An HPSG approach to Welsh

1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Borsley
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Categorial Grammar ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Binding

Welsh differs from English in a number of ways. The most obvious point is that it is a VSO language, but it also has distinctive agreement phenomena and clitics. For this reason, it is natural to ask of any theory of syntax that has been developed primarily on the basis of English: how can it handle Welsh? Welsh has had fairly extensive attention within the Government-Binding theory (see, for example, Harlow, 1981; Sproat, 1985; Sadler, 1988, and Hendrick, 1988). It has also had some attention within Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) (see Harlow, 1983; Borsley, 1983; 1988a). In this paper, I will consider how some of the central features of Welsh can be accommodated within Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). This is a framework developed over the last few years by Carl Pollard, Ivan Sag and others, which seeks to combine the insights of GPSG, categorial grammar and certain other theories (see Pollard, 1985, 1988; Sag & Pollard, 1987, and Pollard & Sag, 1988). In fact, I will be mainly concerned with the version of HPSG developed in Borsley (1986, 1987, 1988 b), but I will also have something to say about standard HPSG.

Some Remarks on the Government-Binding Theory and Anaphors

1983 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Bilý
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
The Self ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Binding

The Government-Binding theory cannot account for reflexives in Slavic languages. We may guess that the more a language differs from English with its quite rigid word-order, the worse are the predictions made by the theory.One cannot exclude Slavic reflexives as non-anaphors in a non-arbitrary way while keeping the spirit of Chomsky et al. The Slavic reflexives behave “as they ought to” in tensed clauses, too. An attempt to exclude them would also be another step on the self-destructive path that started by excluding the Japanese reflexives in order to cope with the facts clashing with the Government-Binding theory. Many interesting cases of English reflexives would also have to be ignored for the sake of the theory.

VP complements: evidence from Welsh

1984 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Borsley
Keyword(s):  
Standard Theory ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Alternative Analysis ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Binding ◽  
Subject Raising

A major controversy in syntactic theory concerns the nature of control verbs, verbs like try, which govern equi-NP-deletion in classical transformational grammar. For recent versions of the extended standard theory and, in particular, the government-binding theory, such verbs take a sentential complement with a PRO subject. (Cf. Chomsky 1980, 1981, 1982 and Koster & May 1982.) On an alternative analysis, originating in Bresnan (1971) and Brame (1975, 1976), and developed by Bresnan (1978, 1982), Gazdar (1982) and others, they take VP complements. A similar dispute arises over raising verbs, verbs like seem, which govern subject raising in classical transformational grammar.

The current convergence in linguistic theory: some implications for second language acquisition research

1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick J. Newmeyer
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Technical Vocabulary ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Binding

To the outsider, generative grammar must appear to contain a bewildering variety of different frameworks for syntactic description, each with its own distinct goals, research programme and technical vocabulary. It seems fair to say that this seeming inability of theoretical linguists to get their own house in order has led many applied linguists to question whether even the most general conceptions of generative grammar have any relevance to their concerns. Despite superficial appearances, however, the differences between the major generative frameworks are relatively minor, and are steadily lessening. Indeed, a convergence is taking place among the three most important, namely, the government-binding theory, generalized phrase structure grammar, and lexical-functional grammar. In particular, all now accept two basic concepts governing grammatical processes: 'modularity' and 'locality'. According to the former, grammatical complexity results from the interaction of autonomous grammatical subsystems; according to the latter, grammatical processes are sharply constrained as to the degree of 'distance' that the elements involved may lie from each other. It will be argued that these convergences have interesting implications for those who wish to apply linguistic theory to the understanding of second language acquisition.

The Syntax of Adverbials

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-109
Author(s):  
Thomas Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
The Right ◽  
Government Binding ◽  
Main Factor

After explicit phrase structure rules were abandoned in government–binding theory, some account of the distribution of adverbials became necessary. This review surveys two current theories. The first, often called the scopal theory, posits that the main factor is semantics: In general, adverbials can appear wherever they cause no violation of semantic well-formedness. Purely syntactic and morphological factors play a role, but it is a relatively minor one. Though the scopal theory predicts a significant range of adverbial distribution correctly, much of its underlying semantic analysis remains to be developed in explicit terms. The second theory discussed in this review, the cartographic theory, takes syntax as central, proposing that adverbials are individually licensed by dedicated functional heads, arranged in a rigid hierarchy by Universal Grammar. This approach has some empirical successes but also a number of problems; thus, the scopal theory is more likely to represent the right direction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document