Introduction to LFG
Mary Dalrymple
Centre for Linguistics and Philology
Oxford University
LSA Linguistic Institute 2007
Day 3
Introduction to LFG – 1 / 60
L F G
LFG
■
“Semantic roles, syntactic constituents, and grammatical
functions belong to parallel information structures of very
different formal character. They are related not by
proof-theoretic derivation but by structural
correspondences, as a melody is related to the words of a
song. The song is decomposable into parallel melodic and
linguistic structures, which jointly constrain the nature of
the whole. In the same way, the sentences of human
language are themselves decomposable into parallel systems
of constraints – structural, functional, semantic, and
prosodic – which the whole must jointly satisfy.”
Bresnan (1990)
If our theory does not include movement or other derivational
processes, how do we treat nonlocal relations between a
predicate and its argument?
Introduction to LFG – 2 / 60
L F G
Nonlocality
Nonlocal phenomena:
■
Raising: David seemed to yawn.
Introduction to LFG – 3 / 60
L F G
Nonlocality
Nonlocal phenomena:
■
Raising: David seemed to yawn.
■
Control: David tried to catch the ball.
Introduction to LFG – 3 / 60
L F G
Nonlocality
Nonlocal phenomena:
■
Raising: David seemed to yawn.
■
Control: David tried to catch the ball.
■
Wh-questions: Who do you think David took to the party?
Introduction to LFG – 3 / 60
L F G
Nonlocality
Nonlocal phenomena:
■
Raising: David seemed to yawn.
■
Control: David tried to catch the ball.
■
Wh-questions: Who do you think David took to the party?
How are these treated in a nontransformational, constraint-based
theory?
Introduction to LFG – 3 / 60
L F G
Raising
“Raising” verbs like seem were treated in early transformational
grammar by raising the subject of a subordinate clause up into
the main clause (hence the term “raising”):
S
NP
S
VP
V
seemed
NP
⇒
S
NP
VP
David
to yawn
VP
David
V
S
seemed
VP
to yawn
This captures the intuition that the raising verb does not assign
a semantic role to the raised argument.
Introduction to LFG – 4 / 60
L F G
Raising to subject
David seemed to yawn.
■
C-structure: No evidence that there is a trace or other
phrasal material in subject position in the subordinate
clause.
■
F-structure: Functionally, the “raised” argument David
behaves as both the subject of seem and the subject of the
subordinate clause. This is functional control.
Introduction to LFG – 5 / 60
L F G
Raising to subject: ‘seem’

IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
V0
pred
‘seemhxcompisubj’



h
i



 subj
pred
‘David’







pred ‘yawnhsubji’ 




 xcomp 
subj
V
VP
seemed
V0
Line from David f-structure to
xcomp subj indicates functional
control: the same f-structure is the
subj and the xcomp subj.
V
VP
to
V
yawn
Introduction to LFG – 6 / 60
L F G
Raising to subject
Evidence for subjecthood in matrix clause:
■
Position
■
Verb agreement: David seems/*seem to yawn; they
seem/*seems to yawn
Introduction to LFG – 7 / 60
L F G
Raising to subject
Evidence for subjecthood in matrix clause:
■
Position
■
Verb agreement: David seems/*seem to yawn; they
seem/*seems to yawn
Evidence for subjecthood in subordinate clause:
■
Reflexivization: English reflexives are clause-bound.
Davidi believed that [Janej voted for herselfj /*himselfi ].
A reflexive is possible in the subordinate clause:
David seemed to like himself.
Introduction to LFG – 7 / 60
L F G
Raising to object
David believed Chris to know the answer.
■
C-structure: Again, no evidence that there is a trace or
other phrasal material in subject position in the subordinate
clause.
■
F-structure: Functionally, the “raised” argument Chris
behaves as the object of believe and the subject of the
subordinate clause.
Introduction to LFG – 8 / 60
L F G
Raising to object: ‘believe’

