Dissociations between Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations

In what are colloquially known as HPSG1 and HPSG2 (Pollard and Sag 1987, Pollard and Sag 1994:Ch. 1–8), the subcategorized arguments of a head are stored on a single ordered list, the subcat list. However, Borsley (1989) argues that there are various deficiencies in this approach, and suggests that the unified list should be split into separate lists for subjects, complements, and specifiers. This proposal has been widely adopted in HPSG3 (Pollard and Sag (1994:Ch. 9)) and other recent work in HPSG. Such a move provides in HPSG an analog of the external/internal argument distinction generally adopted in GB, solves certain technical problems such as allowing prepositions to take complements rather than things identical in subcat list position to subjects, and allows recogniton of the special features of subjects which have been noted in the LFG literature, where keyword grammatical relations are employed (see Pollard and Sag (1994:Ch. 9) for more detailed justification). In the HPSG3 theory, it is these valence features subj, comps and spr whose values are ‘cancelled off’ (in a Categorial Grammar-like manner) as a head projects a phrase. A lexical head combines with its complements and subject or specifier (if any) according to the lexically inherited specification, as shown in (1).

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

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

[3]  Anthony R. Davis,et al.  Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon , 2000 .

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

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

[6]  Anne Abeillé,et al.  Two Kinds of Composition in French Complex Predicates , 1997 .

[7]  Vivian M. Forsberg A Pedagogical Grammar of Tboli. , 1992 .

[8]  Joan Bresnan,et al.  Locative inversion in Chichewa: a case study of factorization in grammar , 1989 .

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

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

[11]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  Issues in Italian Syntax , 1981 .

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

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

[14]  J. Runner Ergativity : Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations , 2000 .

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

[16]  Philip H. Miller,et al.  Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar , 1992 .

[17]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  THE MORPHOLEXICAL NATURE OF ENGLISH TO-CONTRACTION , 1997 .

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

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

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

[21]  Gosse Bouma,et al.  Satisfying Constraints on Extraction andAdjunction , 2001 .

[22]  David M. Perlmutter,et al.  Clause Reduction in Spanish , 1976 .

[23]  Detmar MeurersSonderforschungsbereich Towards a Semantics for Lexical Rulesas used in HPSGWalt , 1995 .

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

[25]  益子 真由美 Argument Structure , 1993, The Lexicon.

[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.  A new perspective on chinese ziji , 1994 .

[28]  Sarah Johanna Bell,et al.  Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. , 1976 .

[29]  R. Oehrle,et al.  Books Awaiting Review , 1984, CL.

[30]  김상혁 영어의 능격성(Ergativity) , 2003 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[39]  H. Farmer A new perspective. , 1988, The Journal of the Florida Medical Association.

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

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

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

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

[44]  Yoshihisa Kitagawa Subjects in Japanese and English , 2018 .

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

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

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