Mapping theory without argument structure

• Autorzy: Findlay J. Y.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v4i2.171

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Asudeh and Giorgolo (2012) offer an analysis of optional and derived arguments that does away with argument structure as a separate level of representation within the architecture of Lexical Functional Grammar in favour of encoding much of this information in a connected semantic structure. This simplifies the architecture in many ways, but leaves open the question of the mapping between thematic roles, arguments, and grammatical functions (traditionally explored under the umbrella of Lexical Mapping Theory; LMT: Bresnan and Kanerva 1989). In this paper, I offer a formalisation of these mapping relations, drawing on a modern reanalysis of traditional LMT (Kibort 2007), while also continuing Asudeh and Giorgolo’s (2012) quest to evacuate as much information as possible out of individual lexical entries and into cross-categorising templates (Dalrymple et al. 2004; Crouch et al. 2012).

Słowa kluczowe

EN

argument structure; mapping theory; argument linking; LFG; Lexical Functional Grammar; Glue Semantics

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: Vol. 4, No. 2
• Strony: 293--338
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 47 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Findlay J. Y.

• University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Bibliografia

• [1] Farrell Ackerman and John Moore (2001), Proto-properties and grammatical encoding, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [2] Farrell Ackerman, Gregory T. Stump, and Gert Webelhuth (2011), Lexicalism, periphrasis, and implicative morphology, in Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars, editors, Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar, pp. 325-358, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
• [3] Alex Alsina (1996), The role of argument structure in grammar: Evidence from Romance, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [4] Ash Asudeh (2001), Linking, optionality, and ambiguity in Marathi, in Peter Sells, editor, Formal and empirical issues in Optimality-Theoretic syntax, pp. 257-312, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [5] Ash Asudeh (2012), The logic of pronominal resumption, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
• [6] Ash Asudeh (2013), Flexible composition and the argument/adjunct distinction in LFG+Glue, paper presented at the LLI Lab, Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University.
• [7] Ash Asudeh, Mary Dalrymple, and Ida Toivonen (2013), Constructions with Lexical Integrity, Journal of Language Modelling, 1 (1): 1-54, http://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/56/49.
• [8] 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, http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/17/papers/lfg12asudehgiorgolo.pdf.
• [9] Ash Asudeh, Gianluca Giorgolo, and Ida Toivonen (2014), Meaning and valency, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference, pp. 68-88, CSLI Publications, http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/19/papers/lfg14asudehetal.pdf.
• [10] Ash Asudeh and Ida Toivonen (2015), Lexical-Functional Grammar, in Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, editors, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (2nd edn.), pp. 373-406, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199544004-e-017.
• [11] Joan Bresnan (1980), Polyadicity, in Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst, and Michael Moortgat, editors, Lexical Grammar, pp. 97-121, Foris., Dordrecht, NL, in revised form in Joan Bresnan (ed.) 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations, 149-172. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• [12] Joan Bresnan (1982), The passive in lexical theory, in Joan Bresnan, editor, The mental representation of grammatical relations, pp. 3-86, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [13] Joan Bresnan (1990), Levels of representation in locative inversion: A comparison of English and Chicheŵa, manuscript, Stanford University and Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.
• [14] Joan Bresnan (2001), Lexical-functional syntax, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
• [15] Joan Bresnan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen, and Stephen Wechsler (2016), Lexical-functional syntax (2nd edn.), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
• [16] Joan Bresnan and Jonni M. Kanerva (1989), Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar, Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (1): 1-50.
• [17] Miriam Butt (1995), The structure of complex predicates in Urdu, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [18] 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, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/LFG2-1997/lfg97butt-dalrymple-frank.pdf.
• [19] Dick Crouch, Mary Dalrymple, Ron Kaplan, Tracy King, John Maxwell, and Paula Newman (2012), XLE documentation, Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), Palo Alto, CA., http://www2.parc.com/isl/groups/nltt/xle/doc/xle.html.
• [20] Mary Dalrymple, editor (1999), Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [21] Mary Dalrymple (2001), Lexical Functional Grammar, number 34 in Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, Stanford, CA.
