| { | |
| "paper_id": "C92-1018", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:33:33.674522Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "A Lexicalist Account of Icelandic Case Marking", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Gosse", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bouma", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Groningen", | |
| "location": { | |
| "postBox": "P.O. box 716", | |
| "postCode": "NL-9700 AS", | |
| "settlement": "Groningen", | |
| "country": "The Netherlands" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "Recent theoretical descriptions of the Icelandic case system distinguish between lexicai and structural case. Lexical case is assigned in ttle lexi-COIl, whereas structural case is assigned in syn", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C92-1018", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Recent theoretical descriptions of the Icelandic case system distinguish between lexicai and structural case. Lexical case is assigned in ttle lexi-COIl, whereas structural case is assigned in syn", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "tax, under tim provision that it does not override lexicai case assignment. This analysis is problematic for grammatical theories such as Categorial Unification Grammar (CUG) and Headdriven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) as the introducion of a syntactic case cmnponent is incompatible with the lexicalist ideology underlying these frameworks. Furthermore, the default character of syntactic case introduces a procedural aspect into the grammar which goes against the derlarative spirit of unificationbased frameworks in general. In this paper, I propose an alternative anMysis, formulated in terms of CUC,, in which all case constraints are expressed lexically and in which default reasoning is restricted to nonmonotonic inheritance of lexicai information only.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The Icelandic case marking system I has often been taken as evidence for a distinction between structural (or regular or default) and lexicai (irregular, quirky) case marking. This distinction is introduced to explain the following two facts. First, most verbs select nominative case marked subjects (1), but a number of verbs select accusative, genitive or dative subjects (2)-(4). Similarly, most transitive or ditransitive verbs select an accusative direct object (1), but some select a nominative, dative, or genitive (4)-(6) object.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction: Case Marking and Defaults", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) Stfilkan(N) kyssti drengina(A) the-girls kissed the-boys 1See Andrews (1982) for an extensive overview.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 66, | |
| "end": 80, | |
| "text": "Andrews (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction: Case Marking and Defaults", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) Drengina(A) vantar mat(A) the-boys lacks food", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction: Case Marking and Defaults", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3) Verkjanna(G) g~etir ekki the-pain is-noticeable not The fact that the vast majority of subjects and objects is nominative and accusative, respectively, is accounted for by assigning default status to these cases (that is, if nothing is said about the case of a subject or object, assume it must be nominative or accusative, respectively). Second, passive sentences (7)-(8) and so-called 'raising' constructions (9)-(12) exhibit a distinction between regular and irregular case marked NPs. In transformational terms, the case of regular case marked NPs corresponds with their surface position ((7), (9), and (11)), whereas the case of irregular case marked NPs corresponds to their underlying position ((8), (10), and (12)). (In these examples, tc represents a lexicaily case marked NP-trace and t a trace which has not been assigned case (assunfing that structural case is only assigned to surface NP positions)). recovered-from the-disease", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction: Case Marking and Defaults", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Preservation of irregular case is particularly striking is a sentence such as (13). Although, normally, a verb which selects an accusative object Mways selects a nominative subject when passivized, this is not so in (13), where a raising to object verb has been passived. The lexicai case assigned by the embedded verb vanta is preserved even if raising to object and subsequent passivization takes place.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction: Case Marking and Defaults", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "tA [tA vant;~ peninga] I is believed to-lack money", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(13~ig(h) er tMi3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The interaction of case assignment, raising, and passivization is summarized in the table below (where ~ and [ refer to the underlying and surface NP position, respectively). The distinction between structural and lexical accusative in passives is needed to account for a sentence suetl as (13). Transitive verbs with nominative objects do not passivize (Yip et al., t987, p. 225 ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 354, | |
| "end": 366, | |
| "text": "(Yip et al.,", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 367, | |
| "end": 372, | |
| "text": "t987,", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 373, | |
| "end": 379, | |
