Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:
Download
1 / 98

[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 43 Views
  • Uploaded on

Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:. [ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]]. Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:. [ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] [ S I believed [ S him to be kind]].

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' [ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]]' - booker


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]

4. [S John tends [VP' to shout]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]

4. [S John tends [VP' to shout]]

6. [S John [VP' was killed]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]

4. [S John tends [VP' to shout]]

6. [S John [VP' was killed]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:

How does LFG capture


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]

4. [S John tends [VP' to shout]]

6. [S John [VP' was killed]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:

  • How does LFG capture

  • the difference between 1 and 2,


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]

4. [S John tends [VP' to shout]]

6. [S John [VP' was killed]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:

  • How does LFG capture

  • the difference between 1 and 2,

  • the non-argument status of the subject of 4,


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]

4. [S John tends [VP' to shout]]

6. [S John [VP' was killed]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:

  • How does LFG capture

  • the difference between 1 and 2,

  • the non-argument status of the subject of 4,

  • and the semantic role of the subject of 6?


Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

[S I forced him [S PRO to be kind]]

[S I believed [S him to be kind]]

[S NP seems [S John to shout]]

[S NP tends [S John to shout]]

[S Bill [VP killed John]]

[S NP [VP was killed John]]

1. [S I forced him [VP' to be kind]]

2. [S I believed him [VP' to be kind]]

4. [S John tends [VP' to shout]]

6. [S John [VP' was killed]]

Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar:

  • How does LFG capture

  • the difference between 1 and 2,

  • the non-argument status of the subject of 4,

  • and the semantic role of the subject of 6?

  • Answer: Don’t operate on the trees,

  • but annotate them with relevant information

  • about syntactic functions and semantic arguments.


S grammar:

VP

NP

I

VP'

V

NP

forced

him

TO

VP

to

V

AP

be

kind


S grammar:

S

VP

NP

VP

I

NP

I

VP'

V

NP

forced

him

VP'

V

NP

believed

him

TO

VP

to

TO

VP

to

V

AP

be

kind

V

AP

be

kind


S grammar:

S

VP

NP

VP

I

NP

I

VP'

V

NP

forced

him

VP'

V

NP

believed

him

TO

VP

to

TO

VP

to

V

AP

S

be

kind

V

AP

be

kind

VP

NP

John

V

VP'

tends

TO

VP

to

V

shout


S grammar:

S

VP

NP

VP

I

NP

I

VP'

V

NP

forced

him

VP'

V

NP

believed

him

TO

VP

to

TO

VP

to

V

AP

S

be

kind

S

V

AP

be

kind

VP

NP

VP

NP

John

John

V

V

VP'

tends

VP

was

TO

VP

V

PP

to

killed

V

P

NP

shout

by

Bill


S grammar:

S

SUBJ

VP

NP

VP

I

NP

OBJ

XCOMP

I

VP'

V

NP

forced

him

VP'

V

NP

PRET

believed

him

’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’

TO

VP

to

TO

VP

to

V

AP

S

be

kind

S

V

AP

INF

be

kind

VP

NP

VP

NP

John

John

V

V

VP'

tends

VP

was

TO

VP

V

PP

to

killed

V

P

NP

shout

by

Bill


S grammar:

S

SUBJ

VP

NP

SUBJ

VP

I

NP

OBJ

XCOMP

I

VP'

V

NP

OBJ

XCOMP

forced

him

VP'

V

NP

PRET

believed

him

’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’

PRET

TO

VP

BELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

to

TO

VP

to

V

AP

S

be

kind

S

V

AP

INF

be

kind

INF

VP

NP

VP

NP

John

John

V

V

VP'

tends

VP

was

TO

VP

V

PP

to

killed

V

P

NP

shout

by

Bill


S grammar:

S

SUBJ

VP

NP

SUBJ

VP

I

NP

OBJ

XCOMP

I

VP'

V

NP

OBJ

XCOMP

forced

him

VP'

V

NP

PRET

believed

him

’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’

PRET

TO

VP

BELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

to

TO

VP

to

V

AP

S

be

kind

S

V

AP

INF

be

kind

SUBJ

INF

VP

NP

VP

NP

John

John

XCOMP

V

V

VP'

tends

VP

was

PRES

TEND ‹XCOMP› SUBJ’

TO

VP

V

PP

to

killed

V

P

NP

shout

by

Bill

INF


S grammar:

S

SUBJ

VP

NP

SUBJ

VP

I

NP

OBJ

XCOMP

I

VP'

V

NP

OBJ

XCOMP

forced

him

VP'

V

NP

PRET

believed

him

’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’

PRET

TO

VP

BELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

to

TO

VP

to

V

AP

S

be

kind

S

V

AP

INF

be

kind

SUBJ

INF

SUBJ

VP

NP

VP

NP

John

John

XCOMP

V

V

VP'

tends

VP

was

PRES

TEND ‹XCOMP› SUBJ’

