Transcript colombo2014_03

Grammar Engineering:
Set-valued Attributes
Various Kinds of Constraints
Case Restrictions on Arguments
Miriam Butt
(University of Konstanz)
and
Martin Forst (NetBase Solutions)
Colombo 2014
Set-valued Attributes

Every attribute can only have one value

But: Certain elements, e.g. attributive
adjectives, adverbial modifiers or PP modifiers
can appear multiple times

Solution: These elements are projected into
elements of set-valued attributes such as
ADJUNCT, MOD, etc.
Set-valued Attributes (cont’d)

Notation
VP --> V
(NP: (^ OBJ) = !)
PP*: ! $ (^ ADJUNCT).
NP --> (D)
AP*: ! $ (^ ADJUNCT);
N.
Various Kinds of Constraints

Defining equations:
Contribute a value for the specified attribute
Notation: (^ ATTRIBUTE) = value

Constraining equations:
Check whether the specified attribute has the
specified value, but do not contribute/introduce that
value
Notation: (^ ATTRIBUTE) =c value
Example: Lexical entry of verb may want to check
value of PFORM attribute of its PP argument.
Various Kinds of Constraints (cont’d)

Negated constraints:
Enforce that the specified attribute does not have the
specified value.
Notation: (^ ATTRIBUTE) ~= value
Example: Base-form entry of English verb may state
that (^ SUBJ PERS) ~= 3 if (^ SUBJ NUM) = sg.

Existential constraints:
Enforce that the specified attribute has some value,
without specifying which value.
Notation: (^ ATTRIBUTE)
Example: Singular entry of English count noun may
state that (^ DEF).
Example of a constraining
equation

The zookeeper waited for the gorilla.
waited V * PRED=‘wait<(^SUBJ)(^OBL)>’
(^OBL PFORM) =c for
(^TENSE) = past
(^MOOD) = indicative.
Example of a negated constraint

The gorillas wait for the bananas.
wait V * PRED=‘wait<(^SUBJ)(^OBL)>’
(^OBL PFORM) =c for
(^TENSE) = pres
(^MOOD) = indicative
{ (^SUBJ NUM) = pl
| (^SUBJ NUM) = sg
(^SUBJ PERS) ~= 3
}.
Example of an existential
constraint

The gorilla ate *(the) banana.
banana V * PRED=‘banana’
(^ NUM) = sg
(^ DEF).
Various kinds of PPs

Argument PPs with PFORM instead of PRED
for preposition
– Verb/adjective/noun takes a PP argument with a
particular preposition
– Preposition does not really provide any meaning
Ex.: the zookeeper waited for the gorilla

Argument PPs with PRED for preposition
Ex.:the gorilla put the banana in the cage
– Verb/adjective/noun takes a PP argument of a
certain semantic kind
– Preposition does provide same meaning as in
adjuncts
Various kinds of PPs

Adjunct PPs (always with PRED for preposition)
Ex.: the gorilla waited for hours
the gorilla devoured a banana in the cage
– No particular relationship between
verb/adjective/noun and PP
– PP provides additional, but optional information
– Preposition carries meaning
Case restrictions on arguments

Many languages use case to mark the
grammatical function of arguments of verbs,
adjectives, etc.
E.g., in English, nominative pronouns can only be
subjects whereas accusative/oblique pronouns can
only be objects and arguments of prepositions.


However, there is usually not a one-to-one
correspondence between case and
grammatical function.
Especially in South Asian languages, the
relation between case and grammatical
function seems to be a complicated one.
Case restrictions on arguments

There may be default cases for certain
grammatical functions which can be
overwritten by lexically assigned case. I.e.,
some verbs may a assign an argument a
particular case that diverges from the default
case.

Apparently, in some languages, the default
cases for certain grammatical functions can
depend on the tense/aspect of the verb.
Case restrictions on arguments

Back to English:
–
–
–
–
No major complications
Only pronouns encode case
Subjects must be in nominative case
All other arguments must be in accusative/oblique
case
S --> NP: (^ SUBJ)=!
(! CASE)=nom;
VP: ^=!.
she PRON * PRED=‘she’
(^ CASE) = nom
(^ PERS) = 3 (^ NUM) = sg.
Case restrictions on arguments
PP --> P
NP: (! CASE) = acc
{ (^ OBJ)=!
| ^ = !
}.
her PRON * PRED=‘she’
(^ CASE) = acc
(^ PERS) = 3
(^ NUM) = sg.