| "text": "p. 225", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(13~ig(h) er tMi3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "I nom Nora I Nom Acc/ Acc(s.) NOM IAcc Ace lAce AeeJAce(l. ) Act: IDat Dat IDat l)atlI)at Dat ~1 Gen All previous accounts of these facts ~ have adopted the following two assmnptions:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "e. iw", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 Lexical case is assigned in the lexicon (that is, before the lexical and syntactic l)rocesses responsible for passive formatiml and raising have appfied) attd structural case is assigned in syntax (after idl other syntactic processing has been completed).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Gen", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 Structural case assignment is a default process which can never override lexical case assignments.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Gen", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2Except Sag et at. (to appear) , whose analysis is in many respects similar to the one developed below. Andrews' (1982, p. 485 ) LFG-based account, for instance, assumes two default conventions, applical)le to functional structures (that is, after syntactic processing has been cmnI)leted). First, if the subject is unmarked for case, (direct and indirect) objects are accusative by default (i.e. only if they are not lexically ease marked), and, second, an argmnent must be nominative if no other ease constraint has been imposed upon it. The application of the first convention nmst precede that of the second. Zaenen et al. (1985, p. 466 ) adopt a default case marking convention which appears to be restricted to the lexicon and which assigns nominative case to the highest available grammaticM function (i.e. a grammatical function which is present in the argument (or thematic) structure of a verb attd which has not been assigned lexical case), and accusative to the next highest available grammatical fnnc tiou. Zaenen et al. concentrate primarily on passives and do not present an explicit account t)f raising constructions. Yip ctal. (1987) , inspire([ by i([eas froln autosegmental phonology,", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 8, | |
| "end": 30, | |
| "text": "Sag et at. (to appear)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 104, | |
| "end": 126, | |
| "text": "Andrews' (1982, p. 485", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 613, | |
| "end": 640, | |
| "text": "Zaenen et al. (1985, p. 466", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1134, | |
| "end": 1150, | |
| "text": "Yip ctal. (1987)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Gen", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "propose a system in which a case tier\" [NOM ACC] is associated with verbal arguments in syntatx in a left-to-right fashion, in such a way that NOM is associated with the leftmost argument titat has not been assigned lexical case and hcc is associated with the next available argument. Their account of raising to object assumes that case association is a cyclic rule and that syntactic (as opposed to lexieal) case assignments may be overwritten by syntactic case assignments in higher cycles.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 39, | |
| "end": 48, | |
| "text": "[NOM ACC]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Gen", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "These proposals are prol)lematic for standard unification-based formMisms of the PATR-II variety (Shieber, 1986a) . The default constraints for nominative and accusative case ntarking must not apply if :t lexical case constraint is present already. This ilnlflies that tit(., default constraints cannot be added to the syntactic rules or lexical entries which introduce subjects and objects, as this would make the constraints absolute. Rather, syntactic default case marking principles would have to be added as a filter on syntactic structures or as seperate default rules (much like the syntactic fi.~ature specification defaults of GPSG) whose application must be intertwined with syntactic processing a. Admitting such extensions, however, is potentially damaging to the descriptive adequacy of 3Note that the defaults cannot be 'compiled away' in this case, as is proposed for the feature specification defaults of GPS( / in Shieber (1986b unification-based formalisms, as the. addition of syntactic tilters a<hls a powerful and seemingly unrestricted level of <lescription to the grammar formalism arrd the a<ldition of syntlt<:tic defaults iirtroduces a procedural aspect to syntactic descriptions wbich is absent in tire standard forrealism. The proposals of Andrews (1982) and Yip ~:t al. (1987) are also a challenge for lexicalist ttleories such as I[I'SG and CUC,. The probleni for lexicatist theories is that the default principles above must make use of information which is only available a.fler a certain amount of syn |actic processing has taken place. In raising to object constructions, for instance, the ques-ti<m whether the object must be assigned accusative case or not Call olrly be answered after it is known wbethcr the sul>ject of tire embedded VP is assigned lexical case or not. These con siderations have even been used (in ,lacobson, 1990) as arguments against lexicalist accounts of case marking in generM.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 97, | |
| "end": 113, | |
| "text": "(Shieber, 1986a)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 931, | |
| "end": 945, | |
| "text": "Shieber (1986b", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1268, | |
| "end": 1282, | |
| "text": "Andrews (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1299, | |
| "end": 1305, | |
| "text": "(1987)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1850, | |
| "end": 1870, | |
