Phrase Structure

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.

Twentieth Century Linguistics at Closing Time

2021 ◽  
pp. 261-300
Author(s):  
Randy Allen Harris
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Formal Models ◽  
Closing Time ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Conceptual Metaphor Theory ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Relational Grammar ◽  
Metaphor Theory

This chapter appraises the state of linguistics at the end of the twentieth century in the wake of the Generative/Interpretive Semantics episode. The period saw a huge upswing in Noam Chomsky’s influence with the dominance of his Government and Binding/Principles and Parameters model, but also the development of multiple other competing and intersecting formal models, all of which did away with Chomsky’s totemic concept, the transformation: Relational Grammar (RG), Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG), and so many more that Frederick Newmeyer tagged the lot of them Alphabet Grammars (AGs). Alongside these frameworks came George Lakoff’s most far-reaching and influential development, with philosopher, Mark Johnson, “Conceptual Metaphor Theory” (a label the author rejects).

scholarly journals Morphology in Lexical-Functional Grammar and Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar

2018 ◽  
pp. 211-243
Author(s):  
Louisa Sadler ◽  
Rachel Nordlinger
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Morphological Theory

Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) are both lexicalist, non-transformational, constraint-based grammatical frameworks. While they differ in many respects, they share a number of fundamental principles relevant to morphological theory and analysis, which guide the overall architecture of the grammar. The two frameworks also share a common commitment to being fully explicit and implementable, with strong links to computational implementations. This chapter provides an overview of the general approaches to morphology and the morphology-syntax interface taken by researchers working within these frameworks, illustrating the relevant aspects of each framework through discussion of morphological phenomena such as multiple exponence, auxiliaries, case stacking, morphotactics and clitics.

scholarly journals A linear approach to negative prominence

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Borsley
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Negative Element ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Linear Approach

Languages often require negation to be realized in a prominent position. A well known example is Italian, which seems to require a pre-verbal realization of negation. Some other languages require negation to be in a prominent position but do not require it to be pre-verbal. An example is Swedish. Working within Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), Sells (2000) proposes that Swedish requires a negative element which is not inside VP and that Italian has the same constraint. Similar facts are found in the VSO language Welsh. However, Sells’s approach cannot be applied to Welsh. Borsley and Jones (2005) develop a selectional approach to Welsh, in which certain verbs require a negative complement. This works well for Welsh but cannot be applied to Swedish or Italian. A similar approach to all three languages is possible within the linearization-based version of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) developed by Kathol (2000). It seems, then, that a linear approach is preferable to both a structural and a selectional approach.

scholarly journals A Lexical-Functional Analysis of Predicate Topicalization in German

1999 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gert Webelhuth ◽  
Farrell Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
Functional Analysis ◽  
Original Formulation ◽  
Grammatical Function ◽  
Complex Predicates ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Lexical Representations ◽  
Idiomatic Expressions ◽  
Similarities And Differences

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.

scholarly journals Shared Arguments in Modern Standard Arabic

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 164
Author(s):  
Yasir ALotaibi
Keyword(s):  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Verb Phrases ◽  
Null Argument ◽  
Shared Arguments ◽  
Modern Standard ◽  
Coordinate Structures

This paper discusses shared arguments in coordinate structures in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). It assumes that a shared argument between two conjuncts can be a subject or an object. The paper uses the lexical-functional grammar (LFG) framework for analyzing this kind of structure. In LFG, the two possible analyses for similar structures involve analyzing the shared argument as bearing two functions in the two conjuncts. The first analysis is the split analysis, where the shared argument is zipped to both conjuncts by assuming that the verb phrases in both conjuncts are split. The second analysis is function spreading, in which the function of the shared argument is spread from one conjunct to another.  This paper argues that the previous analyses   in LFG have faced some problems in accounting for this phenomenon in MSA. To solve these problems, this paper contributes a new analysis for shared arguments that involves analyzing the missing argument, whether it is a subject or an object, as a null argument.

Linguistics, Technical Writing, and Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Allen Harris
Keyword(s):  
Technical Writing ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Writing Pedagogy ◽  
Writing Classroom ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Writing Students ◽  
Recent Developments

Linguistics has been largely misunderstood in writing pedagogy. After Chomsky's revolution, it was widely touted as a panacea; now it is widely flogged as a pariah. Both attitudes are extreme. It has a number of applications in the writing classroom, and it is particularly ripe for technical writing students, who have more sophistication with formalism than their humanities counterparts. Moreover, although few scholars outside of linguistics are aware of it, Transformational Grammar is virtually obsolete; most grammatical models are organized around principled aversions to the transformation, and even Chomsky has little use for his most famous innovation these days. Among the more recent developments is Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, a model with distinct formal and pedagogical advantages over Chomsky's early transformational work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document