schemata for building a clause [ s np vp][ np det n] [ vp v np] objectives: describing english...

Schemata for building a clause

[S NP VP] [NP Det N] [VP V NP]

Objectives: • Describing English• Arriving at a universal inventory of such schematas

(the structure building devices used in every language)

• that may constitute the basis for language acquisition

Invisible structures S

NP VP

Det N V NP

Det N

some linguist hates every cat

no human speaks every language

[S NP VP] [NP Det N] [VP V NP]

S NP VP NP Det N VP V NP

A few more pieces: More VP

S

NP VP

Det N Aux V NP

Det A Nevery cat will eat a fat mouse

[[every cat]NP [will eat [a fat mouse]NP]VP]S

More VP

• [VP V NP] [VP Aux V NP]

• hit Bill will hit Bill

has

does

• [VP V] runs John runs

• [VP (Aux) V (NP)]

More NP

• [NP Det A N]

The black horse

• [NP N]

Dogs bark

John sings

• [NP (Det) (A) N]

Generating Constituent Structure

[[every cat]NP [will eat [a fat mouse]NP]VP]S

• S NP VP [NP VP]S

• NP (Det) (A) N [(Det) (A) N]NP

• VP (Aux) V (NP) [(Aux) V (NP)]NP

• i. N {cat, cats, Leo, …}

ii. V {snore, eat, love, …}

iii. Det {every, the …}

iv. Aux {will, has, …}

Local adjustments

Agreementa. i. he loves Joe ii. they love Joe

lovesV{3rd, SG} loveV{3rd, PL}

heN{3rd, SG} theyN{3rd, PL}

b. i. S [NPF VPF] ii. VPF VF NPSubcategorization• i. Leo ate ii. Leo ate pizza

iii. *Leo loved iv. *Leo died Bill

love: __ NP die: __ eat: __(NP)

Prepositional Phrases:Internal structure and external distribution

[with [every good intention]NP]PP

[just after lunch][right in] John walked right in

PP (Adv) P (NP) [(Adv) P (NP)]PP

a. I spoke just after lunch with every good intentionb. A chat just after lunch with every good intention is

badly neededNP (Det) (A) N (PP*)VP (Aux) (Adv) V (NP) (PP*)VP be PP/AP/NP be on the roof/clever/ a doctor

What we got so far

• John runs• Some dogs run in the park• John hit Bill in the kitchen• * John hit in the kitchen• A man with a beard is on the roof• John ate every sandwhich on the table• John saw the woman with dark eyes in the park

How to get there

S

NP VP

Det N PP PP

P NP P NP

Det N Det N

A man with a beard is on the roof• NP Det N PP NP Det N• VP is PP PP P NP

Recursion

a. PP (Adv) P (NP)b. NP (Det) (A) N (PP*)i. most cats love meii. most cats [from Italy] love meiii. most cats [from [a city in Italy]] love meiv. most cats [from [a city in [the mountains in Italy]]]

love meProductivity: we can produce (and understand) an indefinite number of phrases while having only verylimited cognitive resources

Structural ambiguity

I threatened the boy with a knifea. i. the boy I threatened was with a knife

ii. the threatening was with a knife

b. i. I [threatened [the boy]NP [with a knife]PP]VP

ii. I [threatened [the boy with a knife ]NP ]VP

• i. VP ii. VP

V NP PP V NP

[the boy] [with a knife] [the boy][ with a knife]

Structural ambiguity and constituency tests

I threatened the boy with a knife– Proforms

i. I threatened him with a knifeCannot mean the boy was with a knife

ii. I threatened himb. Dislocation

i. It is the boy I threatened with a knifeCannot mean the boy was with a knife

ii. It is the boy with a knife that I threatenedCannot mean the threatening was with a knife

Pronominalization patterns

I [threatened [the boy with a knife]NP]

i. I threatened him with a knife

ii. I threatened him• *(i) (ii)

I [threatened [the boy]NP [with a knife]PP]

(i) * (ii)

Pervasiveness of structural ambiguity

• An uncle of the boy from Rome complained

• I have met many clever women and men

• John does not think that Mary left and Bill complained

• Mary declared that John attacked Bill in the garden

• Flying planes can be dangerous

Factors that affect ambiguity resolution

• The semantics of the items involvedI saw the boy with a red sweaterI saw the boy through a hole in the wall

• Contextual knowledgeI saw the boy with my binocular

• World knowledgeI didn’t recognize the boy with a hatI recognized the boy with my eyes

Structural vs. lexical ambiguity

• I went to the bank

• Ho comprato una piantina

(I) have bought a little plant/ a map

• I found the bug I found the flea

• I threatened the boy with a knife

More recursion

• VP V CP CP C S C that

say, claim, believe, know,… __ CP

John claims that Mary smokes

John said that Bill claims that Mary smokes

John said that Bill claims that Mary knows that every cat is on the roof

….