| "text": "(in ,lacobson, 1990)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Gen", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Below, I will demonstrate that the Icelandic data can ire a.ecounted for declaratively alid in a lexicalist fashion. Ill the next section, I in: troduce a fragment of (;Ill] including raising verbs and passives. Next, the distinction be-tweet| lexicM and structural case is accounted for by assuming that case is encoded as a featurecolnplex and by introducing a system for nonmonotonic iiflmritanee of lexical information. In section 4 I show that this deeomlrosed case system makes it possible to analyze the case patterns found in passive and raising constructions as a reflection of a partial agreement relation. The final section romllares the present proposal with recenl, work by Sag ctal. (to appear).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Gen", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this section, I will l)r'esent a brief outline of Categorial Unification Gralnmar ((~U(',), a unitication-based version of Categorial Grammar (see, ainong others, Uszkoreit (f986), Karttunen (1989) , Bouma (1988) , alld Zeevat (1988) , for details). In particular, the treatment of raising verbs and passives will be adressed. The categories of categoriM grammar can be encoded as feature-structures using tire feature CAT(EGORY) to represent basic categories and the Datures VaL(UE), ARG(UMENT) and DIR(E(:TIONALITY) to represent complex care- t assume a categorial grammar which provides (at least) the following combinatory rules:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 184, | |
| "end": 200, | |
| "text": "Karttunen (1989)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 203, | |
| "end": 215, | |
| "text": "Bouma (1988)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 223, | |
| "end": 236, | |
| "text": "Zeevat (1988)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Categorial Unification Grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Right Application: ofl.,X ~, t~,X/Y fl, Y Left Application: ties, X => fl, Y ~, Y\\X Right Wrap: cqfl(~,X => c*la2, X/Y fl, Y", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Categorial Unification Grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "These rules can ire thought of as licencing certain operations on strings arid feature structures, q'his is illustrated for leftward application in (16)below. All eombinatory rules unify the value of the [unctor daughter with the feature structure of the mother aild unify the argument of the funetor with the argument daughter.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Categorial Unification Grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Raising verbs subcategorize for a VP-complement (i.e. a category NP\\,5 ~) the subject of which is controlled by an NP-argument of the raising verb. Following Bach (1979) I assume that the controller is always the so-called ti.ext-argur~er~t-itl. That is, a 'raising to subject' verb such as seem receives the category (NI>\\,5)/VP, ~I use X/Y and Y\\X a:~ shorthand for whereas a 'raising to object' verb such ,as cxpect is categorized ms (VP/NP)/VP. This implies that such verbs combine with their object using right wrapS: 17expects Bob to go, VP expects to go, VP/ NP Bob, NP expects, (VP/NP)/VP to go, VP", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 158, | |
| "end": 169, | |
| "text": "Bach (1979)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Categorial Unification Grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The semantic and syntactic implications of the relation between the controlling NP and the subject of the VP-complement can be implemented by making these two arguments reentrant. I will ignore tits aspect of the analysis below (but see Pollard &, Sag (to appear) for an aimlysis which makes a similar assumption).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 237, | |
| "end": 263, | |
| "text": "Pollard &, Sag (to appear)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Categorial Unification Grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Passive auxiliaries subcategorize for a passive TVP (i.e. a category VP/NP with passive morphology) and a subject NP (that is, I adopt a lexicalized version of the analysis in Bach (1980) ). The fact that the subject is interpreted as the object of the '['VP cat) again be implemented by making these two argument positions reentrant. Since raising to object verbs are functors which are reducible to TVI', this analysis predicts that such verbs may be passivized: a feature complex. 'l?bat is, instead of using a single fi~atnre CASE, i will use three distinct features. The feature STItU(:T distinguishes between structural and lexical case, and the features Lt;X and NOM distinguish between the various lexical cases and between nominative and accusative structurM case, respectively. The data in section 1 show that genitive and dative case are always lexical (i.e. non-structural), that accusative may be lexical (if assigned to subjects) as well as structural (if assigned to olljects), and that nominative is always structurM. Therefore, I assume that the templates NOM, Acc, I)AT, and (JEN assign the values specified in Note that tile fact that accusative acts a,s a structural case for objects has been added explicitly.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 176, | |
| "end": 187, | |
