Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introduction to LFG – 1 / 60
Introduction to LFG
Mary DalrympleCentre for Linguistics and Philology
Oxford University
LSA Linguistic Institute 2007
Day 3
L F G LFG
Introduction to LFG – 2 / 60
■ “Semantic roles, syntactic constituents, and grammaticalfunctions belong to parallel information structures of verydifferent formal character. They are related not byproof-theoretic derivation but by structuralcorrespondences, as a melody is related to the words of asong. The song is decomposable into parallel melodic andlinguistic structures, which jointly constrain the nature ofthe whole. In the same way, the sentences of humanlanguage are themselves decomposable into parallel systemsof constraints – structural, functional, semantic, andprosodic – which the whole must jointly satisfy.”Bresnan (1990)
If our theory does not include movement or other derivationalprocesses, how do we treat nonlocal relations between apredicate and its argument?
L F G Nonlocality
Introduction to LFG – 3 / 60
Nonlocal phenomena:
■ Raising: David seemed to yawn.
L F G Nonlocality
Introduction to LFG – 3 / 60
Nonlocal phenomena:
■ Raising: David seemed to yawn.
■ Control: David tried to catch the ball.
L F G Nonlocality
Introduction to LFG – 3 / 60
Nonlocal phenomena:
■ Raising: David seemed to yawn.
■ Control: David tried to catch the ball.
■ Wh-questions: Who do you think David took to the party?
L F G Nonlocality
Introduction to LFG – 3 / 60
Nonlocal phenomena:
■ Raising: David seemed to yawn.
■ Control: David tried to catch the ball.
■ Wh-questions: Who do you think David took to the party?
How are these treated in a nontransformational, constraint-basedtheory?
L F G Raising
Introduction to LFG – 4 / 60
“Raising” verbs like seem were treated in early transformationalgrammar by raising the subject of a subordinate clause up intothe main clause (hence the term “raising”):
S
NP VP
V
seemed
S
NP
David
VP
to yawn
⇒
S
NP
David
VP
V
seemed
S
VP
to yawn
This captures the intuition that the raising verb does not assigna semantic role to the raised argument.
L F G Raising to subject
Introduction to LFG – 5 / 60
David seemed to yawn.
■ C-structure: No evidence that there is a trace or otherphrasal material in subject position in the subordinateclause.
■ F-structure: Functionally, the “raised” argument Davidbehaves as both the subject of seem and the subject of thesubordinate clause. This is functional control.
L F G Raising to subject: ‘seem’
Introduction to LFG – 6 / 60
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V′
V
seemed
VP
V′
V
to
VP
V
yawn
pred ‘seem〈xcomp〉subj’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
xcomp
pred ‘yawn〈subj〉’
subj
Line from David f-structure toxcomp subj indicates functionalcontrol: the same f-structure is thesubj and the xcomp subj.
L F G Raising to subject
Introduction to LFG – 7 / 60
Evidence for subjecthood in matrix clause:
■ Position
■ Verb agreement: David seems/*seem to yawn; theyseem/*seems to yawn
L F G Raising to subject
Introduction to LFG – 7 / 60
Evidence for subjecthood in matrix clause:
■ Position
■ Verb agreement: David seems/*seem to yawn; theyseem/*seems to yawn
Evidence for subjecthood in subordinate clause:
■ Reflexivization: English reflexives are clause-bound.Davidi believed that [Janej voted for herselfj/*himselfi].
A reflexive is possible in the subordinate clause:David seemed to like himself.
L F G Raising to object
Introduction to LFG – 8 / 60
David believed Chris to know the answer.
■ C-structure: Again, no evidence that there is a trace orother phrasal material in subject position in the subordinateclause.
■ F-structure: Functionally, the “raised” argument Chrisbehaves as the object of believe and the subject of thesubordinate clause.
L F G Raising to object: ‘believe’
Introduction to LFG – 9 / 60
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V′
V
believed
NP
N
Chris
VP
V′
V
to
VP
know the answer
pred ‘believe〈subj,xcomp〉obj’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj[
pred ‘Chris’]
xcomp
pred ‘know〈subj,obj〉’
subj
obj
spec[
pred ‘the’]
pred ‘answer’
The object of believe functionallycontrols the subject of know.
L F G Raising to object
Introduction to LFG – 10 / 60
■ Accusative case for “raised” argument:David believed him to know the answer.
