Syntax & Semantics WS2019/2020 - Christian Bentz

Faculty of PhilosophyGeneral Linguistics

Syntax & Semantics WS2019/2020Lecture 14: Construction Grammar

09/12/2019, Christian Bentz

Overview

Section 1: Recap of Lecture 13

Section 2: Historical Notes

Section 3: Goldbergian Construction GrammarDefinition of ConstructionsNotational ConventionsIdentifying ConstructionsArguments for Constructions

Section 4: Basic Concepts in CxG (Goldbergian)

Section 5: Pros and Cons of CxGPros (Advantages)Cons (Disadvantages)

Section 6: References

2 | Syntax & Semantics, WS 2019/2020, Bentz c© 2012 Universität Tübingen

Section 1: Recapof Lecture 13

Section 2:Historical Notes

Section 3:GoldbergianConstructionGrammar

Section 4: BasicConcepts in CxG(Goldbergian)

Section 5: Prosand Cons of CxG

Section 6:References

Questions: Tutorial Week 6

(1) ka1

toad-mboys-GL

lol-nògtalk-in.vain

“I talked to the boys in vain.”

Why is “boys” assumed to be plural in the feature description matrixwhereas 1, i.e. “I”, does not get a NUMBER feature?

We can assume that boys is plural here (i.e. boy.PL) since it is given asplural in the glossings. Note that ka is glossed just as 1 (i.e. first person)without further specification of the number. Generally, the glossings arerelevant, not the translation. The glossings are supposed to directlyreflect what is explicitely marked in the language whereas the translationis totally free.



Section 1: Recap of Lecture 13







The Word Level: Verbs (English)Verbs have a feature structure similar to nouns. Instead of a CASE feature given in thetype noun, the type verb gives a VFORM feature which takes the same values as inGPSG (fin: finite; inf : to-infinitive; bse: bare infinitive; prp: present participle; psp: pastparticiple; pas: passive participle). Also, the potential complements of the verb phraseare now given in COMPS with phrase notation and case feature values. For English,the subject NP is considered a specifier (SPR).

Typed feature description for the word gives.

word

PHON⟨

gives⟩

SYNSEM

LOC

local

CAT

category

HEAD

[verbVFORM fin

]SPR

⟨NP[nom]

⟩COMPS

⟨NP[dat], NP[acc]

⟩








The Verb Phrase: Valence InformationJust as in earlier frameworks, in HPSG the valence information of averb is explicitely modelled in a so-called argument structure(ARG-ST), which combines information about the specifier (SPR), i.e.the subject of a sentence, as well as the complements (COMPS).

verbsleepexpecttalkgiveserve

SPR〈 NP[nom] 〉〈 NP[nom] 〉〈 NP[nom] 〉〈 NP[nom] 〉〈 NP[nom] 〉

COMPS〈〉〈 NP[acc] 〉〈 PP[about ]〉〈 NP[dat ], NP[acc]〉〈 NP[acc], PP[with]〉

ARG-ST〈 NP[nom] 〉〈 NP[nom], NP[acc] 〉〈 NP[nom], PP[about ] 〉〈 NP[nom], NP[dat ], NP[acc] 〉〈 NP[nom], NP[acc], PP[with] 〉

Adopted from Müller (2019), p. 269.

Note: For German, there is no distinction between COMPS and SPR, all the elementswould be listed in COMPS.








Example: Intransitive SentenceThe SPR feature value is then specified in the CAT feature of the NON-HEAD-DTR,namley as a noun (or NP) in the nominative case. Note that while nominative casehere does not require inflection on a proper noun, it might on a pronoun, and is hencegiven for completeness.

head-specifier-phrase

PHON⟨

Kim sleeps⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT

categoryHEAD 1

SPR⟨

2

⟩COMPS 〈〉

HEAD-DTR

word

PHON⟨

sleeps⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT

category

HEAD 1

[verbVFORM fin

]SPR

⟨2 NP[nom]

⟩COMPS 〈〉

NON-HEAD-DTR

⟨

word

PHON⟨

Kim⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT 2

category

HEAD

[nounCASE nom

]⟩








Example: Sentences with Prepositional PhrasesNote that prepositional phrases are also handled via the COMPS list. Below is anexample based on the valence information for talk, which takes an obligatory subjectNP as SPR, and an optional prepostional phrase headed by about in the COMPS list.Importantly, the noun of the prepositional phrase is here not included in the highestlevel COMPS list, since it is rather a complement of the preposition (about).

head-complement-phrase

PHON⟨

Kim talks about Peter⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT

categoryHEAD 1

SPR⟨

2

⟩COMPS

⟨3

⟩

HEAD-DTR

word

PHON⟨

talks⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT 1

...

