Grammatical Relations and Lexical Functional GrammarGrammatical RelationsGrammatical Relations in Grammar FormalismsMotivation for Grammatical Relations: Subject-Verb AgreementChecking the hypothesesSome differences between English and Warlpiri (Australia)Some DefinitionsPossible word orders in Warlpiri that are not possible in EnglishSlide 9English and Warlpiri Under Hypothesis 3English and Warlpiri under Hypothesis 3Slide 12English and Warlpiri under Hypothesis 4Slide 14Slide 15Keeping ScoreLevels of Representation in LFGA surpriseSurprise (continued)How to associate phrases with their semantic roles in LFGSlide 21Active and PassivePassive mappingsHow you know that the active and passive have the same meaningSlide 25Wh-questionFunctional StructureSlide 28Semantic FormsWhy is it called a Functional Structure?Slide 31Give a name to each functionHow to describe an f-structureDescriptions can be true or falseThis is the notation we really useChains of function applicationMore f-descriptionsSlide 38Slide 39Slide 40Grammatical Relationsand Lexical Functional GrammarGrammar FormalismsSpring Term 2004Grammatical Relations•Subject–Sam ate a sandwich.–A sandwich was eaten by Sam.•Direct object–Sam ate a sandwich.–Sue gave Sam a book.–Sue gave a book to Sam.•Others that we will define laterGrammatical Relations in Grammar Formalisms•Tree Adjoining Grammar:–Subject is defined structurally: first NP daughter under S–Object is defined structurally: NP that is a sister to V–But TAG output can be mapped to a dependency grammar tree that includes subject and object.•Categorial Grammar:–Grammatical relations are defined structurally if at all.•Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar:–Subject is defined indirectly as the first element on the verb’s subcategorization list.•Lexical Functional Grammar:–Grammatical relations are labelled explicitly in a feature structure.Motivation for Grammatical Relations: Subject-Verb Agreement–Sam likes sandwiches.–*Sam like sandwiches.–The boys like sandwiches.–*The boys likes sandwiches.•Hypothesis 1: The verb agrees with the agent.•Hypothesis 2: The verb agrees with the first NP.•Hypothesis 3: The verb agrees with the NP that is a sister of VP.•Hypothesis 4: The verb agrees with the subject.–Vacuous unless we have a definition or test for subjecthood.Checking the hypotheses•Hypothesis 1:–Can you think of a counterexample in English.?•Hypothesis 2:–Can you think of a counterexample in English?–Can you think of a counterexample in another language that has subject-verb agreeement?•(not Japanese or Chinese)Some differences between English and Warlpiri (Australia)The two small children are chasing that dog. Aux V NP NP VP VP’ SWita-jarra-rlu ka-pala wajili-pi-nyi yalumpu kurdu-jarra-rlu maliki.Small-DU-ERG pres-3duSUBJ chase-NPAST that.ABS child-DU-ERG dog.ABS NP AUX V NP NP NP SSome Definitions•Case marking: different word form depending on the grammatical relation:–She ate a sandwich. (nominative case marking: subject)–*Her ate a sandwich.–Sam saw her. (accusative or objective case marking: object)–*Sam saw she.•Ergative case marking:–Marks the subject, but only if the verb is transitive (has a direct object).•Absolutive case marking:–Marks the subject, but only if the verb is intransitive.–Also marks the direct object. •English has nominative and accusative case markers on pronouns.•English does not have ergative or absolutive case marking.Possible word orders in Warlpiri that are not possible in English•*The two small are chasing that children dog.•*The two small are dog chasing that children.•*Chasing are the two small that dog children.•*That are children chasing the two small dog.Checking the hypotheses•Hypothesis 2:–Does it work for Warlpiri?•Hypothesis 3: –Does it work for Warlpiri?English and Warlpiri Under Hypothesis 3 NP VP VP’ SAux V NPDeep structure NP VP VP’ SAux V NPSurface StructureEnglishEnglish and Warlpiri under Hypothesis 3 NP VP’ SAux V NPDeep structureSurface StructureWarlpiriVP NP VP VP’ NP SAux V NPS NPAUX SNP SSeeeeEnglish and Warlpiri under Hypothesis 3 NP VP’ SAux V NPDeep structureSurface StructureWarlpiriVP NP VP VP’ NP SAux V NPS NPAUX SNP SSeeeEmpty categories: represent semantic rolesAdjunctions: represent the real word orderRemnants of the original tree represent gramamtical relationseEnglish and Warlpiri under Hypothesis 4 NP VP VP’ SAux V NPEnglishWarlpiriSNP Aux V NP NP NPConstituent structure: represents word order and grouping of words into constituentsFunctional structure: represents grammatical relations and semantic rolesSubject “two small children”Predicate chase agent themeObject “that dog”English and Warlpiri under Hypothesis 4 NP VP VP’ SAux V NPEnglishWarlpiriSNP Aux V NP NP NPConstituent structure: represents word order and grouping of words into constituentsFunctional structure: represents gramamtical relations and semantic rolesSubject “two small children”Predicate chase agent themeObject “that dog”Mapping from c-structure to f-structureEnglish and Warlpiri under Hypothesis 4 NP VP VP’ SAux V NPEnglishWarlpiriSNP Aux V NP NP NPConstituent structure: represents word order and grouping of words into constituentsFunctional structure: represents gramamtical relations and semantic rolesSubject “two small children”Predicate chase agent themeObject “that dog”Mapping from c-structure to f-structureKeeping ScoreHypothesis 3:•One structure contains a mish-mash of word order, constituency, grammatical relations, and thematic roles•Adjunctions•Empty categories and invisible constituentsHypothesis 4:•Need an extra data structure for grammatical