■ Reflexivization: A reflexive in raised object position ispossible.David believed himself to be the best candidate.
■ Reflexivization: A reflexive in the subordinate clause canhave the raised object as its antecedent.Davidi believed Chrisj to like himself∗i,j .
L F G Nonthematic arguments
Introduction to LFG – 11 / 60
It is raining.
pred ‘rain〈〉subj’
subj [form it ]
Nonthematic arguments appear outside angled brackets insemantic form.
L F G Nonthematic arguments
Introduction to LFG – 12 / 60
It seems to be raining.
There seems to be a problem.
David believed it to be raining.
David believed there to be a problem.
L F G Nonthematic arguments
Introduction to LFG – 13 / 60
It seems to be raining.
pred ‘seem〈xcomp〉subj’
subj [form it ]
xcomp
pred ‘rain〈〉subj’
subj
Since seems does not assign a semantic role to its subject, asemantically empty subject is allowed as the raised argument.
L F G Raising verbs and nonthematic arguments
Introduction to LFG – 14 / 60
David believed it to be raining.
pred ‘believe〈subj,xcomp〉obj’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj [form it ]
xcomp
pred ‘rain〈〉subj’
subj
L F G Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 15 / 60
Icelandic “quirky case”: Andrews (1982)
Accusative subject:
Drenginaboys.acc
vantarlacks
mat.food
‘The boys lack food.’
L F G Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 15 / 60
Icelandic “quirky case”: Andrews (1982)
Accusative subject:
Drenginaboys.acc
vantarlacks
mat.food
‘The boys lack food.’
Accusative “raised” object:
Hannhe
telurbelieves
migme.acc
(ı(in
barnaskapfoolishness
sınum)his)
vantato.lack
peninga.money
‘He believes me (in his foolishness) to lack money.’
Adverb placement shows that mig appears in object position inthe main clause.
L F G Raising verbs and nonthematic arguments
Introduction to LFG – 16 / 60
Same f-structure is the subject of lack and the object of believe→ the raised object must obey the case requirements appropriateto the subject of lack.
pred ‘believe〈subj,xcomp〉obj’
subj[
pred ‘he’]
obj
[
pred ‘me’
case acc
]
xcomp
pred ‘lack〈subj,obj〉’
subj
obj[
pred ‘money’]
L F G Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 17 / 60
Dative subject:
Barninuchild.def.dat
batnaDirecovered.from
veikin.disease.def.nom
‘The child recovered from the disease.’
L F G Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 17 / 60
Dative subject:
Barninuchild.def.dat
batnaDirecovered.from
veikin.disease.def.nom
‘The child recovered from the disease.’
Dative “raised” object:
Hannhe
telurbelieves
barninuchild.def.dat
(ı(in
barnaskapfoolishness
sınum)his)
hafato.have
batnaD
recovered.fromveikin.disease.def.nom
‘He believes the child (in his foolishness) to have recovered fromthe disease.’
L F G Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 18 / 60
Genitive subject:
Verkjannapains.def.gen
gætiris.noticeable
ekki.not
‘The pains are not noticeable.’
L F G Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 18 / 60
Genitive subject:
Verkjannapains.def.gen
gætiris.noticeable
ekki.not
‘The pains are not noticeable.’
Genitive “raised” object:Hannhe
telurbelieves
verkjannapains.def.gen
(ı(in
barnaskapfoolishness
sınum)his)
ekkinot
gæta.noticeable
‘He believes the pains (in his foolishness) not to be noticeable.’
L F G Rules and lexical entries
Introduction to LFG – 19 / 60
V′ −→(
V↑= ↓
) (
NP(↑ obj) = ↓
) (
VP(↑ xcomp) = ↓
)
L F G Rules and lexical entries
Introduction to LFG – 19 / 60
V′ −→(
V↑= ↓
) (
NP(↑ obj) = ↓
) (
VP(↑ xcomp) = ↓
)
seemed V (↑ pred) = ‘seem〈xcomp〉subj’(↑ subj) = (↑ xcomp subj)
believed V (↑ pred) = ‘believe〈subj,xcomp〉obj’(↑ obj) = (↑ xcomp subj)
L F G Control
Introduction to LFG – 20 / 60
Control verbs like try were treated in early transformationalgrammar by the “equi-NP deletion” transformation, and are stillsometimes called “equi” verbs:
S
NP
David
VP
V
tried
S
NP
David
VP
to leave
⇒
S
NP
David
VP
V
tried
S
NP
∆
VP
to leave
This captures the intuition that a controlled argument gets twosemantic roles: one from the control verb, and one from thesubordinate verb.