| "text": "Bach (1980)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Categorial Unification Grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Both structural and lexical case assigning verbs are defined in terms oftlm templates ill (20). For structurM case assigning verbs only their category needs to be specified. The detinitions of lexicM case assigning verbs, on the other hand, will contain explicit case constraints. To avoid feature-clashes, I assume that these irregular verbs inherit nonmonotonically from the tern- ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Categorial Unification Grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Note also that vantar assigns ]exicM (i.e. nonstructural) accusative case to its subject. The definitions above capture the intuitive difference between structural and lexical case. If a verb assigns structural, default case, only its category needs to be specified, the relevant case constraints follow by inheritance. If a verb assigns lexical case, however, case must be specified explicitly. Although tids analysis introduces a limited form of nonmonotonicity, this does not endanger the declarative nature of the grammar. The definitions in (21) still denote feature struc-tures~ and thus, the effect of combining default and non-default information can be computed at compile time. That is, there are no formal difl'erences between a grammar using nonmonotonic inheritance and agrammar which does not. Furthermore, in Bouma (to appear) it is demom strated that the inheritance operation itself can be defined declaratively. What is gained by using nonmonotouic inheritance is the fact that it supports a direct and natural implementation of certain linguistic observations.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lnom", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this section I argue that the case preservation pheuomena which can be observed in raising and passive constructions are a reflection of a (partial) case agreement relation between two NP-argument positions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Case Preservation", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "~br raising to subject verbs, for instance, the case of controlling subject is Mways identical to the subject case constraint specified by the embedded VP (that is, I assume that infinitival verbs may specify structural, nominative, case for their subject). Thus, raising to subject verbs can be defined as in (23). The paths (val arg) and (arg arg) refer to the controlling and controlled NP, respectively. (23) R-to-S : ( xv/yp (val arg struct) = (a,:q arg struct) (,,.1 ..j lex) : (.,g .,9 l~x) (..t .,v nora) = (.-j \"'V ,,ore) ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 326, | |
| "end": 335, | |
| "text": "(val arg)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 422, | |
| "end": 423, | |
| "text": "(", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 467, | |
| "end": 531, | |
| "text": "(,,.1 ..j lex) : (.,g .,9 l~x) (..t .,v nora) = (.-j \"'V ,,ore)", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Case Preservation", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The feature structures denoted by this template and by the templates defined below are shown in figure 1.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Case Preservation", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Raising to object verbs, on the other hand, do not take nominative objects and thus require that their object is [NOM -]. The other case features again agree: Note that if the VP-complement assigns nominative case to its subject argmnent, the object is specified as [STItUCT +, NOM -], This impfies that the object must be accusative, as only the case template Ace will unify with this specification. In all other cases, the lexical case assigned by the Vl'-complement will be preserved. In particular, a lexical accusative subject gives rise to the following derivation: ( vv/'rvl, (v.l .,,a no,,0 = ( ,t,.u ,,,v ,~,.,,~t) ( oat .,v t~.) -( ,,.,j ,,,.g t~,) ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 572, | |
| "end": 587, | |
| "text": "( vv/'rvl, (v.l", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 588, | |
| "end": 623, | |
| "text": ".,,a no,,0 = ( ,t,.u ,,,v ,~,.,,~t)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 626, | |
| "end": 658, | |
| "text": "oat .,v t~.) -( ,,.,j ,,,.g t~,)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Case Preservation", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In passives, the question whether a nomina~ tire subject will appear or not is determined by the question whether the object of tim TVPcomplement receives structural case or not. If the object was marked for one of the lexical cases GEN or I)AT, this case will also appear on the subject. A structural accusative object gives rise to a [NOM -~-, LEX ACC] specitication for the subject, which is unitiable with the case template NOM only. A lexieai accusative object (as in (25)), on tit(.' other hand, gives rise to a [NOM -,LEX ACC] sul)ject, a specilicati(m which is only unifiable witil Acc. Note that this accounts for example (13), which showed that lexical accusative case imlst be preserved in passive constructions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Case Preservation", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the previous sections I have argued that, contrary to what has been assumed in previous work, the Icehmdic case system does not provide compelling evidence for the introduction of a nonlnonotonic syntactic case conlpollent.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Concluding Remarks", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The same conclusion is reached by Sag et aL (to appear), who present an analysis formulated in terms of IIPSG (Pollard & Sag, 1987, to appear) which emphasizes the theoretical and methodologic~d advantages of a declarative, lex~ icallst, solution. Their analysis rests on the assulnption that case is encoded using the two featltl'e8 CASI.; atld I)CASI';~ where the latter i8 used t() encode the default c~L~(: of certain argument tmsitioas. The distinction between structured and lexical case assigning verbs is implemented as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 110, | |
