Phrase Structure In Natural Language

No detailed description available for "Syntactic Structures".

Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) is a constraint-based or declarative approach to linguistic knowledge, which analyses all descriptive levels (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics) with feature value pairs, structure sharing, and relational constraints. In syntax it assumes that expressions have a single relatively simple constituent structure. This volume provides a state-of-the-art introduction to the framework. Various chapters discuss basic assumptions and formal foundations, describe the evolution of the framework, and go into the details of the main syntactic phenomena. Further chapters are devoted to non-syntactic levels of description. The book also considers related fields and research areas (gesture, sign languages, computational linguistics) and includes chapters comparing HPSG with other frameworks (Lexical Functional Grammar, Categorial Grammar, Construction Grammar, Dependency Grammar, and Minimalism).

A theoretical linguistic study that combines Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) with the minimalist framework in the analysis of natural language syntax.

O. PRELIMINARY REMARKS Initial drafts of the papers in this collection were presented in a con ference entitled 'Views on Phrase Structure', held at the University of Florida, Gainesville, in March, 1989. Eleven of the twenty-three partici pants in the conference were able to contribute to this volume. The purpose of the conference was to explore theories of phrase structure in their relation to other subsystems of grammar and/or systems of nonlinguistic knowledge. Some of the grammatical subsystems which the authors consider are theta-theory, movement, Case, and binding; a number of papers address how the conceptual system and/or aspects of language use may interact. Unifying the various approaches and perspectives is an attempt to furnish hypotheses concerning prin ciples of phrase structure with some sort of independent justification. 1. PHRASE STRUCTURE THEORY: A BRIEF HISTORY A basic outline for a theory of phrase structure theory is accepted by all of the authors here; it is known as 'X-bar theory'. The concepts of X-bar theory are expressed in some form by a number of pre-generative linguists. For example, Bloomfield (1933) contrasted endocentric struc tures such as noun phrases and verb phrases with those he considered exocentric, e. g. prepositional phrases and clauses. Jespersen (1933), while presenting a functional system of description (in terms of 'ranks', where rank one is 'nominal', for example), clarified the relations among the head of a phrase, its modifier, and a phrase which modifies the modifier.

presupposition fails, we now give a short introduction into Unification Grammar. Since all implementations discussed in this volume use PROLOG (with the exception of BlockjHaugeneder), we felt that it would also be useful to explain the difference between unification in PROLOG and in UG. After the introduction to UG we briefly summarize the main arguments for using linguistic theories in natural language processing. We conclude with a short summary of the contributions to this volume. UNIFICATION GRAMMAR 3 Feature Structures or Complex Categories. Unification Grammar was developed by Martin Kay (Kay 1979). Martin Kay wanted to give a precise defmition (and implementation) of the notion of 'feature'. Linguists use features at nearly all levels of linguistic description. In phonetics, for instance, the phoneme b is usually described with the features 'bilabial', 'voiced' and 'nasal'. In the case of b the first two features get the value +, the third (nasal) gets the value -. Feature value pairs in phonology are normally represented as a matrix. bilabial: + voiced: + I nasal: - [Feature matrix for b.] In syntax features are used, for example, to distinguish different noun classes. The Latin noun 'murus' would be characterized by the following feature-value pairs: gender: masculin, number: singular, case: nominative, pred: murus. Besides a matrix representation one frequently fmds a graph representation for feature value pairs. The edges of the graph are labelled by features. The leaves denote the value of a feature.

V, ThemelPatients to the lowest specifier of V', and Agents to a position outside the minimal VP. Again, thematic information is encoded in terms of configurational properties. Addressing the issue of phrase structure in another domain, Margaret Speas investigates the status of null pronominal objects in Navajo. Following Rizzi (1986), she assumes that null pronouns must meet both a licensing and an identification condition. More specifically, she demonstrates that distributional restrictions on null pronominal objects in Navajo can be explained if it is assumed that null objects obey the identification condition expressed by the Generalized Control Rule of Huang (1984). Distinguishing three types of null objects, she argues that relevant licensing condition on two subtypes of null objects involves rich agreement. However, it appears that there are languages lacking rich agreement but with pro in object position. Speas accounts for these phenomena by a rule of economy of projection. A second series of papers is concerned with the way in which functional categories derive aspects of sentential interpretation. Three issues in this research program are investigated here: external arguments as arguments of functional projections (Kratzer), the specificity interpretation of clitics (Sportiche), and the interpretation of tense (Stowell). In all three cases, phrase structure is put to use to derive interpretive effects. Angelika Kratzer proposes that external arguments are not part of the verb.