OBLag

TO

VP

V

PP

to

killed

KILL ‹OBLag SUBJ›’

V

P

NP

shout

by

Bill

INF


The functional information in the annotations grammar:

is represented in a separate functional structure

(f-structure), in the form of an attribute-value graph:


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

f1 (TENSE) = pret

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

f1 (TENSE) = pret

f1 (SUBJ) = f2

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

f1 (TENSE) = pret

f1 (SUBJ) = f2

f2 (CASE) = nom

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

f1 (TENSE) = pret

f1 (SUBJ) = f2

f2 (CASE) = nom

f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

f1 (TENSE) = pret

f1 (SUBJ) = f2

f2 (CASE) = nom

f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom

f2

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

f1 (TENSE) = pret

f1 (SUBJ) = f2

f2 (CASE) = nom

f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom

f2

Alternative notation:

(f1 TENSE) = pret

(f1 SUBJ) = f2

(f2 CASE) = nom

(f1 SUBJ CASE) = nom

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

f1 (TENSE) = pret

f1 (SUBJ) = f2

f2 (CASE) = nom

f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom

f2

Alternative notation:

(f1 TENSE) = pret

(f1 SUBJ) = f2

(f2 CASE) = nom

(f1 SUBJ CASE) = nom

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP

(f1 OBJ) = (f1 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

f1

PRED ’I’

SUBJ

Describing parts of the structure

by means of equations

f1 (TENSE) = pret

f1 (SUBJ) = f2

f2 (CASE) = nom

f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom

f2

Alternative notation:

(f1 TENSE) = pret

(f1 SUBJ) = f2

(f2 CASE) = nom

(f1 SUBJ CASE) = nom

CASE nom

TENSE pret

PRED ’FORCE‹ SUBJOBJXCOMP ›’

f5

PRED ’HE’

CASE obl

NUM sg

OBJ

f6

SUBJ

PRED ’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’

XCOMP

(f1 OBJ) = (f1 XCOMP SUBJ)


How to incorporate f structure information into a grammar

How to incorporate grammar:f-structure informationinto a grammar


S -> NP VP grammar:

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

S

VP

NP

I

V

NP

VP'

him

forced

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)









( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

S

VP

NP

I

V

NP

VP'

him

forced

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)









( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

S

VP

NP

I

V

NP

VP'

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)









( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Index the c-structure nodes

S:1

VP:3

NP:2

I

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)









( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

(f1 SUBJ)

VP:3

NP:2

I

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)









( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)







( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)







( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

f3

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

f3f4

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Instantiate the metavariables:

Replace them with f-structure

variables based on the node indices.

S:1

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

VP:3

NP:2

I

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

V:4

NP:5

VP':6

him

forced

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

The tree has done its job:

Forget it.

f1f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)





( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

Collect the instantiated equations

into an f-description

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


Solve the equations in any order grammar:

to constuct an f-structure

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

Solve the equations in any order

to constuct an f-structure

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

f5

OBJ

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

f5

OBJ

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


F-structure for grammar:I forced him to leave

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ

(f1 SUBJ)f2

f1f3

f3f4

(f3 OBJ)f5

(f3 XCOMP)f6

Notice: The f-structure has

fewer levels than the c-structure

because of the nodes annotated

with

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

(f4 TENSE) = pret

(f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ)


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ

The relation is called a projection relation.


grammar:

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)





( XCOMP)

The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure

now stand in a many-to-one relation:

A functional domain

S

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

VP

f4

NP

I

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

V

NP

VP'

f5

him

forced

OBJ

to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ

The relation is called a projection relation.

A set of nodes which project the same f-structure

are said to constitute a functional domain.


f2 grammar:

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

Let us now move from

I forced him to leave

to

I believed him to leave

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


All we need to change is the lexical entry: grammar:

( OBJ)

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)

( SUBJ)









( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

S

VP

NP

I

V

NP

VP'

him

forced

( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


All we need to change is the lexical entry: grammar:

( SUBJ)

( OBJ)

( OBJ)

( SUBJ)









( XCOMP)

( XCOMP)

S -> NP VP

VP -> V (NP) (VP')

believed:( PRED) = ’BELIEVE‹( SUBJ) ( XCOMP)›( OBJ)'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

S

VP

NP

I

V

NP

VP'

believed

him

( PRED) = ’BELIEVE‹( SUBJ) ( XCOMP)›( OBJ)'

( TENSE) = pret

( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)

to leave


This leads to the following change in the f-structure: grammar:

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

f4

PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


This leads to the following change in the f-structure: grammar:

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

f4

PRED ’BELIEVE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›(f4 OBJ)'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ


This leads to the following change in the f-structure: grammar:

f2

SUBJ

f1

f3

TENSE pret

f4

PRED ’BELIEVE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›(f4 OBJ)'

f5

OBJ

XCOMP

f6

SUBJ

The only change is in the mapping between syntactic functions

and argument positions, as expressed in the value of PRED.

The syntax as such is unchanged.


ad