| "end": 142, | |
| "text": "(Pollard & Sag, 1987, to appear)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Concluding Remarks", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Non-quirky verbs require that the DCASE and CASE values of their subjects be identified (structure-shared). Quirky verbs impose uo snch identity, and select at particular CASE value for their subject.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Concluding Remarks", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "[t is assumed that raising verbs specit~\u00a2 that tile controlling and controlled NI' are reentraut. Note that this predicts that the case of a lexical (quirky) case assigning verb is always preserved. If a raising verb combines with a Vt'conq)lentent which assigns structural case to its subject, the features ChS~; and D('ASE of the controlling NI' will also be reentrant. Since objects are always (lexically) specilied as [PEASE A(:C], this implies that a raising to object verb which coml)ines with a structural case assigning VP nmst take an accusative case marked object. Subjects are assumed to be marked as {I)\u00a3:ASl.; NOM] by the syntax rule which introduces subjects. Thus, raising to subject verbs that coinbine with a structural case assigning VP can only take a nominative suhject.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Concluding Remarks", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The fact that the ca.se of subjects is deternfined at least in part by syntax is surprising, given the lcxicalist ~pproach advocated by Sag et al.. It is essential for their analysis, however, that subjects of infinitives are not assigned nominative default ease in the lexicon, as this would make it impossible for a raising to object verb to combine with its VP-complement 6. In the account above, there was no need to introduce syntactic case marking principles. One might even maintain that this account, apart from being truly lexica[, also has the advantage that it avoids the procedural flavor of the analysis of Sag et al., which, a3though formulated declaratively, makes essential use of the fact that nominative default case is imposed during syntactic processing, whereas all other case constraints are imposed beforehand (i.e. in the lexicon).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Concluding Remarks", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Sag et al. (to appear) do not adress the case marking patterns of passives. The most obvious way in which their analysis could cover these facts would be to assume the passive lexical rule presented in Pollard & Sag (1987, p. 215) . This seems to account for the facts immediately, given the additional assumi)tion that objects are marked as [DCASI~ ACC] after passive has applied. Note, however, that this would imply a slightly different lexical component than is standardly assumed in HPSG, and, perhaps nmre disturbing, would introduce explicit ordering of lexical rules or rule types.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 202, | |
| "end": 230, | |
| "text": "Pollard & Sag (1987, p. 215)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Concluding Remarks", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Acres DE COLING-92, NAI,rI'I~S, 23-28 Ao~r 1992", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Paoc. o~, COLING-92, N^NTUS, A~6.23-28, 1992", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Linguistics ~5 Philosophy 3, pp. 297-341. Bouma, Gosse (1988 ", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 42, | |
| "end": 60, | |
| "text": "Bouma, Gosse (1988", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "annex", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "The Representation of Case in Modern Icelandic", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Avery", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Andrews", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Andrews, Avery (1982). The Representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. In J. Bresnan (ed.)", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "427--503", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "The Mental Representation of Grammatical Re- lations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 427- 503.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Control in Montague Grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Emmon", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bach", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1979, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "10", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "515--532", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Bach, Emmon (1979). Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10, pp. 515-532.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Defense of Passive", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Emmon", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bach", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1980, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Bach, Emmon (1980). In Defense of Passive.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Feature Structures and Nonmonotonicity. Groningen University. Comptational Linguistics 18", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Gosse", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bouma", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Bouma, Gosse (to appear). Feature Structures and Nonmonotonicity. Groningen University. Comptational Linguistics 18.