COMPS⟨

3 PP[acc]⟩

NON-HEAD-DTR

⟨word

PHON⟨

Kim⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT 2

[...],

head-adjunct-phrase

PHON⟨

about Peter⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT 4

HEAD-DTR

word

PHON⟨

about⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT 4

category

HEAD

[prepMOD 1

]COMPS

⟨5 NP[acc]

⟩

NON-HEAD-DTRS

⟨

word

PHON⟨

Peter⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT

category

HEAD 5

[nounCASE acc

]

⟩

⟩








Feature Description (Simplified):


PHON⟨

Kim gives Peter cake⟩

HEAD-DTR

word

PHON⟨

gives⟩

NON-HEAD-DTR

⟨word

PHON⟨

Kim⟩,

word

PHON⟨

Peter⟩,

word

PHON⟨

cake⟩⟩

Orders Licensed:

gives Kim Peter cakeKim gives Peter cakeKim Peter gives cakeKim Peter cake gives








Linearization RulesHence, linearization rules need to be specified for the differentfeatures. An English linearization rule could look like below:

SPR ≺ HEAD ≺ COMPS (1)

This rule (almost) correctly linearizes the phrases we have analyzedabove:

I the man, i.e. SPR ≺ HEAD

I Kim sleeps, i.e. SPR ≺ HEAD

I Kim expects Peter, i.e. SPR ≺ HEAD ≺ COMPS

I Kim gives Peter cake, i.e. SPR ≺ HEAD ≺ COMPS(though the order of Peter and cake is not captured here!)

I Kim talks about Peter, i.e. SPR ≺ HEAD ≺ COMPS








Further Characteristics of HPSG

I HPSG “is a lexicon-based theory, that is, the majorityof linguistic constraints are situated in the descriptionsof words or roots.”

I “HPSG is sign-based in the sense of Saussure (1916a):the form and meaning of linguistic signs are alwaysrepresented together.”

I “Typed feature structures are used to model allrelevant information.”

I “[...] trees [...] are only visualizations of the constituentstructure and do not have any theoretical status. Thereare also no rewrite rules in HPSG.”

Müller (2019), p. 266-271.








Questions about HPSGIs there a way of binarizing HPSG feature descriptions?

– Yes, though it is not necessary to have feature descriptions reflectingbinary branching:

“In principle, there can be multiple non-head daughters. If we were toassume a flat structure for a sentence with a ditransitive verb, as inFigure 2.1 on page 54, we would have three non-head daughters.”

However, binarization is possible and preferred by Müller (for hisGerman examples):

“The arguments of the verb are combined with the verb starting with thelast element of the COMPS list, as explained in Section 9.1.2. [...] inFigure 9.12, the last element of the COMPS list is discharged first [...].”








Questions about HPSG

Müller (2019), p. 296.








Questions about HPSGHow about structures with two prepositional phrases?

– According to an example by Pollard & Sag (1994), p. 264, both PPswould be construed as being part of the COMPS (here SUBCAT) list ofthe verb:

(2) Maryi talked to Johnj about himselfj .

(3) SUBCAT〈 NP1, PP[to], PP[about ]:anaj 〉








Questions about HPSGWhat exactly is in the lexical entries in HPSG?

– “In the first decade of HPSG history (Pollard & Sag 1987; 1994;Nerbonne, Netter & Pollard 1994) [...] it was a strongly lexicalizedtheory. The syntactic make-up and semantic content of a phrase wasdetermined by the head (hence the term head-driven).”

However:

“[...] The tendency to a differentiation of phrasal schemata can also beobserved in the proceedings of recent conferences [...] For HPSG, thismeans that it is no longer entirely head-driven and is therefore neitherHead-Driven nor Phrase Structure Grammar.”








Untyped and Typed Feature Descriptions

If we assign a type to a feature description, then it inheritsbasic structural features from nodes higher in our typehierarchy. In a sense, this means we can start with apredefined structural template rather than starting with a“blank slate”.

Say you have to describe the string woman in the English language byusing a feature matrix.

