Lexical-Functional Grammar Anaphora, Raising, Control Weiwei Sun Institute of Computer Science and Technology Peking University May 19, 2015
Outline Anaphora Long-Distance Dependency Raising and Control Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 2/33
R-expression, anaphor and pronoun R-expression: A DP that gets its meaning by referring to an entity in the world. Anaphor: A DP that obligatorily gets its meaning from another DP in the sentence. Pronoun: A DP that may (but need not) get its meaning from another word in the sentence. (1) a. Felicia wrote a fine paper on Zapotec. (R-expression) b. Heidi bopped herself on the head with a zucchini. (Anaphor) c. Aaron said that he played basketball. (Pronoun) Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 2/33
R-expression, anaphor and pronoun Key observations Anaphors, R-expressions, and pronouns can only appear in specific parts of the sentence. (2) *Herself bopped Heidi on the head with a zucchini. Proposal Principle A An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Principle B A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle C An R-expression must be free. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 3/33
Pronoun incorporation Pronoun incorporation/pronominal inflection An incorporated pronoun or pronominal inflection is a bound morpheme that specifies a complete pronominal f-structure. semantic feature: special pred value PRO DP She IP I is I VP... subj f DP pred PRO i bind β agr α case κ agr α subj g I case κ Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 4/33
Crosslinguistic analysis Crosslinguistic concerns Morphological words may determine the same kinds of functional structures as syntactic phrases. Grammatical vs. anaphoric agreement Chicheŵa 18 gender classes (or noun classes) S NP VP VP NP Verbal inflectional morphology: SubjM-T/A-(DIR)-(ObjM)-V stem The functional specifications of a pronoun is incorporated with the functional specifications of the stem to which the morpheme is bound. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 5/33
Subject marker Verbal inflectional morphology SM-T/A-(DIR)-(OM)-V stem (3) a. b. njûchi zi-ná-lum-a a-lenje 10.bee 10.s-pst-bite-fv 2-hunter the bees bite the hunters zi-ná-lum-a a-lenje 10.s-pst-bite-fv 2-hunter they bite the hunters sm-:v infl ( subj nounclass) = 10 optional (( subj pred) = PRO ) Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 6/33
Object marker Verbal inflectional morphology SM-T/A-(DIR)-(OM)-V stem (4) a. b. c. * njûchi zi-ná-wá-lum-a a-lenje 10.bee 10.s-pst-2.o-bite-fv 2-hunter the bees bite them, the hunters njûchi zi-ná-wá-lum-a 10.bee 10.s-pst-2.o-bite-fv the bees bite them njûchi zi-ná-lum-a 10.bee 10.s-pst-bite-fv the bees bite om-:v infl ( subj nounclass) = 2 obligatory ( subj pred) = PRO Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 7/33
Pro-drop njûchi ( pred) = bee ( nounclass) = 10 zi-ná-wá-lum-a ( pred) = bite subj, obj optional (( subj pred) = PRO ) ( subj nounclass) = 10 obligatory ( obj pred) = PRO ( obj nounclass) = 2 X ( subj = ) njûchi X pred X subj = obj zi-ná-wá-lum-a bite subj,obj pred bee nounclass 10 pred PRO nounclass 2 Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 8/33
Pro-drop njûchi ( pred) = bee ( nounclass) = 10 zi-ná-wá-lum-a ( pred) = bite subj, obj optional (( subj pred) = PRO ) ( subj nounclass) = 10 obligatory ( obj pred) = PRO ( obj nounclass) = 2 X X = zi-ná-wá-lum-a pred subj obj bite subj,obj pred PRO nounclass 10 pred PRO nounclass 2 Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 8/33
Anaphoric agreement The object marker in Chicheŵa is used as an anaphoric pronoun. The object is a dislocated topic, not a direct object NP. Functional uniqueness Independent NPs that cooccur with these pronominal inflections must have nonargument functions, like dislocated topics. The agreement in gender class is the anaphoric agreement. (5) a. My mother, she is a really good sport. b. She is a really good sport, my mother. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 9/33
Semantics-oriented analysis (1) Example (6) David i compared Chris to himself i. pred compare subj,obj,obl goal subj pred david obj pred chris pred PRO obl goal prontype REFL Semantic in nature Anaphoric binding relations are semantic in nature, having to do with coreference between a pronoun and its antecedent. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 10/33
Semantics-oriented analysis (2) Multiple parallel structures LFG views language as being made up of multiple dimensions of structure. Proposal antecedent in the semantic structure of the pronoun/anaphor. antecendent σ(g) Mapping from f-structure to s-structure: σ σ(f): antecendent σ(g) Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 11/33
Example (1) Single sentence (7) David i compared Chris to himself i. pred subj obj obl goal compare subj,obj,obl goal d pred david pred chris pred PRO p prontype REFL σ σ(p) antecendent σ(d) Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 12/33
Example (2) Mini-discourse (8) a. David arrived. pred f subj arrive subj g pred david b. He yawned. h pred subj yawn subj i pred PRO σ(i) antecendent σ(g) Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 13/33
Binding domain (1) Example (9) David i wrapped the blanket around himself i. pred subj obj adj wrap subj,obj pred david pred blanket pred around obj pred PRO obj prontype REFL The antecedent of himself may also appear in an f-structure that does not contain the pronoun. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 14/33
Binding domain (2) Example (10) *David i thought that Chris had seen himself i. pred subj comp think subj,comp pred david pred see subj,obj subj pred chris pred PRO obj prontype REFL Himself cannot appear in a sentence with no antecedent, or with an antecedent in a syntactically unacceptable relation to it. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 15/33
Positive binding constraints Key idea Explore binding constraints defined in terms of f-structural relations. Proposal The antecedent of the English reflexive pronoun must appear in the Minimal Complete Nucleus containing the pronoun. Minimal Complete Nucleus containing f The smallest f-structure that contains f and a subj function. ( gf gf pro f ) ( subj) Inside-out constraint: (gf f) = g g gf f Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 16/33
Crosslinguistic concerns Observation Languages with multiple anaphors provide evidence for expanding the range of constraints that anaphors can obey demonstrate that constraints on anaphoric binding must be specified lexically, not universally. Different anaphoric elements in the same language may obey different anaphoric binding constraints. Coargument Domain: Minimal Finite Domain: Root Domain: (gf gf pro f) ( gf gf pro f ) ( pred) ( gf gf pro f ) ( tense) Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 17/33
Positive binding constraints (cont) (11) *David i s father nominated himself i. F-command pred subj obj nominate subj,obj spec pred david pred father pred PRO prontype REFL The antecedent of an anaphor is generally required to f-command the anaphor: ((gf gf pro f) gf ante ) Example (( gf gf pro f ) subj) ( tense) Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 18/33
Negative binding constraints Observation Different anaphoric elements in the same language may obey different negative constraints. Negative constraints must be lexically associated with each anaphoric element. (12) *David i nominated him i. Proposal pred subj obj nominate subj,obj pred david pred PRO The antecedent of the English pronoun, like him must not appear in the Coargument Domain containing the pronoun. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 19/33
Outline Anaphora Long-Distance Dependency Raising and Control Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 20/33
Relative clause (13) a man who Chris saw NP Det a N N man N NP N who CP C IP NP I N VP Chris V pred spec adj man pred A pred PRO topic 1 prontype REL relpro 1 pred see subj,obj subj pred chris obj 1 saw Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 20/33
Relative clause (14) a man whose book Chris read Det a NP N N N man NP Det N whose N CP C IP NP I book N VP Chris V pred spec adj man pred A pred PRO topic 1 spec prontype REL pred book relpro 1 pred see subj,obj subj pred chris obj 1 saw Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 21/33
Relative clause Annotated PS rule CP RelP C ( topic)= = ( topic)=( RTopicPath) ( relpro)=( TopicRelPath) ( relpro prontype)= c REL Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 22/33
Wh-question (15) who does Chris like NP N who CP C does C IP NP I N VP Chris V pred PRO focus 1 prontype WH q 1 pred like subj,obj subj pred chris obj 1 like Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 23/33
Outline Anaphora Long-Distance Dependency Raising and Control Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 24/33
Raising (16) David seemed to yawn. pred seem xcomp subj subj 1 pred david xcomp pred yawn subj subj 1 Raising verbs in English and other languages exemplify functional control. The subj of the raising verb funtionally controls the subj of the subordinate complement. Functional control verbs require as an argument an open complement xcomp. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 24/33
Raising (17) David believed Chris to know the answer. pred believe subj,xcomp obj subj pred david obj 1 pred chris pred know subj,obj subj 1 xcomp pred answer obj spec THE Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 25/33
Functional constraints PS Rule Lexicon entries V V (NP) (VP) = ( obj) = ( xcomp) = seemed V ( pred) = seem xcomp subj ( subj) = ( xcomp subj) believed V ( pred) = believe subj,xcomp obj ( obj) = ( xcomp subj) David seemed to yawn P319. Textbook. On whiteboard Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 26/33
Anaphoric control (18) David tried to leave. pred try subj,comp subj pred david pred leave subj comp subj pred PRO Anaphoric control contrasts with functional control The subordinate complement in an anaphoric control construction is comp, not xcomp. The relation in anaphoric control is semantically much closer to an anaphoric binding relation does not involve alertsyntactic identity Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 27/33
Anaphoric control (cont) (19) David convinced Chris to leave. pred convince subj,obj,comp subj pred david obj pred chris pred leave subj comp subj pred PRO Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 28/33
Anaphoric vs. functional control In an anaphoric control construction, the anaphorically controlled subj of the subordinate comp is syntactically independent from the matrix controller. Syntactic restrictions imposed on the subject of the comp is not relevant for the matrix controller. Example VP complement drop is impossible for xcomp, but possible for comp argument of many predicates: (20) a. *Did David really yawn? He seemed. b. *Did Chris really know the answer? David believed him. (21) a. Did David really leave? He tried. b. Will Chris leave? If David can convince him. Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 29/33
Two types of anaphoric control constructions Obligatory anaphoric control Coreference is required between an argument of the matrix clause and the controlled position in the subordinate clause. An anaphor in an anaphoric control construction may be assigned an antecedent by the rules of sentence grammar. Arbitrary anaphoric control No coreference constraints are imposed by the control verb. The controlled argument in the subordinate clause finds its referent in a way very similar to an ordinary pronoun, Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 30/33
Obligatory anaphoric control PS Rule V V (NP) (VP) = ( obj) = ( xcomp comp) = Lexicon entries tried V ( pred) = try subjcomp ( comp subj pred) = PRO convinced V ( pred) = convince subj,obj,comp ( comp subj pred) = PRO Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 31/33
Arbitrary anaphoric control (22) David gestured to follow Chris. pred gesture subj,comp subj pred david pred follow subj,obj comp subj pred PRO obj pred chris Meaning: David gestured for some unspecified individual(s) to follow Chris. Syntactically, obligatory and arbitrary control constructions do not differ. gesture V ( pred) = gesture subj,comp ( comp subj pred) = PRO Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 32/33
Reading Lexical Functional Grammar 11.1, 11.2 12.1, 12.3, 12.5 Weiwei Sun Lexical-Functional Grammar 33/33