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Raising as Function Composition", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Pauline", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jacobson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics ~ Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "13", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "423--476", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jacobson, Pauline (1990). Raising as Function Composition. Linguistics ~ Philosophy 13, pp. 423-476.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Radical Lexicalism", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Lauri", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karttunen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Karttunen, Lauri (1989). Radical Lexicalism.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Alte~ntive Conceptions of Phrase Structul~e", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "43--66", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "In M. Ilaltin & A. Kroch (eds.) Alte~ntive Con- ceptions of Phrase Structul~e, Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 43-66.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, vol I: Fundamentals", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Carl & Ivan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pollard", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "CSLI Lecture Notes", | |
| "volume": "13", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Pollard, Carl & Ivan Sag (1987). Information- Based Syntax and Semantics, vol I: Fundamen- tals, CSLI Lecture Notes 13, University of Chica- go Press, Chicago.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Information-Based Syntax and Semantics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Carl ~ Ivan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pollard", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "Agremeat, Binding, and Control, CSLI Lecture Notes", | |
| "volume": "II", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Pollard, Carl ~ Ivan Sag (to appear). Informat- ion-Based Syntax and Semantics, vol II: Agre- meat, Binding, and Control, CSLI Lecture Notes, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "A Lexical Analysis of Icelandic Case", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ivan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Lauri", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karttunen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jeffrey", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Goldberg", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "Lexical Matters", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Sag, Ivan, Lauri Karttunen, & Jeffrey Goldberg (to appear). A Lexical Analysis of Icelandic Case. In I. S:~.g & A. Szabolesi (eds.), Lexi- cal Matters, CSLI Lecture Notes, Univerity of Chicago Press, Chicago.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "An httroduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Stuart", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Shieher", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "CSLI Lecture Notes", | |
| "volume": "4", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Shieher, Stuart (1986a). An httroduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar, CSLI Lecture Notes 4, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "A Simple reconstrucion of GPSG", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Stuart", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Shieber", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of Coling 1986, Instltut ffir angewandte Kommunikantions-und Sprachforschung", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "211--215", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Shieber, Stuart (1986b). A Simple reconstru- cion of GPSG . Proceedings of Coling 1986, In- stltut ffir angewandte Kommunikantions-und Sprachforschung, Bonn, pp. 211-215.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "CategoriaI Unification Grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Hans", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Uskoreit", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of Coling", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "187--194", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Uskoreit, Hans (1986). CategoriaI Unification Grammar. Proceedings of Coling 1986, Institut ffir angewandte Kommunikantions-und Sprach- forschung, Bonn, pp. 187-194.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "Case in Tiers. Language", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Moira", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Yip", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Joan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mallng", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "63", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "217--250", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Yip, Moira, Joan Mallng, & Ray Jackendoff (1987). Case in Tiers. Language 63, pp. 217- 250.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language Linguistic Theory 3", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Annie", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Zaenen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Joan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Maling", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "441--484", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, & HSskuldur Thr\u00a3insson (1985). Case and Grammatical Func- tions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language Linguistic Theory 3, pp. 441-484.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF17": { | |