Untyped:[?] Typed:

word

PHON⟨

orthography⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT

category

HEAD[head

]SPR list of specifiersCOMPS list of complements








Type Hierarchy

We can construct a type hierarchy for all the types of wordsand phrases we have used in the HPSG lectures as below.

sign

word head-phrase

head-adjunct-phrase head-complement-phrase head-specifier-phrase








Type Hierarchy

As a concrete example of inheritance we can look at thetype head-adjunct-phrase and head-complement-phrasewhich inherit the general feature structure of aheaded-phrase.

sign

word headed-phrase

head-adjunct-phrase head-complement-phrase head-specifier-phrase








Type HierarchyThe most important characteristic of headed-phrases is that they havea head daughter and non-head-daughters.

sign

word

word

PHON⟨

orthography⟩

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT[category

]

headed-phrase

headed-phrase

PHON⟨

orthography⟩


]HEAD-DTR

[...]

NON-HEAD-DTRS⟨

...⟩

head-adjunct-phrase

head-adjunct-phrase

PHON⟨

orthography⟩


]HEAD-DTR

[...]

NON-HEAD-DTRS⟨

...⟩


head-adjunct-phrase

PHON⟨

orthography⟩


]HEAD-DTR

[...]

NON-HEAD-DTRS⟨

...⟩



Section 2: Historical Notes







Historical Perspective

“Like LFG and HPSG, Construction Grammar (CxG) formspart of West Coast linguistics. It has been influencedconsiderably by Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay and GeorgeLakoff (all three at Berkeley) and Adele Goldberg (whocompleted her PhD in Berkeley and is now in Princeton)(Fillmore 1988; Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor 1988; Kay &Fillmore 1999; Kay 2002; 2005; Goldberg 1995; 2006).”Müller (2019). Grammatical theory, p. 311.

1980 1990 2000 2010

CxG








The Term Construction

I “The primary motivation for theterm [constructionist] is thatconstructionist approachesemphasize the role ofgrammatical constructions:conventionalized pairings of formand function.”

I “[... ] constructionist approachesgenerally emphasize thatlanguages are learned – that theyare constructed on the basis ofthe input together with generalcognitive, pragmatic, andprocessing constraints.”

Golderg (2006). Constructions at work,p. 3.








CxG and Generative Grammar

I “Constructionist approachesshare certain foundational ideaswith the mainstream “generative”approach [...]”

I “Both approaches agree that it isessential to consider language asa cognitive (mental) system;”

I “both approaches acknowledgethat there must be a way tocombine structures to createnovel utterances;”

I “both approaches recognize that anon-trivial theory of languagelearning is needed.”









CxG and Generative Grammar

I “In other ways, constructionistapproaches contrast sharply withthe generative approach. Thelatter has held that the nature oflanguage can best be revealed bystudying formal structuresindependently of their semantic ordiscourse functions [...]”









Syntactic Framework Tree

DG

PSG

X-bar theory

GB GPSG LFG

HPSG

CxG

DG: Dependency GrammarPSG: Phrase Structure GrammarGB: Government & BindingGPSG: Generalized PhraseStructure GrammarLFG: Lexical Functional GrammarHPSG: Head-Driven PhraseStructure GrammarCxG: Construction Grammar








Types of Construction Grammar

I Berkeley Construction Grammar (main proponents: Fillmore, Kay)

I Goldbergian/Lakovian Construction Grammar (Goldberg,Lakov)

I Cognitive Grammar (Langacker)

I Radical Construction Grammar (Croft)

I Embodied Construction Grammar (Bergen, Chang)

I Fluid Construction Grammar (Steels)

I Sign-Based Construction Grammar (Sag)



Section 3: Goldbergian ConstructionGrammar







Construction“Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction aslong as some aspect of its form or function is not strictlypredictable from its component parts or from otherconstructions recognized to exist. In addition, patterns arestored as constructions even if they are fully predictableas long as they occur with sufficient frequency.”Goldberg (2006). Constructions at work, p. 5.








Remember Lecture 1: Form and Meaning

“Every linguistic expression we utter has ameaning. We are therefore dealing with what hasbeen referred to as form-meaning pairs (deSaussure 1916b). A word such as tree in its specificorthographical form or in its corresponding phoneticrepresentation is assigned the meaning tree′ [read:“tree prime”]. Larger linguistic units can be builtup out of smaller ones: words can be joinedtogether to form phrases and these in turn can formsentences.”

Müller (2019). Grammatical theory, p. 3.








Problem: Idioms

(4) Kimkim

ha-thave-PRS.3SG

de-nART-ACC.SG

Waldforest

vorbecause.of

lauterall.the

Bäum-entree\-DAT.PL

nichtnot

ge-seh-enPTCP-see-PTCP

literal translation: “Kim hasn’t seen the forest because of all thetrees.”actual meaning: Kim was so concerned with the details that s/hedidn’t see the overall picture.