I0
N
VP
David
V0
pred
V
NP
VP
believed
N
V0
Chris
‘believehsubj,xcompiobj’
V
to



h
i


 subj

pred
‘David’




h
i


 obj

pred
‘Chris’








pred ‘knowhsubj,obji’










subj









h
i
 xcomp 



spec
pred ‘the’  







obj




IP
NP
pred
VP
‘answer’
The object of believe functionally
controls the subject of know.
know the answer
Introduction to LFG – 9 / 60
L F G
Raising to object
■
Accusative case for “raised” argument:
David believed him to know the answer.
■
Reflexivization: A reflexive in raised object position is
possible.
David believed himself to be the best candidate.
■
Reflexivization: A reflexive in the subordinate clause can
have the raised object as its antecedent.
Davidi believed Chrisj to like himself∗i,j .
Introduction to LFG – 10 / 60
L F G
Nonthematic arguments
It is raining.


pred
subj
‘rainhisubj’
[ form
it ]


Nonthematic arguments appear outside angled brackets in
semantic form.
Introduction to LFG – 11 / 60
L F G
Nonthematic arguments
It seems to be raining.
There seems to be a problem.
David believed it to be raining.
David believed there to be a problem.
Introduction to LFG – 12 / 60
L F G
Nonthematic arguments
It seems to be raining.

pred
‘seemhxcompisubj’



 subj [ form it ]








pred ‘rainhisubj’ 

 xcomp 



subj
Since seems does not assign a semantic role to its subject, a
semantically empty subject is allowed as the raised argument.
Introduction to LFG – 13 / 60
L F G
Raising verbs and nonthematic arguments
David believed it to be raining.

pred
‘believehsubj,xcompiobj’

h
i

 subj
pred ‘David’


 obj [ form it ]






pred ‘rainhisubj’


 xcomp 
subj













Introduction to LFG – 14 / 60
L F G
Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Icelandic “quirky case”: Andrews (1982)
Accusative subject:
Drengina vantar mat.
boys.acc lacks food
‘The boys lack food.’
Introduction to LFG – 15 / 60
L F G
Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Icelandic “quirky case”: Andrews (1982)
Accusative subject:
Drengina vantar mat.
boys.acc lacks food
‘The boys lack food.’
Accusative “raised” object:
(ı́ barnaskap sı́num) vanta peninga.
Hann telur
mig
to.lack money
he
believes me.acc (in foolishness his)
‘He believes me (in his foolishness) to lack money.’
Adverb placement shows that mig appears in object position in
the main clause.
Introduction to LFG – 15 / 60
L F G
Raising verbs and nonthematic arguments
Same f-structure is the subject of lack and the object of believe
→ the raised object must obey the case requirements appropriate
to the subject of lack.

pred
‘believehsubj,xcompiobj’



h
i


pred ‘he’

 subj




#
"


pred ‘me’



 obj


case acc







pred ‘lackhsubj,obji’ 