L F G Control verbs
Introduction to LFG – 21 / 60
David tried to leave.
pred ‘try〈subj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
comp
pred ‘leave〈subj〉’
subj[
pred ‘pro’]
Obligatory anaphoric control (Dalrymple, 2001, chapter 12):closed complement comp, not open complement xcomp. Thereis a semantic relation between the controller and theunpronounced pronominal subject of xcomp, but they aredifferent syntactic objects.
L F G Control verbs
Introduction to LFG – 22 / 60
David tried to leave.
pred ‘try〈subj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
comp
pred ‘leave〈subj〉’
subj[
pred ‘pro’]
Semantic role assigned by control verb to controller, whichappears inside angled brackets.
L F G Control verbs
Introduction to LFG – 23 / 60
Alternative view (Bresnan, 1982; Falk, 2001; Asudeh, 2005):‘try’ involves functional control, not anaphoric control.
pred ‘try〈subj,xcomp〉’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
xcomp
pred ‘leave〈subj〉’
subj
Ongoing theoretical debate within LFG: do control verbs involvefunctional control or anaphoric control? Do they all behave alike,or are there different subclasses?
L F G Control verbs
Introduction to LFG – 23 / 60
Alternative view (Bresnan, 1982; Falk, 2001; Asudeh, 2005):‘try’ involves functional control, not anaphoric control.
pred ‘try〈subj,xcomp〉’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
xcomp
pred ‘leave〈subj〉’
subj
Ongoing theoretical debate within LFG: do control verbs involvefunctional control or anaphoric control? Do they all behave alike,or are there different subclasses?
Answers to these questions not dictated by formal framework ofLFG, but by the linguistic facts.
L F G Control in Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 24 / 60
Accusative subject:
Drenginaboys.acc
vantarlacks
mat.food
‘The boys lack food.’
L F G Control in Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 24 / 60
Accusative subject:
Drenginaboys.acc
vantarlacks
mat.food
‘The boys lack food.’
Subject control: No case preservation (Andrews, 1982)
EgI.nom
vonasthope
tilto
aD
tovantalack
ekkinot
efnimaterial
ıfor
ritgerDina.thesis
‘I hope to not lack material for the thesis.’
L F G Control in Icelandic
Introduction to LFG – 24 / 60
Accusative subject:
Drenginaboys.acc
vantarlacks
mat.food
‘The boys lack food.’
Subject control: No case preservation (Andrews, 1982)
EgI.nom
vonasthope
tilto
aD
tovantalack
ekkinot
efnimaterial
ıfor
ritgerDina.thesis
‘I hope to not lack material for the thesis.’
Conclusion: Anaphoric control, not functional control.
L F G Object control verbs
Introduction to LFG – 25 / 60
David convinced Chris to leave.
pred ‘convince〈subj,obj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj[
pred ‘Chris’]
comp
pred ‘leave〈subj〉’
subj[
pred ‘pro’]
Object of convince anaphorically controls subject of leave.