In the case of idioms (e.g. kicking the bucket), the intendedmeaning of the sentence is not a linear combinatorialderivation of its parts. Rather, a complex meaning isassigned to the whole phrase.








Traditional Idea of Grammar

Lexiconcar tree child ideabook stone paper

John he she him herread hit sleep

wait run go seegreen beautiful colorless

the a

GrammarS → NP V NPNP → DET N

VP → V NNP → DET ADJ N

AP → ADJ N

OutputThe child reads a book.

Colorless green ideas sleep.The car hits the tree.

She runs.etc.








What is stored in the Human Brain (Lexicon)?

I PSG answer: the set of terminals, i.e. lexical itemscorresponding to words.

I GB answer: lexical items corresponding to wordswith some specification of what syntactic rules they canbe involved in (i.e. θ-roles (valency) for verbs)

I HPSG answer: lexical items corresponding to wordswith exact specifications of the specifiers, complements,argument structures they require.

I CxG answer: constructions, which can bemorphemes, words, idioms, phrasal patterns.








Constructions“All levels of grammatical analysis involve constructions: learnedpairings of form with semantic or discourse function, includingmorphemes or words, idioms, partially lexically filled and fully generalphrasal patterns.”Goldberg (2006). Constructions at work, p. 5.








Beware Notational ConfusionNote that the way constructions are formulated within this frameworkcan differ. Sometimes, POS (N, V) or grammatical functions (SUBJ,OBJ) are used to represent the “unfilled” elements, sometimes othervariables such as X or Y are used, sometimes elements in in < > aregiven. This is partly due to the fact that the examples are drawn from theliterature, and different authors use different notations.

Examples:I Complex word (partially filled): [N-s] (regular plurals)I Idiom (partially filled): send <someone> to the cleanersI Covariational Conditional: the Xer the YerI Ditransitive (double object): Subj V Obj1 Obj2








Beware Notational ConfusionFor consistency, we will here use POS symbols. Ifnecessary, these can be further specified by indices.

Examples:I Complex word (partially filled): [N-s] (regular plurals)I Idiom (partially filled): send Nperson(s) to the cleanersI Covariational Conditional: the ADJ1-er the ADJ2-er1

I Ditransitive (double object): NPSubj V NPObj1 NPObj2

1The number indices are here used to indicate that normally a different adjective isused in the second position.








How to Identify a Construction?

In order to identify a construction we have to ask whetherin a set of different words, phrases, sentences there arereoccurring elements that can be learned and used as afixed scaffolding to built further sentences according to thesame template.

Example (complex words):I seeingI laughingI goingI sleepingI etc.

Construction: V-ing










Example (phrase):I into the wildI into a cinemaI into himselfI into blueI etc.

Construction: into NP/PRON/ADJ










Example (sentence):I Go do your homeworkI Go tell him the truthI Go get me pizzaI etc.

Construction: go VPbare infinitive

Adopted from Goldberg (2006), p. 54.









Note that the reoccurring elements might not be material at“the surface” but the underlying sentence structurerepresented by POS symbols.

Example (sentence):I He gave Pat a ballI Pat baked George a cakeI The child handed her the bookI etc.

Construction: NPSubj V NPObj1 NPObj2








Multiple Constructions“Constructionist theories do not derive one construction from another, asis generally done in mainstream generative theory. An actual expressiontypically involves the combination of at least half a dozen differentconstructions.”Goldberg (2006), p. 10.

(5) what did Liza buy Zach?

I Liza, buy, Zach, what, do constructions (i.e. individual words)

I ditransitive construction

I question construction (wh-word VP)

I subject-auxiliary inversion construction (aux Subj, i.e. did Liza)

I VP construction

I NP construction








Arguments for Constructions

I Argument 1: The idea that main verbs specify the valency of wholesentence does not match the creative use of linguistic patterns.Constructions are a better alternative to analyze the productivity ofsentence patterns.

I Argument 2: There are many examples across languages of theworld, where the overall meaning of a sentence is not derivablefrom the component parts, but is rather assigned to the wholeconstruction.

I Argument 3: The distinction between “core” syntax and the“periphery” is arbitrary. Constructions, while often seen to be part ofthe periphery, might in fact constitute a core property of language.








Argument 1: The Problem of Valency

Remember from Lecture 2:“Nous avons vu qu’il y avait de verbes sans actant,des verbes à un actant, des verbes à deux actantset des verbes à trois actants.”Tesnière (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale, p. 238.

