A Lexical-Functional Analysis of Predicate Topicalization in German

In this paper we examine the topicalization paradigm for ten different verbal constructions in German. We argue that a uniform explanation for the observed behaviors follows from the interpretation of the relevant expressions as (parts of) lexical representations. To this end we motivate a revision of Functional Uncertainty as proposed in Kaplan and Zaenen 1989 to account for filler/gap relations in long-distance dependencies. We assume with the original formulation of this principle that topicalized elements share values with the (grammatical) function status of an entity an indeterminate distance away. We appeal to the inventory of functions posited within LEXICAL-FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR (LFG), inclusive of the frequently neglected PREDICATE function, which, we argue, is associated with both simple and complex predicates. In addition we show that topicalization, given this function-based proposal, should not be limited to maximal categories. We argue that the need to posit a PREDICATE function for German topicalization is supported by an independent line of research within LFG concerning the analysis of complex predicates. For this purpose we employ the proposals of T. Mohanan (1990/1994), which argue for the independence of the construct PREDICATE from its categorial realization. We show that this type of proposal extends to provide a uniform account of the German topicalization paradigm. This permits us to explain the similarities and differences in the behaviors of various sorts of predicators as well as certain idiomatic expressions interpreted as complex predicates.

Download Full-text

Nominal juxtaposition in Australian languages: An LFG analysis

Journal of Linguistics ◽

10.1017/s002222670999020x ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 46 (2) ◽

pp. 415-452 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

LOUISA SADLER ◽

RACHEL NORDLINGER

Keyword(s):

Grammatical Function ◽

Functional Grammar ◽

Lexical Functional Grammar ◽

Theoretical Literature ◽

Syntactic Similarity ◽

Australian Languages ◽

Grammatical Functions

It is well known that Australian languages make heavy use of nominal juxtaposition in a wide variety of functions, but there is little discussion in the theoretical literature of how such juxtapositions should be analysed. We discuss a range of data from Australian languages illustrating how multiple nominals share a single grammatical function within the clause. We argue that such constructions should be treated syntactically as set-valued grammatical functions in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG). Sets as values for functions are well-established in LFG and are used in the representation of adjuncts, and also in the representation of coordination. In many Australian languages, coordination is expressed asyndetically, that is, by nominal juxtaposition with no overt coordinator at all. We argue that the syntactic similarity of all juxtaposed constructions (ranging from coordination through a number of more appositional relations) motivates an analysis in which they are treated similarly in the syntax, but suitably distinguished in the semantics. We show how this can be achieved within LFG, providing a unified treatment of the syntax of juxtaposition in Australian languages and showing how the interface to the semantics can be quite straightforwardly defined in the modular LFG approach.

Download Full-text

A typology of non-local reflexives in the Scandinavian languages

Nordic Journal of Linguistics ◽

10.1017/s0332586511000151 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 34 (2) ◽

pp. 157-178 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Tania E. Strahan

Keyword(s):

Relative Clause ◽

Functional Structure ◽

Functional Grammar ◽

Long Distance ◽

Second Person ◽

Lexical Functional Grammar ◽

Person Pronoun ◽

Path Constraints ◽

Non Local ◽

Inside Out

The Scandinavian languages are very closely related but also vary syntactically in interesting ways, making this family useful in the study of typology variation. In this paper the issue of non-local reflexives, or ‘long-distance reflexives’ (LDR) is investigated. New LDR data from the Scandinavian languages is presented to show that the Binding Conditions cannot account for the variation in LDR in these languages, since the range of domains that LDR may or may not occur in in each variety varies non-hierarchically. For instance, LDR in Icelandic may be bound out of a finite complement clause but not out of a relative clause, while the reverse is true in most Norwegian dialects. Faroese allows LDR out of both clause types, but many dialects do not allow a second person pronoun to co-occur in a sentence containing LDR, which does not generally affect Icelandic or Norwegian LDR. An extension of Dalrymple's (1993) typology of anaphora, which is set within the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar, can account for this data, using a combination of inside-out and outside-in functional uncertainty equations, on- and off-path constraints and positive and negative constraints, all of which refer to elements (potentially) found in functional-structure.