L F G Raising and control: C-structure
Introduction to LFG – 26 / 60
Raising and control verbs pattern alike at c-structure:
L F G Raising and control: C-structure
Introduction to LFG – 26 / 60
Raising and control verbs pattern alike at c-structure:
The students seem clearly to be intelligent. (xcomp)
The students tried hard to be on time. (comp)
The students believed David to have left. (xcomp)
The students convinced David to leave. (comp)
L F G Raising and control: C-structure
Introduction to LFG – 26 / 60
Raising and control verbs pattern alike at c-structure:
The students seem clearly to be intelligent. (xcomp)
The students tried hard to be on time. (comp)
The students believed David to have left. (xcomp)
The students convinced David to leave. (comp)
V′ −→(
V↑= ↓
) (
NP(↑ obj) = ↓
) (
VP(↑ {xcomp| comp}) = ↓
)
L F G Lexical entries
Introduction to LFG – 27 / 60
Control verbs supply an unpronounced pronominal subject fortheir complements:
tried V (↑ pred) = ‘try〈subj,comp〉’(↑ comp subj pred) = ‘pro’
convinced V (↑ pred) = ‘convince〈subj,obj,comp〉’(↑ comp subj pred) = ‘pro’
L F G C-structure
Introduction to LFG – 28 / 60
IP
NP(↑ subj)=↓
N↑=↓
David(↑ pred)=‘David’
I′
↑=↓
VP↑=↓
V′
↑=↓
V↑=↓
tried(↑ pred)=‘try〈subj,comp〉’(↑ comp subj pred) = ‘pro’
VP(↑ comp)=↓
V′
↑=↓
V↑=↓
to
VP↑=↓
V↑=↓
leave(↑ pred)=‘leave〈subj〉’
L F G F-structure
Introduction to LFG – 29 / 60
pred ‘try〈subj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
comp
pred ‘leave〈subj〉’
subj[
pred ‘pro’]
L F G Object control
Introduction to LFG – 30 / 60
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V′
V
convinced
NP
N
Chris
VP
V′
V
to
VP
V
leave
pred ‘convince〈subj,obj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj[
pred ‘Chris’]
comp
pred ‘leave〈subj〉’
subj[
pred ‘pro’]
L F G Control
Introduction to LFG – 31 / 60
Characteristics of control and raising verbs (Borjars and Vincent,2004):
■ the relation is obligatory: the control equation is introducedvia the lexical entry of the control or raising verb
■ the relation involves command (either c-command orf-command, the analogue at f-structure): the controllingverb is one clause up, and thus the controller necessarilycommands the controllee
L F G Nonlocality
Introduction to LFG – 32 / 60
Nonlocal phenomena:
■ Raising: David seemed to yawn.
■ Control: David tried to catch the ball.
■ Wh-questions: Who do you think David took to the party?
L F G Nonlocal Dependencies
Introduction to LFG – 33 / 60
In English wh-questions, the wh-phrase appears at the beginningof the sentence and also plays a syntactic role within the clause:
CP
NP
N
What
C′
C
is
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V
eating
pred ‘eat〈subj,obj〉’
focus[
pred ‘what’]
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj
L F G Functional Uncertainty
Introduction to LFG – 34 / 60
CP
NP
N′
What
C′
C
do
IP
NP
N
you
I′
VP
V
think
IP
NP
N
Chris
I′
VP
V
bought
focus[
pred ‘what’]
pred ‘think〈subj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘you’]
comp
pred ‘buy〈subj,obj〉’
subj[
pred ‘Chris’]
obj
L F G Questions
Introduction to LFG – 35 / 60
■ What is the function of the displaced constituent?
L F G Questions
Introduction to LFG – 35 / 60
■ What is the function of the displaced constituent?
■ What is its within-clause role?
L F G Questions
Introduction to LFG – 35 / 60
■ What is the function of the displaced constituent?
■ What is its within-clause role?
■ How and where is this relation defined?
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 36 / 60
■ What is the function of the displaced constituent?
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 36 / 60
■ What is the function of the displaced constituent?
■ Specifiers of functional categories bear grammaticizeddiscourse functions topic, focus.
CP
NP
N
What
C′
C
is
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V
eating
pred ‘eat〈subj,obj〉’
focus[
pred ‘what’]
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 37 / 60
■ What is the within-clause role of the displaced constituent?
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 37 / 60
■ What is the within-clause role of the displaced constituent?
■ Extended Coherence Condition:
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 37 / 60
■ What is the within-clause role of the displaced constituent?
■ Extended Coherence Condition: focus and topic must belinked to the semantic predicate argument structure of thesentence in which they occur, either by functionally or byanaphorically binding an argument.
pred ‘eat〈subj,obj〉’
focus[
pred ‘what’]
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 38 / 60
■ How and where is this relation defined?
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 38 / 60
■ How and where is this relation defined?
■ Defined at f-structure, in terms of the f-structure path toclause-internal function.
L F G The Path
Introduction to LFG – 39 / 60
CP
NP
N
What
C′
C
is
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V
eating
pred ‘eat〈subj,obj〉’
focus[
pred ‘what’]
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 40 / 60
Where are the constraints imposed? Ongoing theoretical debate:
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 40 / 60
Where are the constraints imposed? Ongoing theoretical debate:
■ Constraints are associated with position of displacedconstituent (Kaplan and Zaenen, 1989), or
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 40 / 60
Where are the constraints imposed? Ongoing theoretical debate:
■ Constraints are associated with position of displacedconstituent (Kaplan and Zaenen, 1989), or
■ Constraints are associated with within-clause position (a“trace”) (Bresnan, 2001).
