Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: An Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar

Language ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 194
Author(s):  
Edwin Battistella ◽  
Peter Sells
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Government Binding ◽  
Syntactic Theories

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).

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.

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.

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.

Glue semantics for HPSG

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ash Asudeh ◽  
Richard Crouch
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Semantic Interpretation ◽  
Alternative Form ◽  
Quantifier Scope ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Scope Ambiguity ◽  
Lexical Functional Grammar ◽  
Highly Efficient ◽  
Glue Semantics ◽  
Syntactic Theories

‎The glue approach to semantic interpretation has been developed principally for Lexical Functional Grammar. Recent work has shown how glue can be used with a variety of syntactic theories and this paper outlines how it can be applied to HPSG. As well as providing an alternative form of semantics for HPSG, we believe that the benefits of HPSG glue include the following: (1) simplification of the Semantics Principle; (2) a simple and elegant treatment of modifier scope, including empirical phenomena like quantifier scope ambiguity, the interaction of scope with raising, and recursive modification; (3) an analysis of control that handles agreement between controlled subjects and their coarguments while allowing for a property denotation for the controlled clause; (4) re-use of highly efficient techniques for semantic derivation already implemented for LFG, and which target problems of ambiguity management also addressed by Minimal Recursion Semantics. 

scholarly journals На кръстопътя на езиковите теории: глаголната комбинаторика

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 122-138
Author(s):  
Цветомира [TSvetomira] Венкова [Venkova]
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Functional Grammar ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Systemic Functional Grammar ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Original Theory ◽  
Verb Phrase ◽  
Head Element

At the crossroads of linguistic theories: Verb combinatoricsThis paper discusses the limitations of syntactic research conducted within a single theoretical framework. The basic claim is that theories have both distinctive and common features, which can be taken into consideration and some interesting results and ideas can be encoded in terms of the original theory. The discussion of the theory interactions is focused around a particular linguistic issue – the head element of the simple verb phrase. Three basic syntactic models are analyzed in regard to their treatment of the head element in the verb phrase: Phrase Structure Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Systemic Functional Grammar. The analysis shows some variations within the frameworks and similarities across them. In general, it is an attempt to point out that the modern linguist can build bridges between theoretical frameworks if the postulates of the original framework are not violated. Na skrzyżowaniu teorii językowych. Kombinatoryka czasownikowaArtykuł poświęcony jest omówieniu ograniczeń analizy syntaktycznej, dokonywanej w ramach jednej teorii składniowej. Autorka stoi na stanowisku, że poszczególne teorie zawierają zarówno elementy specyficzne (dystynktywne), jak i ogólne, wspólne wszystkim teoriom. Ta inspekcja może przynieść ciekawe rezultaty, które nadają się do wbudowania w oryginalną teorię. Problem przedstawiono na konkretnym przykładzie – elementu nadrzędnego frazy werbalnej. Pod uwagę wzięto trzy teorie syntaktyczne, w ramach których przeanalizowano charakterystykę funkcjonowania głównego elementu frazy werbalnej: Phrase Structure Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar oraz Systemic Functional Grammar. Analiza wykazała pewną wariantywność wbudowaną w ramy pojedynczej teorii, jak i podobieństwa między poszczególnymi teoriami.Artykuł ma na celu zwrócenie uwagi na fakt, że współczesny lingwista ma prawo próbować przerzucać mosty pomiędzy różnymi teoriami, oczywiście jeśli nie narusza zasadniczych ram oryginalnej teorii.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document