| "ref_id": "b17", | |
| "title": "Combining Categorial Grammar and Unification", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Henk", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Zeevat", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1988, | |
| "venue": "NatuT~al Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories, Reidel, Dordreeht", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "202--229", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Zeevat, Henk (1988). Combining Categorial Grammar and Unification. In Uwe Reyle Christian Rohrer (eds.) NatuT~al Language Pars- ing and Linguistic Theories, Reidel, Dordreeht, pp. 202-229.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "Eg mun sakna hans(G) I will miss him", | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF2": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "(v\"O = X (v\"O = X (air) = right and (dir) = ,'ight . (.,v) = v <.,v} = ~\"", | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF3": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "24) R-to-O : ( (IV/NP)/VP(val auI nora) = -(val arg struct) = ( an2 arg struct) (val a~ lex) : ( ar 9 arg lex) ).", | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF4": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "Feature structures for R-To-S, R-'ro-O, and PAss-Allx Passive auxiliaries, finally, are detined as follows: (26) l'ass-Aux :", | |
| "type_str": "figure" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF1": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "Icelandic Case Patterns", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table/>", | |
| "html": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF3": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "The specification[CA]' -] is needed only to make complex categories non-unifilthle with basic categories. [ will omit this specification in tile examples below. The template system ill (15) <lefines the basic inwmtory of categories that is itssumed in the sequel 4.", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">gories. The category NP\\,S', for instance, is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">translated as:</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\"><1,,/ira, {c t s 1 / dir left |arg [cat np]</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Lcat -</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>(1.5) NI'</td><td>:</td><td colspan=\"2\">(cat) = up ).</td></tr><tr><td>x</td><td>:</td><td>(cat> =.~</td><td>).</td></tr><tr><td>VI'</td><td>:</td><td>NI>\\S</td><td>).</td></tr><tr><td>TVP</td><td>:</td><td>VP/NP</td><td>).</td></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF4": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">to tim features lnentioned M)ove. The</td></tr><tr><td>Acc[</td><td>ace</td></tr><tr><td>!)AT] -</td><td>dat</td></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF5": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">: l)ecomposing CASE</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">fact that A(:c is unspecilied for STRUCT i8 im-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">portant in the account of case preservation pre-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">sented below. Note that these four template def-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">initions denote incompatible feature structures</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">and thus can be used to defiim the morphologi-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">cal case of NPs in lexicM entries:</td></tr><tr><td>(18)</td><td>w~ expected to go, VP</td><td>(19) ~tdlkan</td><td>: ( NI\" Nora ).</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">DreT~gina : ( NP Ace ).</td></tr><tr><td/><td>was, VP/TVP expected to go, 'I'VP</td><td colspan=\"3\">Intransitive and transitive verbs, are detined</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">as follows (where +STRUCT denotes a positive</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">3 Distinguishing Lexical and</td><td colspan=\"2\">vMue for STRUCT):</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Structural Case</td><td>(20) IV:(</td><td>(NI'Nom)\\S</td><td>).</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">The most important tool for expressing linguis-</td><td colspan=\"3\">TV :( IV/(Nf\" Ace +Struct) ).</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">tic generalizations in unification-based fornta-</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">fisms is the template meclmnism. In this sec-</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">tion, I iutroduce the template system for case</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">and show how nonmonotonic template inheri-</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">tance call be used to account for the default</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">character of structurM case.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">The distinction between lexical and structural</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">case can be made explicit if case is encoded as</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">5The feature structures above encode only the direc-</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">tionality of fimctors, not their mode of comhination (i.e.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">application or wrap). It is possible to add a feature which</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">encodes this information explicitly.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">ACRES DE COLlNG-92. NANTES, 23-28 Ao~rr 1992</td><td/><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |