1995), Wordhood and Lexicality: Noun Incorporation in Hindi, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13 (1): 75-134.
• [61] Barbara Partee (1983/1997), Genitives – A Case Study, in Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pp. 464-470, Elsevier/The MIT Press, Amsterdam and Boston, appendix to Janssen (1997). Published version of 1983 manuscript.
• [62] Barbara Partee and Vladimir Borschev (1998), Integrating lexical and formal semantics: Genitives, relational nouns, and type-shifting, in Robin Cooper and Thomas Gamkrelidze, editors, Proceedings of the Second Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation, pp. 229-241, Center on Language, Logic, Speech, Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, URL http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~partee/docs/tbilisi17.pdf.
• [63] Barbara H. Partee, Alice ter Meulen, and Robert E. Wall (1993), Mathematical Methods in Linguistics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, corrected second printing of the first edition.
• [64] Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag (1987), Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Volume I, CSLI Lecture Notes, number 13, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [65] Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag (1994), Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• [66] Geoffrey K. Pullum and Gerald Gazdar (1982), Natural Languages and Context Free Languages, Linguistics and Philosophy, 4: 471-504.
• [67] Louisa Sadler and Andrew Spencer (2000), Syntax as an Exponent of Morphological Features, Yearbook of Morphology, pp. 71-96.
• [68] Ivan A. Sag (2010), English Filler-Gap Constructions, Language, 86 (3): 486-545.
• [69] Ivan A. Sag (2012), Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis, in Boas and Sag (2012), pp. 69-202.
• [70] Ivan A. Sag, Hans C. Boas, and Paul Kay (2012), Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar, in Boas and Sag (2012), pp. 1-30.
• [71] Stuart M. Shieber (1985), Evidence Against the Context-Freeness of Natural Language, Linguistics and Philosophy, 8: 333-343.
• [72] Daniel Siddiqi (2009), Syntax Within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument Selection in Distributed Morphology, John Benjamins.
• [73] Jane Simpson (1983), Aspects of Warlpiri Morphology and Syntax, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
• [74] Tim Stowell and Eric Wehrli, editors (1992), Syntax and the Lexicon, volume 26 of Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
• [75] Gregory T. Stump (2001), Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [76] Ida Toivonen (2002), The Directed Motion Construction in Swedish, Journal of Linguistics, 38 (2): 313-345.
• [77] Ida Toivonen (2003), Non-Projecting Words: A Case Study of Swedish Particles, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
• [78] Marie-Elaine van Egmond (2006), Two Way-Constructions in Dutch, Master’s thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
• [79] Marie-Elaine van Egmond (2009), Two Way-Constructions in Dutch: Motion Along a Path and Transition to Location, VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken, Germany.
• [80] Arie Verhagen (2003), The Dutch Way, in Arie Verhagen and Jeroen M. van de Weijer, editors, Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch, pp. 27-57, LOT, Utrecht.
• [81] K. Vijay-Shanker and David Weir (1994), The Equivalence of Four Extensions of Context-Free Grammars, Mathematical Systems Theory, 27 (6): 511-546.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).