Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Stefan Müller

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 6: Linking grammatical functions to tree positions: passive

Figure 6 Linking grammatical functions to tree positions: passive

Related Figures (10)

The accusative argument of the input is the nominative argument of the licensed word. By convention all information that is not mentioned in a lexical rule is carried over from the input of the lexical rule to the licensed object unchanged. Therefore the semantic contribution of the input is also part of the licensed object. The linking of the accusative object in the input stays in place. >For a fully worked out proposal for passive and attributive adjectives in Danish, German, and English see Miiller and @rsnes, In Preparation. The proposal assumes the distinction between structural and lexical case and suggests a uniform treatment of passive that can account for per- sonal and impersonal passive, expletive subjects in Danish impersonal passives and also for the so-called complex and reportive passive in Danish and the remote passive in German. 6Nate that the danchter nade catichee the etricture on the left af the arrow in (5) while the ©Note that the daughter node satisfies the structure on the left of the arrow in (5), while th
The accusative argument of the input is the nominative argument of the licensed word. By convention all information that is not mentioned in a lexical rule is carried over from the input of the lexical rule to the licensed object unchanged. Therefore the semantic contribution of the input is also part of the licensed object. The linking of the accusative object in the input stays in place. >For a fully worked out proposal for passive and attributive adjectives in Danish, German, and English see Miiller and @rsnes, In Preparation. The proposal assumes the distinction between structural and lexical case and suggests a uniform treatment of passive that can account for per- sonal and impersonal passive, expletive subjects in Danish impersonal passives and also for the so-called complex and reportive passive in Danish and the remote passive in German. 6Nate that the danchter nade catichee the etricture on the left af the arrow in (5) while the ©Note that the daughter node satisfies the structure on the left of the arrow in (5), while th
Figure 3: Example of passivization and adjectivalization lexical rules. Figure 3 illustrates the participle-to-adjective conversion rule in (6) as applied to a passive verbal participle.’
Figure 3: Example of passivization and adjectivalization lexical rules. Figure 3 illustrates the participle-to-adjective conversion rule in (6) as applied to a passive verbal participle.’
Figure 4: Inheritance Hierarchy for active and passive
Figure 4: Inheritance Hierarchy for active and passive
Figure 5: Linking grammatical functions to tree positions: active stands for Grammatical Function. Culicover and Jackendoff (2005, p.204) ex- plicitly avoid names like Subject and Object since this is crucial for their analysis of the passive to work. They assume that the first GF following a bracket is the subject of the clause the bracket coresponds to (p. 195-196) and hence has to be mapped to an appropriate tree position in English. Note that this view on gram- matical functions and obliqueness does not account for subjectless sentences that are possible in some languages, for instance in German.*? Reevardine the passive. the authors write:
Figure 5: Linking grammatical functions to tree positions: active stands for Grammatical Function. Culicover and Jackendoff (2005, p.204) ex- plicitly avoid names like Subject and Object since this is crucial for their analysis of the passive to work. They assume that the first GF following a bracket is the subject of the clause the bracket coresponds to (p. 195-196) and hence has to be mapped to an appropriate tree position in English. Note that this view on gram- matical functions and obliqueness does not account for subjectless sentences that are possible in some languages, for instance in German.*? Reevardine the passive. the authors write:
Figure 8: Categorial Grammar analysis of Kim probably likes Sandy The CG representation seems to capture the right degree of flexibility. The structure in Figure 7 is not the only one that is possible for items of the category (s\np)/np. For instance an adjunct of the category (s\np)/(s\np) may intervene between the subject and the combination of verb and object. This is shown in Figure 8. The adjunct probably takes a VP (s/np) to its right and the result of the The bracketing in (s\np)/np ensures that the rightmost np in the expression is combined with the verb first and then the combination with the second np takes place. This results in the SVO order that can be observed for languages like En- glish. For languages with a freer constituent structure Steedman and Baldridge (2006) suggest a generalized representation. The arguments are represented in a set and for the combination of a head with an argument, one element from this set
Figure 8: Categorial Grammar analysis of Kim probably likes Sandy The CG representation seems to capture the right degree of flexibility. The structure in Figure 7 is not the only one that is possible for items of the category (s\np)/np. For instance an adjunct of the category (s\np)/(s\np) may intervene between the subject and the combination of verb and object. This is shown in Figure 8. The adjunct probably takes a VP (s/np) to its right and the result of the The bracketing in (s\np)/np ensures that the rightmost np in the expression is combined with the verb first and then the combination with the second np takes place. This results in the SVO order that can be observed for languages like En- glish. For languages with a freer constituent structure Steedman and Baldridge (2006) suggest a generalized representation. The arguments are represented in a set and for the combination of a head with an argument, one element from this set
Figure 9: Possible binary branching structures for Watch the dog and The dog barks. an example, consider the corpus in (75). Figure 9 shows the unlabeled trees for this is the case, this renders the subtree under consideration more likely. To take Some of these trees do not correspond to structures that linguists would assume,
Figure 9: Possible binary branching structures for Watch the dog and The dog barks. an example, consider the corpus in (75). Figure 9 shows the unlabeled trees for this is the case, this renders the subtree under consideration more likely. To take Some of these trees do not correspond to structures that linguists would assume,
The discussion may be easier to grasp if flat structures are used for explanation: The first structure corresponds to a phrasal Goldbergian analysis with flat structure. The semantics of the whole 8The figures could be recast with flat structures as follows: If Bod’s procedure extracts this structure then this is equally good news for either approach. The approaches differ in how they derive the resultative semantic inter- pretation, that is, where the fishing causes the emptying. On the phrasal approach (left tree in Figure 11), the causal semantics is contributed by the environment itself, and a system of correspondence rules identifies the arguments of the verb with the arguments of the construction (see (18)).*8 On the lexical approach, this
The discussion may be easier to grasp if flat structures are used for explanation: The first structure corresponds to a phrasal Goldbergian analysis with flat structure. The semantics of the whole 8The figures could be recast with flat structures as follows: If Bod’s procedure extracts this structure then this is equally good news for either approach. The approaches differ in how they derive the resultative semantic inter- pretation, that is, where the fishing causes the emptying. On the phrasal approach (left tree in Figure 11), the causal semantics is contributed by the environment itself, and a system of correspondence rules identifies the arguments of the verb with the arguments of the construction (see (18)).*8 On the lexical approach, this
causal relation is contributed by the verb fischt (‘fishes’) when it appears in a syn- tactic environment of this kind (middle tree in Figure 11). A distributional analysis cannot differentiate between these approaches. The distribution is computed with regard to the words. The meaning of the words is not considered. One can observe that the utterance contains the word fischt (‘fishes’), but one cannot see whether this word contributes the causal semantics or not.
causal relation is contributed by the verb fischt (‘fishes’) when it appears in a syn- tactic environment of this kind (middle tree in Figure 11). A distributional analysis cannot differentiate between these approaches. The distribution is computed with regard to the words. The meaning of the words is not considered. One can observe that the utterance contains the word fischt (‘fishes’), but one cannot see whether this word contributes the causal semantics or not.
Related topics:
Languages and LinguisticsLanguage AcquisitionSemanticsPsycholinguisticsSyntaxMorphologySyntax-Semantics InterfaceConstruction GrammarLexical-Functional GrammarTheoretical Linguistics
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved