Search Results

This chapter is a brief introduction to Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), the syntactic framework and grammatical architecture that is assumed in this book. First, I introduce the Correspondence Architecture, the grammatical architecture of LFG. I then introduce the most relevant components of the architecture: constituent structure, functional structure, and semantic structure. I next introduce templates, which allow grammatical generalizations to be captured compactly, with inheritance of information by more specific descriptions from more general descriptions. There are also sections outlining syntactic aspects of anaphora and anaphoric binding, the non-transformational, trace-less treatment of unbounded dependencies, and the treatment of raising.

This chapter sets the scene for the rest of the work. The chapter first describes the historical roots and development of Lexical Functional Grammar, a nontransformational theory of linguistic structure, within the tradition of generative grammar. The chapter then explains the fundamental assumptions of the theory, its lexicalist orientation, and the central role that functional syntactic relations play. Subsequently, the structure of the rest of the book is set out, providing detailed accounts of each part, with brief summaries of each chapter. The chapterthen provides advice on how best to use the book, highlighting the primary focus of chapters and how the chapters relate to specific areas of linguistic structure and analysis, before concluding with references on other LFG overviews and introductions to the theory.

This chapter describes formal theories and frameworks for capturing the mapping from word meaning to syntactic structure. First, lexical approaches are presented. The development of Lexical-Functional Grammar approaches are described, from early LFG valence-changing rules to the later Lexical Mapping Theory, as well as proposals for a syntacticized argument structure motivated by the phenomenon of syntactic ergativity. Next, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar is detailed. Sign-Based Construction Grammar, a recent variant of HPSG, is compared. Following the lexical approaches is a look at construction grammar approaches, including both phrasal approaches and lexical mapping with argument structure constructions. The third class of theories involves positing abstract light verbs in the syntax that are responsible for assigning semantic roles.

This chapter provides a concise yet valuable introduction to the formal grammatical framework utilized in the work, Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG). It first explains the two original components of the theory, constituent structure and functional structure, discussing the cross-linguistic variation attested in c-structure configuration in contrast with the cross-linguistic uniformity of f-structure. Secondly, the semantic formalism, glue semantics, is introduced, and the particular combination of glue with Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) is explained. Finally, the remaining components of the LFG architecture are introduced, with particular focus on information structure, the string, and prosodic structure.

Agreement is a typologically common syntactic phenomenon that should be at the core of the design of every model of syntax. Even the straightforward examples of agreement are puzzling for syntacticians, because agreement involves both redundancy and arbitrariness. The indirect relationship between semantics and sentence structure expressed by agreement is thus a significant source of syntactic complexity, exacerbated by great diversity of its morphological expression. While syntactic theories all attempt to account for the role of syntax in grammar, there are inevitable differences in the principles and theoretical mechanisms underlying each model. To assess and compare the operability of syntactic theories, an independent evaluation tool is essential. Our chosen source of data, Archi, presents a rare case of a language whose agreement system challenges major claims found in three mainstream syntactic theories: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), and Minimalism.

The set of agreement problems presented by Archi test the adequacy of available infrastructure in theoretical models of agreement and reveal the basic similarities that underpin different approaches. This three-way comparison of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), and Minimalism exposes the strengths and weaknesses of each theory by comparing their accounts of specific empirical problems. To this end, the behaviour of numeral phrases provides good insight into NP/DP agreement and canonical clausal agreement, while the accounts of biabsolutive constructions tackle a more unusual syntactic problem. Examining the generality of the theoretical apparatus (in terms of how much new infrastructure has to be introduced to deal with the problem sets) and predictive ability (namely, the extent to which the relative restrictiveness of the approaches is beneficial or inadequate in dealing with ‘highly complex’ systems of agreement) helps us understand fundamental differences between each of the frameworks.

In Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), syntactic agreement is primarily modelled as sharing or co-specification of agreement features at the level of f(unctional)-structure, which represents abstract grammatical relations and their properties, rather than at the level of constituency or phrase structure. LFG’s projection architecture also accommodates a multi-dimensional approach. While many agreement relations refer solely to f-structure notions, others may also refer to or depend on further constraints at other levels of representation. Since evidence suggests that Archi is morphologically ergative, agreement generalizations can be modelled by means of parameterized templates called by lexical entries. This lexical treatment allows agreement across the lexicon to be specified in a succinct manner while allowing for lexical idiosyncrasy.

This chapter briefly considers the evidence for transitive nouns and adjectives in early Indo-Aryan in both a typological and a theoretical perspective. The fact that most transitive nouns and adjectives in early Indo-Aryan fall under the traditional heading of ‘agent nouns’ (subject-oriented formations) is typologically notable, since while action nouns with verbal government are well-known, the possibility of relatively verbal agent nouns has not always been acknowledged. The theoretical analysis is framed within Lexical-Functional Grammar, and makes use of the concept of ‘mixed’ categories to effect a clear formalization of transitive nouns and adjectives which captures their transitivity while allowing them to remain fundamentally nouns and adjectives in categorial terms.