 subj


 xcomp 



h
i




obj
pred
‘money’
Introduction to LFG – 16 / 60
L F G
Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Dative subject:
Barninu
batnaDi
veikin.
child.def.dat recovered.from disease.def.nom
‘The child recovered from the disease.’
Introduction to LFG – 17 / 60
L F G
Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Dative subject:
Barninu
batnaDi
veikin.
child.def.dat recovered.from disease.def.nom
‘The child recovered from the disease.’
Dative “raised” object:
barninu
(ı́ barnaskap sı́num) hafa
Hann telur
to.have
he
believes child.def.dat (in foolishness his)
batnaD
veikin.
recovered.from disease.def.nom
‘He believes the child (in his foolishness) to have recovered from
the disease.’
Introduction to LFG – 17 / 60
L F G
Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Genitive subject:
Verkjanna
gætir
ekki.
pains.def.gen is.noticeable not
‘The pains are not noticeable.’
Introduction to LFG – 18 / 60
L F G
Raising verbs and case: Icelandic
Genitive subject:
Verkjanna
gætir
ekki.
pains.def.gen is.noticeable not
‘The pains are not noticeable.’
Genitive “raised” object:
Hann telur
verkjanna
(ı́ barnaskap sı́num) ekki
he
believes pains.def.gen (in foolishness his)
not
gæta.
noticeable
‘He believes the pains (in his foolishness) not to be noticeable.’
Introduction to LFG – 18 / 60
L F G
Rules and lexical entries
V
0
−→
V
↑= ↓
NP
(↑ obj) = ↓
VP
(↑ xcomp) = ↓
Introduction to LFG – 19 / 60
L F G
Rules and lexical entries
V
0
−→
V
↑= ↓
seemed V
believed
V
NP
(↑ obj) = ↓
VP
(↑ xcomp) = ↓
(↑ pred) = ‘seemhxcompisubj’
(↑ subj) = (↑ xcomp subj)
(↑ pred) = ‘believehsubj,xcompiobj’
(↑ obj) = (↑ xcomp subj)
Introduction to LFG – 19 / 60
L F G
Control
Control verbs like try were treated in early transformational
grammar by the “equi-NP deletion” transformation, and are still
sometimes called “equi” verbs:
S
S
VP
NP
David
V
tried
NP
⇒
S
NP
VP
David
to leave
David
VP
V
tried
S
NP
VP
∆
to leave
This captures the intuition that a controlled argument gets two
semantic roles: one from the control verb, and one from the
subordinate verb.
Introduction to LFG – 20 / 60
L F G
Control verbs
David tried to leave.

pred
‘tryhsubj,compi’



h
i


 subj

pred ‘David’









pred
‘leavehsubji’


h
i
 comp 



subj
pred ‘pro’ 
Obligatory anaphoric control (Dalrymple, 2001, chapter 12):
closed complement comp, not open complement xcomp. There
is a semantic relation between the controller and the
unpronounced pronominal subject of xcomp, but they are
different syntactic objects.
Introduction to LFG – 21 / 60
L F G
Control verbs
David tried to leave.

pred
‘tryhsubj,compi’



h
i


 subj

pred ‘David’









pred
‘leavehsubji’


h
i
 comp 



subj
pred ‘pro’ 
Semantic role assigned by control verb to controller, which
appears inside angled brackets.
Introduction to LFG – 22 / 60
L F G
Control verbs
Alternative view (Bresnan, 1982; Falk, 2001; Asudeh, 2005):
‘try’ involves functional control, not anaphoric control.

pred
‘tryhsubj,xcompi’



h
i


 subj

pred
‘David’







pred ‘leavehsubji’ 



 xcomp 

subj
Ongoing theoretical debate within LFG: do control verbs involve
functional control or anaphoric control? Do they all behave alike,
or are there different subclasses?
Introduction to LFG – 23 / 60
L F G
Control verbs
Alternative view (Bresnan, 1982; Falk, 2001; Asudeh, 2005):
‘try’ involves functional control, not anaphoric control.

pred
‘tryhsubj,xcompi’



h
i


 subj

pred
‘David’







pred ‘leavehsubji’ 



 xcomp 

subj
Ongoing theoretical debate within LFG: do control verbs involve
functional control or anaphoric control? Do they all behave alike,
or are there different subclasses?
Answers to these questions not dictated by formal framework of
LFG, but by the linguistic facts.
Introduction to LFG – 23 / 60
L F G
Control in Icelandic
Accusative subject:
Drengina vantar mat.
boys.acc lacks food
‘The boys lack food.’
Introduction to LFG – 24 / 60
L F G
Control in Icelandic
Accusative subject:
Drengina vantar mat.
boys.acc lacks food
‘The boys lack food.’
Subject control: No case preservation (Andrews, 1982)
Ég
vonast til aD vanta ekki efni
ı́ ritgerDina.
I.nom hope to to lack not material for thesis
‘I hope to not lack material for the thesis.’
Introduction to LFG – 24 / 60
L F G
Control in Icelandic
Accusative subject:
Drengina vantar mat.
boys.acc lacks food
‘The boys lack food.’
Subject control: No case preservation (Andrews, 1982)
Ég
vonast til aD vanta ekki efni
ı́ ritgerDina.
I.nom hope to to lack not material for thesis
‘I hope to not lack material for the thesis.’
Conclusion: Anaphoric control, not functional control.
Introduction to LFG – 24 / 60
L F G
Object control verbs
David convinced Chris to leave.

