Stephen M. Wechsler (wechsler@mail.utexas.edu)
Thu, 5 Oct 1995 13:51:04 -0500
>Steve, > >on Aug 25 you wrote to the HPSG list: > >> I am wondering about the proper phrase structure of sentences like the >> following: >> >> 1. Kim left. >> 2. She left. > >On the off chance that nobody has answered your posting >(which I didn't read until yesterday because I was on >vacation), here goes: > >Your structure > >(iii) phrase > / \ > phrase phrase > | | > word word > >is the only one possible, following P&S 94 ("HPSG"). >More elaborately, this looks like: > > S > / \ > SUBJ / \ H > / \ > NP VP > | | > H | | H > | | > N V > | | > Kim left > >if you follow Chapter 9 of P&S 94, where subjects (and >specifiers) are treated differently than other comps. >If you follow Chapters 1-8, the "SUBJ" should be a "C". >Both the NP and the VP are licensed by the Head-Comp- >Schema -- I believe this is called Schema 2. No, the NP cannot be licensed by this Schema; see below. >(The >COMP-DTRS list is empty there.) The S is licensed by >the Head-Subj-Schema (Schema 1, I think). Schema 3 >is ruled out for the S because the V, and hence the S, >is specified as [-INV], while for English, Schema 3 >is restricted to [+INV] -- I think P&S state that >in P&S 87 ("Info-based Syntax & Sem., Vol. 1"). > >Hope that helped, >Ulli Ulli, Thanks for your reply. It was the only one I received. I would have thought that more HPSGians would be interested to know that the version of the theory in P&S 94 fails to generate simple Noun Phrases like [Kim] (without creating new problems; see below). The problem with P&S 94 (HPSG2 version) is that an NP like [Kim] cannot be licensed by the Head-Comp Schema (Schema 2). This Schema specifies that the 'SUBCAT value is a list of length one'-- but the NP's SUBCAT value is the empty list. (And Schema 1 specifies a COMP-DTRS list of length one, which also fails for the NP [Kim].) This leaves Schema 3 as a possibility, but this creates new problems. You are right that Schema 3 is intended for inverted structures, but consider the way this is implemented. P&S 94, p.402 fn. 17 states that 'In the parochial versions of Schemata 1 and 2, the INV value, _if any_, must be minus; in the parochial versions of Schema 3, it must be plus.' The crucial part here is the "if any". Nouns are not specified for INV. It's unclear whether Carl and Ivan intended for the "if any" to apply to Schema 3, but assuming this is the case then N projections can be licensed by it. Then Schema 3 licenses the NP [Kim]-- along with bad NPs like [picture the of Bill] (modulo LP constraints), where [picture], [the], and [of Bill] are sisters. In HPSG3 (i.e. Ch.9) this last problem could probably be solved by setting up the new schemata properly. Recent variants by Ivan which dispense with ID Schemata entirely and instead involve a richer hierarchy of phrase sorts, also seem to work. In the version on the Stanford website, the hd-comp-phrase sort would work for [Kim] and the hd-spr-phrase sort for [the picture of Bill]. Hope you don't mind if I post this back to the hpsg list. best, Steve o----------------------------------------------------------------o | Stephen Wechsler, Assistant Professor of Linguistics | | office: 403 Calhoun; Fall '95 office hrs: Tues. 2-4, Weds. 3-4 | | mail: Linguistics Dept., 501 Calhoun, U. of Texas, | | Austin, TX 78712-1196. ph: (512) 471-1701 | | home: 209 W. 39th St., Austin TX 78751, ph: (512) 371-3670 | o----------------------------------------------------------------o
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Dec 18 1998 - 20:33:04 PST