Traces are compatible with a nontransformational,constraint-based theory, but not required by theory-internalconsiderations; linguistic evidence determines which position iscorrect. More on this later in the lecture.
L F G Long Distance Dependencies
Introduction to LFG – 41 / 60
No traces:
CP
NP
N
What
C′
C
is
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V
eating
pred ‘eat〈subj,obj〉’
focus[
pred ‘what’]
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj
L F G Long Distance Dependencies
Introduction to LFG – 41 / 60
With traces:
CP
NP
N
What
C′
C
is
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V
eating
NP
t
pred ‘eat〈subj,obj〉’
focus[
pred ‘what’]
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 42 / 60
■ How is the path defined?
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 42 / 60
■ How is the path defined?
■ By functional uncertainty: regular expression overgrammatical functions.
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 42 / 60
■ How is the path defined?
■ By functional uncertainty: regular expression overgrammatical functions.
■ Example: comp* obj stands for paths with any number ofcomp functions followed by an obj function.
L F G English WH-questions
Introduction to LFG – 43 / 60
CP −→ XP(↑ focus) = ↓
(↑ focus) = (↑ comp∗ gf)
C′
↑= ↓
Kleene star operator: *
COMP∗ represents:
the empty pathCOMPCOMP COMP. . .
L F G Nonlocal Dependencies
Introduction to LFG – 44 / 60
CP
NP
N
What
C′
C
is
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V
eating
pred ‘eat〈subj,obj〉’
focus[
pred ‘what’]
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj
L F G Functional Uncertainty
Introduction to LFG – 45 / 60
CP
NP
N′
What
C′
C
do
IP
NP
N
you
I′
VP
V
think
IP
NP
N
Chris
I′
VP
V
bought
focus[
pred ‘what’]
pred ‘think〈subj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘you’]
comp
pred ‘buy〈subj,obj〉’
subj[
pred ‘Chris’]
obj
L F G Functional Uncertainty
Introduction to LFG – 46 / 60
CP
NP
N
What
C′
C
do
IP
NP
N
you
I′
VP
V′
V
think
IP
NP
N
Chris
I′
VP
V′
V
hoped
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V
bought
focus[
pred ‘what’]
pred ‘think〈subj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘you’]
comp
pred ‘hope〈subj,comp〉’
subj[
pred ‘Chris’]
comp
pred ‘buy〈subj,obj〉’
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj
L F G XCOMP
Introduction to LFG – 47 / 60
CP
NP
N
What
C′
C
did
IP
NP
N
David
I′
VP
V′
V
believe
NP
N
Chris
VP
V′
V
to
VP
V
like
pred ‘believe〈subj,comp〉obj’
focus[
pred ‘what’]
subj[
pred ‘David’]
obj[
pred ‘Chris’]
xcomp
pred ‘like〈subj,obj〉’
subj
obj
L F G Augmenting the Path
Introduction to LFG – 48 / 60
CP −→ XP(↑ focus) = ↓
(↑ focus) = (↑ {xcomp|comp}∗ gf)
C′
↑= ↓
{xcomp|comp}∗ represents:
the empty pathCOMPXCOMPCOMP XCOMPCOMP COMPXCOMP COMP XCOMP. . .
L F G Constraints on unbounded dependencies
Introduction to LFG – 49 / 60
Sentential subject condition:*What did [that Chris bought ] surprise you?
SUBJ is not allowed as a component of Path:
focus[
pred ‘what’]
pred ‘surprise〈subj,obj〉’
subj
pred ‘buy〈subj,obj〉’
subj[
pred ‘Chris’]
obj
obj[
pred ‘you’]
X
L F G Functional uncertainty
Introduction to LFG – 50 / 60
(Outside-in/“regular”) functional uncertainty:
Path through f leads to g
f :[
comp comp comp. . . obj g]
(f comp* obj)=g
L F G No traces
Introduction to LFG – 51 / 60
Constraints associated with fronted position.
CP −→
XP(↑ focus) = ↓
(↑ focus) = (↑ {xcomp|comp}∗ gf)
(
C′
↑ = ↓
)
L F G Functional uncertainty
Introduction to LFG – 52 / 60
Inside-out functional uncertainty:Path through f leads to g
f :[
comp comp comp. . . obj g]
f = (comp* obj g)
L F G With traces
Introduction to LFG – 53 / 60
Constraints associated with trace.
