Argument Structure, Valence, and Binding

This paper develops within HPSG a model of grammar with two syntactic levels, valence lists and argument structure, at which sentences may have different representations: syntactically ergative and Western Austronesian languages are distinctive by allowing different prominence orderings between the valence lists and argument structure, while forms like passives and causatives have nested argument structure lists. While binding theory and related phenomena have traditionally been described in terms of surface grammatical relations or configurations, we demonstrate that binding theory is actually correctly described in terms of argument structure configurations. Such an approach generalizes nicely over accusative and ergative constructions, correctly predicts binding patterns with causative and passive verbs, and supports the lexicality-preserving account of passives and causatives advocated within HPSG.

[1]  Gilbert C. Rappaport,et al.  On anaphor binding in Russian , 1986 .

[2]  David R. Dowty Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[3]  S. Levinson Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited , 1991, Journal of Linguistics.

[4]  Sara Thomas Rosen,et al.  Argument structure and complex predicates , 1990 .

[5]  W. O'grady,et al.  Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy , 1987 .

[6]  M. Zubizarreta The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives , 1985 .

[7]  Paul. Schachter,et al.  Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects , 1977 .

[8]  Masayo Iida Context and binding in Japanese , 1996 .

[9]  S. Wechsler The semantic basis of argument structure , 1995 .

[10]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[11]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[12]  Charles N. Li,et al.  Subject and topic , 1979 .

[13]  Masayoshi Shibatani,et al.  Voice in Philippine languages , 1988 .

[14]  Alex Alsina,et al.  On the argument structure of causatives , 1992 .

[15]  Michael T. Wescoat,et al.  Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , 1983 .

[16]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[17]  Barry William Miller Non-configurationality in Tagalog , 1988 .

[18]  K. Mohanan Grammatical relations and anaphora in malayalam , 1981 .

[19]  Anthony Ruiz Davis,et al.  Lexical semantics and linking in the hierarchical lexicon , 1996 .

[20]  Wendy K. Wilkins,et al.  Thematic Structure and Reflexivization , 1988 .

[21]  Christopher D. Manning Ergativity : Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations , 2000 .

[22]  Anthony C. Woodbury Greenlandic Eskimo, Ergativity, and Relational Grammar , 1977 .

[23]  Ann Copestake,et al.  The Representation of Lexical Semantic Information , 1992 .

[24]  R. Borsley Phrase-structure grammar and the Barriers conception of clause structure , 1989 .

[25]  Paul Kroeger,et al.  Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog , 1992 .

[26]  Walt Detmar Meurers,et al.  Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies { a Case Study of Bar-adjectives in German { , 1993 .

[27]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Information-based syntax and semantics , 1987 .

[28]  A. Belletti,et al.  Psych-verbs and θ-theory , 1988 .

[29]  R. M. W. Dixon,et al.  Ergativity: Index of languages and language families , 1994 .

[30]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  French Clitic Movement Without Clitics or Movement , 1997 .

[31]  Brian D. Joseph,et al.  Studies in relational grammar , 1984 .

[32]  Alex Alsina The role of argument structure in grammar : evidence from romance , 1998 .

[33]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing , 1988 .

[34]  David E. Johnson,et al.  On Relational Constraints on Grammars , 1977 .

[35]  C. Pollard Anhaphors in English and the scope of binding theory , 1992 .

[36]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  A new perspective on chinese ziji , 1994 .

[37]  Stephen Wechsler,et al.  Syntactic Ergativity in Balinese: An Argument Structure Based Theory , 1998 .

[38]  久野 暲 Functional syntax : anaphora, discourse and empathy , 1987 .

[39]  Maria Bittner,et al.  Case, scope, and binding , 1993 .

[40]  Judith Aissen The syntax of causative constructions , 1979 .

[41]  Jerrold M. Sadock,et al.  Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation , 1980 .

[42]  Mary Dalrymple,et al.  The syntax of anaphoric binding , 1993 .

[43]  Danièle Godard,et al.  Extraction of De-Phrases from the French NP , 1994 .

[44]  Otto Jespersen,et al.  The Philosophy of Grammar , 1924 .

[45]  Richard S. Kayne,et al.  French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle , 1975 .

[46]  Desmond C. Derbyshire,et al.  Passive and Voice , 1988 .

[47]  Lars Hellan,et al.  Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar , 1988 .

[48]  Lioba J. Moshi,et al.  Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax , 1990 .

[49]  Robert D. Van Valin,et al.  Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar , 1984 .

[50]  Tara Warrier Mohanan,et al.  Arguments in Hindi , 1990 .

[51]  R. Jackendoff MME. Tussaud meets the binding theory , 1992 .

[52]  Patrick M. Farrell,et al.  Grammatical relations : a cross-theoretical perspective , 1990 .

[53]  Susanne Z. Riehemann,et al.  Type-based derivational morphology , 1998 .

[54]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar: The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives , 1999 .

[55]  J. Bresnan,et al.  The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu , 1995 .