pred
‘convincehsubj,obj,compi’

h
i

 subj
pred ‘David’


h
i

 obj
pred ‘Chris’






pred ‘leavehsubji’

h
i
 comp 



subj
pred ‘pro’















Object of convince anaphorically controls subject of leave.
Introduction to LFG – 25 / 60
L F G
Raising and control: C-structure
Raising and control verbs pattern alike at c-structure:
Introduction to LFG – 26 / 60
L F G
Raising and control: C-structure
Raising and control verbs pattern alike at c-structure:
The students seem clearly to be intelligent. (xcomp)
The students tried hard to be on time. (comp)
The students believed David to have left. (xcomp)
The students convinced David to leave. (comp)
Introduction to LFG – 26 / 60
L F G
Raising and control: C-structure
Raising and control verbs pattern alike at c-structure:
The students seem clearly to be intelligent. (xcomp)
The students tried hard to be on time. (comp)
The students believed David to have left. (xcomp)
The students convinced David to leave. (comp)
V0
−→
VP
NP
V
(↑ {xcomp| comp}) = ↓
(↑ obj) = ↓
↑= ↓
Introduction to LFG – 26 / 60
L F G
Lexical entries
Control verbs supply an unpronounced pronominal subject for
their complements:
tried
V
convinced V
(↑ pred) = ‘tryhsubj,compi’
(↑ comp subj pred) = ‘pro’
(↑ pred) = ‘convincehsubj,obj,compi’
(↑ comp subj pred) = ‘pro’
Introduction to LFG – 27 / 60
L F G
C-structure
IP
NP
(↑ subj)=↓
I0
↑ =↓
N
↑ =↓
VP
↑ =↓
David
(↑ pred)=‘David’
V0
↑ =↓
V
↑ =↓
VP
(↑ comp)=↓
tried
(↑ pred)=‘tryhsubj,compi’
(↑ comp subj pred) = ‘pro’
V0
↑ =↓
V
↑ =↓
VP
↑ =↓
to
V
↑ =↓
leave
(↑ pred)=‘leavehsubji’
Introduction to LFG – 28 / 60
L F G
F-structure

pred
‘tryhsubj,compi’



h
i


 subj

pred
‘David’









pred
‘leavehsubji’


h
i
 comp 



subj
pred ‘pro’ 
Introduction to LFG – 29 / 60
L F G
Object control

I0
N
VP
David
V0
V
NP
VP
convinced
N
V0
Chris
‘convincehsubj,obj,compi’
h
i

 subj
pred ‘David’


h
i

 obj
pred ‘Chris’






pred ‘leavehsubji’

 comp 
h
i



subj
IP
NP
pred
pred
V
VP
to
V
‘pro’














leave
Introduction to LFG – 30 / 60
L F G
Control
Characteristics of control and raising verbs (Börjars and Vincent,
2004):
■
the relation is obligatory: the control equation is introduced
via the lexical entry of the control or raising verb
■
the relation involves command (either c-command or
f-command, the analogue at f-structure): the controlling
verb is one clause up, and thus the controller necessarily
commands the controllee
Introduction to LFG – 31 / 60
L F G
Nonlocality
Nonlocal phenomena:
■
Raising: David seemed to yawn.
■
Control: David tried to catch the ball.
■
Wh-questions: Who do you think David took to the party?
Introduction to LFG – 32 / 60
L F G
Nonlocal Dependencies
In English wh-questions, the wh-phrase appears at the beginning
of the sentence and also plays a syntactic role within the clause:
CP
C0
NP
N
C
What
is

IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
V
pred
‘eathsubj,obji’


h
i


 focus
pred ‘what’ 




h
i



 subj
pred
‘David’




obj
eating
Introduction to LFG – 33 / 60
L F G
Functional Uncertainty

CP
C0
NP
N0
C
What
do
IP
NP
I0
N
VP
you
V
think
focus
h
pred
‘what’
i





 pred ‘thinkhsubj,compi’





h
i


 subj

pred
‘you’







pred ‘buyhsubj,obji’ 




h
i






subj
pred ‘Chris’ 
 comp 








obj
IP
NP
I0
N
VP
Chris
V
bought
Introduction to LFG – 34 / 60
L F G
Questions
■
What is the function of the displaced constituent?
Introduction to LFG – 35 / 60
L F G
Questions
■
What is the function of the displaced constituent?
■
What is its within-clause role?
Introduction to LFG – 35 / 60
L F G
Questions
■
What is the function of the displaced constituent?
■
What is its within-clause role?
■
How and where is this relation defined?
Introduction to LFG – 35 / 60
L F G
■
What is the function of the displaced constituent?
Introduction to LFG – 36 / 60
L F G
■
What is the function of the displaced constituent?
■
Specifiers of functional categories bear grammaticized
discourse functions topic, focus.
CP
C0
NP
N
C
What
is

IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
V
pred
‘eathsubj,obji’


h
i


 focus
pred ‘what’ 




h
i



 subj
pred
‘David’




obj
eating
Introduction to LFG – 36 / 60
L F G
■
What is the within-clause role of the displaced constituent?
Introduction to LFG – 37 / 60
L F G
■
What is the within-clause role of the displaced constituent?
■
Extended Coherence Condition:
Introduction to LFG – 37 / 60
L F G
■
What is the within-clause role of the displaced constituent?
■
Extended Coherence Condition: focus and topic must be
linked to the semantic predicate argument structure of the
sentence in which they occur, either by functionally or by
anaphorically binding an argument.

pred
‘eathsubj,obji’


h
i


 focus
pred ‘what’ 



h
i 


 subj
pred ‘David’ 




obj
Introduction to LFG – 37 / 60
L F G
■
How and where is this relation defined?
Introduction to LFG – 38 / 60
L F G
■
How and where is this relation defined?
■
Defined at f-structure, in terms of the f-structure path to
clause-internal function.
Introduction to LFG – 38 / 60
L F G
The Path
CP
C0
NP
N
C
What
is

IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
V
pred
‘eathsubj,obji’


h
i


 focus
pred ‘what’ 




h
i


 subj

pred
‘David’




obj
eating
Introduction to LFG – 39 / 60
L F G
Where are the constraints imposed? Ongoing theoretical debate:
Introduction to LFG – 40 / 60
L F G
Where are the constraints imposed? Ongoing theoretical debate:
■
Constraints are associated with position of displaced
constituent (Kaplan and Zaenen, 1989), or
Introduction to LFG – 40 / 60
L F G
Where are the constraints imposed? Ongoing theoretical debate:
■
Constraints are associated with position of displaced
constituent (Kaplan and Zaenen, 1989), or
■
Constraints are associated with within-clause position (a
“trace”) (Bresnan, 2001).
Traces are compatible with a nontransformational,
constraint-based theory, but not required by theory-internal
considerations; linguistic evidence determines which position is
correct. More on this later in the lecture.
Introduction to LFG – 40 / 60
L F G
Long Distance Dependencies
No traces:
CP
C0
NP
N
C
What
is

IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
V
pred
‘eathsubj,obji’


h
i


 focus
pred ‘what’ 




h
i


 subj

pred
‘David’




obj
eating
Introduction to LFG – 41 / 60
L F G
Long Distance Dependencies
With traces:
CP
C0
NP
N
C
What
is

IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
pred
‘eathsubj,obji’


h
i


 focus
pred ‘what’ 




h
i


 subj

pred
‘David’




obj
V
NP
eating
t
Introduction to LFG – 41 / 60
L F G
■
How is the path defined?
Introduction to LFG – 42 / 60
L F G
■
How is the path defined?
■
By functional uncertainty: regular expression over
grammatical functions.
Introduction to LFG – 42 / 60
L F G
■
How is the path defined?
■
By functional uncertainty: regular expression over
grammatical functions.
■
Example: comp* obj stands for paths with any number of
comp functions followed by an obj function.
Introduction to LFG – 42 / 60
L F G
English WH-questions
CP −→
XP
(↑ focus) = ↓
(↑ focus) = (↑ comp∗ gf)
C0
↑= ↓
Kleene star operator: *
COMP∗ represents:
the empty path
COMP
COMP COMP
...
Introduction to LFG – 43 / 60
L F G
Nonlocal Dependencies
CP
C0
NP
N
C
What
is

IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
V
pred
‘eathsubj,obji’


h
i


 focus
pred ‘what’ 




h
i


 subj

pred
‘David’




obj
eating
Introduction to LFG – 44 / 60
L F G
Functional Uncertainty

CP
C0
NP
N0
C
What
do
IP
NP
I0
N
VP
you
V
think
focus
h
pred
‘what’
i





 pred ‘thinkhsubj,compi’





h
i


 subj

pred
‘you’







pred ‘buyhsubj,obji’ 




h
i






subj
pred ‘Chris’ 
 comp 








obj
IP
NP
I0
N
VP
Chris
V
bought
Introduction to LFG – 45 / 60
L F G
Functional Uncertainty

C0
N
C
What
do
IP
NP
I0
N
VP
you
V0
V
think
IP
NP
I0
N
VP
Chris
V0
V
hoped
pred
‘what’
i





 pred ‘thinkhsubj,compi’





h
i


 subj

pred ‘you’








pred ‘hopehsubj,compi’






h
i








subj
pred ‘Chris’













pred ‘buyhsubj,obji’  
 comp 






i
h






subj
pred ‘David’ 


 comp 












obj
CP
NP
focus
h
IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
V
bought
Introduction to LFG – 46 / 60
L F G
XCOMP
CP
C0
NP
N
What
C
did
IP
NP
I0
N
VP
David
V0

V
NP
VP
believe
N
V0
Chris
V
VP
to
V
like
pred
‘believehsubj,compiobj’



h
i


 focus

pred
‘what’




h
i


 subj

pred ‘David’




h
i


 obj

pred ‘Chris’







pred ‘likehsubj,obji’ 










 xcomp  subj








obj
Introduction to LFG – 47 / 60
L F G
Augmenting the Path
CP −→
XP
(↑ focus) = ↓
(↑ focus) = (↑ {xcomp|comp}∗ gf)
C0
↑= ↓
{xcomp|comp}∗ represents:
the empty path
COMP
XCOMP
COMP XCOMP
COMP COMP
XCOMP COMP XCOMP. . .
Introduction to LFG – 48 / 60
L F G
Constraints on unbounded dependencies
Sentential subject condition:
*What did [that Chris bought
] surprise you?
SUBJ is not allowed as a component of Path:

focus


 pred






 subj







obj
h
pred
‘what’
i




‘surprisehsubj,obji’



pred ‘buyhsubj,obji’ 



h
i


 subj

pred
‘Chris’






obj


h
i

pred
X
‘you’
Introduction to LFG – 49 / 60
L F G
Functional uncertainty
(Outside-in/“regular”) functional uncertainty:
Path through f leads to g
h
f : comp comp comp. . . obj g
i
(f comp* obj)=g
Introduction to LFG – 50 / 60
L F G
No traces
Constraints associated with fronted position.
CP −→