Download Full-text

Antecedent-based approach to binding in Icelandic and Faroese

Nordlyd ◽

10.7557/12.2027 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 37 ◽

pp. 151 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Tania E. Strahan

Keyword(s):

Standard Approach ◽

Functional Grammar ◽

Long Distance ◽

Lexical Functional Grammar ◽

Non Local ◽

Inside Out

<p>This paper examines the standard approach to long-distance reflexives within the Lexical-Functional Grammar framework. This approach defines the binding relation between a reflexive and its non-local antecedent by prescribing the type of syntactic elements which must and must not occur along the path from the reflexive to its antecedent. However, evidence from the Insular Scandinavian languages suggests that the binding relation should be expressed as positive and negative constraints on the path from the antecedent to the reflexive. In other words, I suggest that long-distance reflexives in Icelandic and Faroese are governed by outside-in functional uncertainty, not inside-out functional uncertainty, as is standardly assumed.</p>

Download Full-text

Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Overview

Annual Review of Linguistics ◽

10.1146/annurev-linguistics-062419-125014 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 155-172

Author(s):

Kersti Börjars

Keyword(s):

Functional Grammar ◽

Long Distance ◽

Linguistic Information ◽

Lexical Functional Grammar ◽

Different Types ◽

And Control

Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) is a model for the analysis of language in which different types of linguistic information are represented in separate dimensions, each with its own formalism. These dimensions are linked by mapping principles. In this article, I describe the architecture of the model and illustrate some dimensions of information and the mapping between them in more detail. I also provide an outline of the analysis of long-distance dependencies and control to illustrate the advantages of this type of model. I briefly mention some further areas where LFG has proven to be a useful tool for analysis and provide references for the reader to follow up.

Download Full-text

The Oxford Reference Guide to Lexical Functional Grammar

10.1093/oso/9780198733300.001.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mary Dalrymple ◽

John J. Lowe ◽

Louise Mycock

Keyword(s):

Undergraduate Students ◽

Information Structure ◽

Argument Structure ◽

Semantic Representation ◽

Morphological Structure ◽

Functional Grammar ◽

Long Distance ◽

Linguistic Structure ◽

Structure Information ◽

Lexical Functional Grammar

This is the most comprehensive reference work on Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), which will be of interest to graduate and advanced undergraduate students, academics, and researchers in linguistics and in related fields. Covering the analysis of syntax, semantics, morphology, prosody, and information structure, and how these aspects of linguistic structure interact in the nontransformational framework of LFG, this book will appeal to readers working in a variety of sub-fields, including researchers involved in the description and documentation of languages, whose work continues to be an important part of the LFG literature The book consists of three parts. The first part examines the syntactic theory and formal architecture of LFG, with detailed explanation and comprehensive illustration, providing an unparalleled introduction to the fundamentals of the theory. The second part of the book explores nonsyntactic levels of linguistic structure, including the syntax-semantics interface and semantic representation, argument structure, information structure, prosodic structure, and morphological structure, and how these are related in the projection architecture of LFG. The third part of the book illustrates the theory more explicitly by presenting explorations of the syntax and semantics of a range of representative linguistic phenomena: modification, anaphora, control, coordination, and long-distance dependencies. The final chapter discusses LFG-based work not covered elsewhere in the book, as well as new developments in the theory.

Download Full-text

Preserving grammatical functions in LFG

Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies ◽

10.15845/bells.v8i1.1342 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ronald M. Kaplan

Keyword(s):

Semantic Interpretation ◽

Grammatical Function ◽

Functional Grammar ◽

Traditional Role ◽

Lexical Functional Grammar ◽

Grammatical Functions

Patejuk and Przepiórkowski (2016) have provided arguments and evidence to call into question the traditional role that named grammatical functions have played in the descriptions and representations of Lexical Functional Grammar. They propose reducing the number of distinguished function names to a much more limited set. In this brief paper I examine a few of their observations and find them not yet convincing enough to justify such a fundamental revision of LFG theory. I am also concerned that a less refined structure at the interface between syntax and semantics will only shift to the semantic interpretation component the descriptive and explanatory burden of interpreting idiosyncratic morphosyntactic properties. I conclude that most if not all grammatical function distinctions should be preserved in LFG functional structures.

Download Full-text

Phrase Structure

The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.4 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 300-334

Author(s):

Robert D. Borsley

Keyword(s):

Phrase Structure ◽

Phrase Structure Grammar ◽

Functional Grammar ◽

Transformational Grammar ◽

Prepositional Phrases ◽

Lexical Functional Grammar ◽

Central Concern ◽

Verb Phrases ◽

Similarities And Differences ◽

Unbounded Dependency

The phrase structure of English has been a central concern for most approaches to syntax, including various forms of Transformational Grammar, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Lexical Functional Grammar, and the earlier Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar framework. They have developed detailed analyses of verb phrases, nominal phases, clauses of various kinds, including unbounded dependency clauses and elliptical clauses, and adjective phrases and prepositional phrases, and coordinate structures. There are similarities and differences between the various approaches in all these areas. They differ in whether or not they are confined to binary branching, whether or not they assume that all phrases are headed, and in the extent to which they assume heads which are phonologically empty. More generally they vary in how complex they take phrase structures to be and in how much variety they see in the local trees that they consist of.

Download Full-text