Verb

Arguments

Sentence Type:

Valency:

V

_

impersonalsentence

avalent (0)

V

A

intransitivesentence

monovalent (1),one-placepredicate

V

A A

transitivesentence

bivalent (2),two-placepredicate

V

A A A

ditransitivesentence

trivalent (3),three-placepredicate








Why Constructions? – Argument 1

“[...] the interpretation and form of sentence patterns of alanguage are not reliably determined by independentspecifications of the main verb.”Goldberg (2006), p. 6.

Prototypical examples for traditional three argument verbs give and put :

(6) Chris gave Pat a ball.(7) Pat put the ball on the table.

Creative examples going beyond typical valency patterns:

(8) He sneezed his tooth right across town.(9) She smiled herself an upgrade.

(10) We laughed our conversation to an end.








Why Constructions? – Argument 1“Examples need not be particularly novel to make the point. Verbstypically appear with a wide array of complement configurations.Consider the verb slice and the various constructions in which it canappear [...] It is the argument structure constructions that provide thedirect link between surface form and general aspects of theinterpretation”Goldberg (2006), p. 7.

(11) He sliced the bread. (transitive)(12) Pat sliced the carrots into the salad. (caused motion)(13) Pat sliced Chris a piece of pie. (ditransitive)(14) Emeril sliced and diced his way to stardom. (way construction)(15) Pat sliced the box open. (resultative)








Why Constructions? – Argument 2“While English has some dramatic instances in which basic argumentstructure constructions convey contentful meaning, examples exist inother languages as well.”Goldberg (2006), p. 7.

Croatian (hbs, Indo-European)

(16) Pil-odrink-3SG.PAST

miI.DAT

seREF

piv-obeer-NOM.3SG.NEUT

Lit. “To me, the beer drank itself”: real meaning “I felt likedrinking beer”








Why Constructions? – Argument 2“Many languages have constructions in which no verb is expressed atall. These cases are prime examples of argument structureconstructions, since their meaning cannot naturally be attributed to a(non-existent) verb.”Goldberg (2006), p. 8.

French (fra, Indo-European)

(17) toutall

lethe

mondeworld

quiwho

partleaves

enin

weekendweekend

“Everyone is leaving for the weekend.”

Russian (rus, Indo-European)

(18) KirillKirill-NOM

vto

magazinstore-ACC

“Kirill goes/will go to the store.”








Why Constructions? – Argument 3“Crucially, all linguists recognize that a wide range ofsemi-idiosyncratic constructions exists in every language,constructions that cannot be accounted for by general, universal, orinnate principles or constraints.”Goldberg (2006), p. 14.








Why Constructions? – Argument 3“Generative linguists argue that these constructions exist only on the“periphery” [...] – that they need not be the focus of linguistic orlearning theorists. [...] Since every linguist agrees that the “peripheral”,difficult cases must be learned inductively on the basis of the input,constructionists point out that there is no reason to assume that themore general, regular, frequent cases [i.e. “core” grammar] cannotpossibly be.”Goldberg (2006), p. 14.



Section 4: Basic Concepts in CxG(Goldbergian)







Basic Concepts in CxG (Goldbergian)

I Constituency XI POS XI Heads xI Valency xI Grammatical Functions X



Section 5: Pros and Cons of CxG







Pros (Advantages)

I It is not based on an arbitrary distinction between core andperiphery of grammar, but tries to cover all linguistic structureswithin the same framework

I It has (arguably) higher psycholinguistic relevance

I Since it abandons the idea of valency, it is more flexible to deal withthe unbounded productivity of human language








Cons (Disadvantages)

I It is unclear how to identify constructions without recurrence tomore traditional analyses, such as phrase structure rules andconstiutency

I CxG (depending on the particular framework) is often only partiallyformalized. Müller (2019), p. 357 argues that all fully formalizedCxG variants (Sign-Based Construction Grammar, EmodiedConstruction Grammar, and Fluid Construction Grammar) arevirtually equivalent to HPSG (since they largely use the sameformal apparatus).



Section 6: References







ReferencesGoldberg, Adele (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization inlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Müller, Stefan. 2019. Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar toconstraint-based approaches. Third revised and extended edition. Volume I. Berlin:Language Science Press.

Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Thank You.Contact:

Faculty of PhilosophyGeneral LinguisticsDr. Christian BentzSFS Wihlemstraße 19-23, Room [email protected] hours:During term: Wednesdays 10-11amOut of term: arrange via e-mail


Syntax & Semantics WS2019/2020 - Christian Bentz

Documents

Transcript of Syntax & Semantics WS2019/2020 - Christian Bentz