 XP


(↑ focus) = ↓
(↑ focus) = (↑ {xcomp|comp}∗ gf)
0
C
↑ =↓
Introduction to LFG – 51 / 60
L F G
Functional uncertainty
Inside-out functional uncertainty:
Path through f leads to g
h
f : comp comp comp. . . obj g
i
f = (comp* obj g)
Introduction to LFG – 52 / 60
L F G
With traces
Constraints associated with trace.
CP −→
XP
(↑ focus) = ↓
0
C
↑ =↓
Introduction to LFG – 53 / 60
L F G
With traces
Constraints associated with trace.
CP −→
NP −→
XP
(↑ focus) = ↓
0
C
↑ =↓
t
↑ = (({xcomp|comp}∗ gf ↑ ) focus)
Introduction to LFG – 53 / 60
L F G
Weak crossover: Evidence for traces?
Most arguments for the existence of traces have been discredited.
Evidence from crossover has been more difficult to refute.
Crossover in transformational terms: a transformation cannot
apply if it would result in a NP “crossing over” a coreferential
NP.
Crossover in nontransformational terms, assuming traces: The
trace of a displaced NP cannot appear to the right of a
coreferential NP.
Introduction to LFG – 54 / 60
L F G
Weak and strong crossover
Strong crossover violation: coreferential pronoun precedes and
c-commands extraction site
*Whoi did hei greet t?
(cannot mean: Who greeted himself?)
Weak crossover violation: coreferential pronoun precedes but
does not c-command extraction site
*Whoi did hisi mother greet t?
(cannot mean: Whosei mother greeted himi ?)
Crossover appears to provide evidence for traces: see Bresnan
(1995) and Dalrymple et al. (2006) for discussion and debate.
Introduction to LFG – 55 / 60
L F G
Wrapup
■
We have examined the formal foundations and basic
theoretical assumptions of LFG,
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
L F G
Wrapup
■
We have examined the formal foundations and basic
theoretical assumptions of LFG,
■
and discussed some areas of current theoretical debate.
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
L F G
Wrapup
■
We have examined the formal foundations and basic
theoretical assumptions of LFG,
■
and discussed some areas of current theoretical debate.
■
For more on LFG, visit the LFG website:
http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/LFG/
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
L F G
Wrapup
■
We have examined the formal foundations and basic
theoretical assumptions of LFG,
■
and discussed some areas of current theoretical debate.
■
For more on LFG, visit the LFG website:
http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/LFG/
■
attend the Bresnan lectures (LSA.347) and the
Asudeh/Toivonen lectures (LSA.309) in the main session at
the Institute,
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
L F G
Wrapup
■
We have examined the formal foundations and basic
theoretical assumptions of LFG,
■
and discussed some areas of current theoretical debate.
■
For more on LFG, visit the LFG website:
http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/LFG/
■
attend the Bresnan lectures (LSA.347) and the
Asudeh/Toivonen lectures (LSA.309) in the main session at
the Institute,
■
and attend LFG07, here at Stanford, 28-30 July:
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/ thking/lfg07.html
Introduction to LFG – 56 / 60
L F G
Andrews, Avery, III. 1982. The representation of case in modern
Icelandic. In Joan Bresnan (editor), The Mental Representation
of Grammatical Relations, pp. 427–503. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press
Asudeh, Ash. 2005. Control and semantic resource sensitivity.
Journal of Linguistics 41(3), pp. 465–511
Börjars, Kersti and Nigel Vincent. 2004. Introduction to LFG.
Slides from the Winter School in LFG and Computational
Linguistics, University of Canterbury
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. In Joan
Bresnan (editor), The Mental Representation of Grammatical
Relations, pp. 282–390. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Introduction to LFG – 57 / 60
L F G
Bresnan, Joan. 1990. Parallel constraint grammar project. CSLI
Calendar, 4 October 1990, volume 6:3
Bresnan, Joan. 1995. Linear order, syntactic rank, and empty
categories: On weak crossover. In Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M.
Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen (editors), Formal
Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar , pp. 241–274. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar , volume 34
of Syntax and Semantics. New York, NY: Academic Press
Introduction to LFG – 58 / 60
L F G
Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, III, and
Annie Zaenen (editors). 1995. Formal Issues in
Lexical-Functional Grammar . Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, and Tracy Holloway King.
2006. The absence of traces: Evidence from weak crossover. In
Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, Chris Manning, Jane Simpson, and
Annie Zaenen (editors), Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: A
Festschrift for Joan Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI Publications
Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An
Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax. Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications
Introduction to LFG – 59 / 60
L F G
Kaplan, Ronald M. and Annie Zaenen. 1989. Long-distance
dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty.
In Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch (editors), Alternative
Conceptions of Phrase Structure, pp. 17–42. Chicago University
Press. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995, pp. 137–165)
Introduction to LFG – 60 / 60