CP −→(
XP(↑ focus) = ↓
) (
C′
↑ = ↓
)
L F G With traces
Introduction to LFG – 53 / 60
Constraints associated with trace.
CP −→(
XP(↑ focus) = ↓
) (
C′
↑ = ↓
)
NP −→ t
↑= (({xcomp|comp}∗ gf ↑ ) focus)
L F G Weak crossover: Evidence for traces?
Introduction to LFG – 54 / 60
Most arguments for the existence of traces have been discredited.Evidence from crossover has been more difficult to refute.
Crossover in transformational terms: a transformation cannotapply if it would result in a NP “crossing over” a coreferentialNP.
Crossover in nontransformational terms, assuming traces: Thetrace of a displaced NP cannot appear to the right of acoreferential NP.
L F G Weak and strong crossover
Introduction to LFG – 55 / 60
Strong crossover violation: coreferential pronoun precedes andc-commands extraction site
*Whoi did hei greet t?(cannot mean: Who greeted himself?)
Weak crossover violation: coreferential pronoun precedes butdoes not c-command extraction site
*Whoi did hisi mother greet t?(cannot mean: Whosei mother greeted himi?)
Crossover appears to provide evidence for traces: see Bresnan(1995) and Dalrymple et al. (2006) for discussion and debate.
L F G Wrapup
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
■ We have examined the formal foundations and basictheoretical assumptions of LFG,
L F G Wrapup
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
■ We have examined the formal foundations and basictheoretical assumptions of LFG,
■ and discussed some areas of current theoretical debate.
L F G Wrapup
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
■ We have examined the formal foundations and basictheoretical assumptions of LFG,
■ and discussed some areas of current theoretical debate.
■ For more on LFG, visit the LFG website:http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/LFG/
L F G Wrapup
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
■ We have examined the formal foundations and basictheoretical assumptions of LFG,
■ and discussed some areas of current theoretical debate.
■ For more on LFG, visit the LFG website:http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/LFG/
■ attend the Bresnan lectures (LSA.347) and theAsudeh/Toivonen lectures (LSA.309) in the main session atthe Institute,
L F G Wrapup
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
■ We have examined the formal foundations and basictheoretical assumptions of LFG,
■ and discussed some areas of current theoretical debate.
■ For more on LFG, visit the LFG website:http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/LFG/
■ attend the Bresnan lectures (LSA.347) and theAsudeh/Toivonen lectures (LSA.309) in the main session atthe Institute,
■ and attend LFG07, here at Stanford, 28-30 July:http://www-csli.stanford.edu/ thking/lfg07.html
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 57 / 60
Andrews, Avery, III. 1982. The representation of case in modernIcelandic. In Joan Bresnan (editor), The Mental Representationof Grammatical Relations, pp. 427–503. Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press
Asudeh, Ash. 2005. Control and semantic resource sensitivity.Journal of Linguistics 41(3), pp. 465–511
Borjars, Kersti and Nigel Vincent. 2004. Introduction to LFG.Slides from the Winter School in LFG and ComputationalLinguistics, University of Canterbury
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. In JoanBresnan (editor), The Mental Representation of GrammaticalRelations, pp. 282–390. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 58 / 60
Bresnan, Joan. 1990. Parallel constraint grammar project. CSLICalendar, 4 October 1990, volume 6:3
Bresnan, Joan. 1995. Linear order, syntactic rank, and emptycategories: On weak crossover. In Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M.Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen (editors), FormalIssues in Lexical-Functional Grammar , pp. 241–274. Stanford,CA: CSLI Publications
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax . Oxford:Blackwell Publishers
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar , volume 34of Syntax and Semantics. New York, NY: Academic Press
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 59 / 60
Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, III, andAnnie Zaenen (editors). 1995. Formal Issues inLexical-Functional Grammar . Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, and Tracy Holloway King.2006. The absence of traces: Evidence from weak crossover. InJane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, Chris Manning, Jane Simpson, andAnnie Zaenen (editors), Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: AFestschrift for Joan Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI Publications
Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: AnIntroduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax . Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications
L F G
Introduction to LFG – 60 / 60
Kaplan, Ronald M. and Annie Zaenen. 1989. Long-distancedependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty.In Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch (editors), AlternativeConceptions of Phrase Structure, pp. 17–42. Chicago UniversityPress. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995, pp. 137–165)