What Phrase Structure [ = Constituent Structure] is

• Native speakers develop spontaneously an implicit knowledge about well formed structures in their language

• Words are put together into constituents (not into structureless sequences of words)

• This can be seen through a series of tests (having to do with coordination, dislocation, etc.) that tap the speakers’ knowledge

The theory of Phrase Structure

• Constituent structure can be characterized through a set of rules/schemata of the form

X Y1,…,Yn [X Y1,…Yn]

where X and Yi are drawn from an inventory of linguistic categories- All languages (and all machines) can be described through generalizations of rules of this sort

Evidence for the theory of phrase structure

• How it accounts for constituency tests

• How it explains structural ambiguity

• How it explains the productivity of language

Summary again

1. S NP VP

2. CP C S

3. NP (Det) (A) N (PP*)

4. VP (Aux) (Adv) V (NP)(CP) (PP*)

5. PP (Adv) P (NP)

These rules characterize our knowledge of

English

(the competence of a native speaker)

The competence/performance distinction

• Performance: the use of our knowledge in concrete speech acts* John too much wine drank* He like MaryDo you like beans? * I like

• Things that enter into performance: state of attention/health, what you have ingested, sudden changes in plans,…

What is next

• Of all the conceivable ways of forming languages, humans seem to have evolved one that has rather specific properties (e.g. it has a constituent structure of a certain sort).How can we characterize them?

• There are very diverse ways of getting at this.- Through mathematical considerations about the ‘generative power’ of natural languages- Through empirical refinement of our hypotheses

Towards a better theory of Phrase Structure

1. S NP VP

2. CP C S

3. NP (Det) (A) N (PP*)

4. VP (Aux) (Adv) V (NP)(CP) (PP*)

5. PP (Adv) P (NP)

Phrases tend to have a center (the head)

XP YP X ZP

Directions to explore

• Maybe all phrases have a head (including those that do not seem to)

• The structure of major constituents remains rather flat; maybe we should take a second look

VP

Aux V NP CP PP

Towards a better theory of phrase structure: A second look at the VP

VP

Adv V NP PPoften smokes [a cigarette] [in the garden]

John often smokes a cigarette in the gardenMary does tooMary rarely doesMary rarely does in the kitchen* Mary rarely does the pipe in the garden

Binary branching within the VP

VP

Adv VP

VP PP

V NP

John often smokes a cigarette in the garden

Mary does too

Mary rarely does

Mary rarely does in the kitchen

The coordination test

VP1

Adv VP2

VP3 PP

V NP

John [[often smokes a cigarette in the garden]

and [rarely smokes a cigar in the bedroom]] VP1

John often [[smokes a cigarette in the garden] and [drinks

beer in the living room]] VP2John often [smokes a cigarette and drinks beer] in the garden VP3

A left-right asymmetry

[VP Adv VP] [VP VP PP] [VP V NP]John often drinks wine in the kitchen after dinner with friends…* John often rarely sometimes… drinks beer* John often drinks wine juice after dinner

[VP Adv V’] [V’ V’ PP] [V’ V NP]Non rec. Rec. Non rec.

Findings

The VP comes in binary branching layerswith both recursive and non recursive strata VP = V’’

Adv V’

V’ [in the park]PP

often V NPsmokes [a cigarette]

Arguments: [V NP]V’ vs. Adjuncts: [V’ NP]V’

Arguments: non recursive and closer to the head

a. i. I ate pizza ii.* I ate lunch pizza

iii. I ate pizza in the park

iv. ? I ate in the park pizza

Adjuncts: recursive and freer in order

I ate pizza for lunch in the park

I ate pizza in the park for lunch