• [22] Mary Dalrymple, Angie Hinrichs, John Lamping, and Vijay Saraswat (1993), The resource logic of complex predicate interpretation, in Proceedings of the 1993 Republic of China Computational Linguistics Conference (ROCLING), Hsitou National Park, Taiwan, http://www.aclclp.org.tw/rocling/1993/K01.pdf.
• [23] 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, pp. 199-208, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/9/lfg04dkk.pdf.
• [24] Anthony R. Davis (2011), Thematic roles, in Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul H. Portner, editors, Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning, volume 1, pp. 399-420, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, DE.
• [25] David Dowty (1991), Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language, 67 (3): 547-619.
• [26] Yehuda N. Falk (2001), Lexical-Functional Grammar: An introduction to paralel constraint-based syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [27] Dorothee Fehrmann, Uwe Junghanns, and Denisa Lenertová (2010), Two reflexive markers in Slavic, Russian Linguistics, 34 (3): 203-238.
• [28] Jean Mark Gawron (1983), Lexical representations and the semantics of complementation, doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
• [29] Per-Kristian Halvorsen and Ronald M. Kaplan (1988), Projections and semantic descriptions in Lexical-Functional Grammar, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, pp. 1116-1122, Institute for New Generation Systems.
• [30] Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (2002), Voice in western Austronesian: an update, in Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, editors, The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, pp. 7-16, Pacific Linguistics, Canberra, AU.
• [31] Ray Jackendoff (1990), Semantic structures, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [32] Ronald M. Kaplan and Joan Bresnan (1982), Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation, in Joan Bresnan, editor, The mental representation of grammatical relations, pp. 173-281, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [33] Anna Kibort (2001), The Polish passive and impersonal in Lexical Mapping Theory, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, pp. 163-183, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/6/lfg01kibort.pdf.
• [34] Anna Kibort (2007), Extending the applicability of Lexical Mapping Theory, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference, pp. 250-270, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/12/papers/lfg07kibort.pdf.
• [35] Anna Kibort (2008), On the syntax of ditransitive constructions, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, pp. 312-332, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/13/papers/lfg08kibort.pdf.
• [36] Anna Kibort (2013), Objects and Lexical Mapping Theory [Abstract], in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, CSLI Publications.
• [37] Anna Kibort (2014), Mapping out a construction invetory with (Lexical) Mapping Theory, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference, pp. 262-282, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/19/papers/lfg14kibort.pdf.
• [38] Jonas Kuhn (2001), Resource sensitivity in the syntax-semantics interface and the German split NP construction, in W. Detmar Meurers and Tibor Kiss, editors, Constraint-based approaches to Germanic syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [39] Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2005), Argument realization, (Research Surveys in Linguistics Series), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [40] John J. Lowe (2015), Complex predicates: an LFG+glue analysis, Journal of Language Modelling, 3 (2): 413-462.
• [41] Stefan Müller (2016), Flexible phrasal constructions, constituent structure and (cross-linguistic) generalizations: a discussion of template-based phrasal LFG approaches, in Doug Arnold, Miriam Butt, Berthold Crysmann, Tracy Holloway King, and Stefan Müller, editors, Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, pp. 457-477, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HPSG/2016/headlex2016-mueller.pdf.
• [42] Stephanie Needham and Ida Toivonen (2011), Derived arguments, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, pp. 401-421, http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/16/papers/lfg11needhamtoivonen.pdf.
• [43] Frederick J. Newmeyer (2002), Optimality and functionality: A critique of functionally-based Optimality-Theoretic syntax, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20 (1): 43-80.
• [44] Terence Parsons (1990), Events in the semantics of English, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [45] Beatrice Primus (1999), Cases and thematic roles: ergative, accusative and active, Niemeyer, Tübingen, DE.
• [46] Willard V. Quine (1956), Quantifiers and propositional attitudes, The Journal of Philosophy, 53 (5): 177-187.
• [47] Malka Rappaport Hovav and Beth Levin (2007), Deconstructing thematic hierarchies, in Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, and Chris Manning, editors, Architecture, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan, pp. 385-402, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.