status of words; HPSG and CG

[Luis Casillas]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 04:08:10PM -0700, dmellow at sfu.ca wrote:

> As I understand it, HPSG assumes strict lexicalism: word structure and
> phrase structure are governed by independent principles (a quote taken
> right from the Stanford web page). CG makes a different assumption
> (Goldberg, 1995, p.7):
>
> “In Construction Grammar, no strict division is assumed between the
> lexicon and syntax. Lexical constructions and syntactic constructions
> differ in internal complexity, and also in the extent to which
> phonological form is specified, but both lexical and syntactic
> constructions are essentially the same type of declaratively
> represented data structure: both pair form with meaning.

I think there is a risk of confusing two ideas of lexicalism here:

  (a) syntax and morphology are governed by independent principles;
  (b) a language is best described by giving 2 disjoint sets:
      - a set of fully general grammatical rules;
      - a list of idiosyncratic lexical items.

As I see it, your definition of lexicalism in the first paragraph above
has to do with (a), while the Goldberg quote about CG is essentially
a denial of (b). But I believe it's possible to deny (b) while still
holding on to (a).

> It is not the case, however, that in rejecting a strict division,
> Construction Grammar denies the existence of any distinctly
> morphological or syntactic constraints (or constructions). Rather,
> it is claimed that there are basic commonalities between the two
> types of constructions, and moreover, that there are cases, such as
> verb-particle combinations, that blur the boundary.”

What does it mean "to blur the boundary"? You can simply have listed
units which constrain both levels of organization simultaneously, and
thus are not properly syntactic units nor morphological units.

I think the central point here is that the units of morphological
and syntactic combination (morphemes, words, phrases) don't have to
match up in any simple manner with the listed form-meaning pairings
(constructions). The "independent principles of morphology and syntax"
constrain the units of the first kind; the units of the second kind
don't have to correspond in any simple way to the first. Nothing in
the HPSG framework stops the listed units from mixing levels and/or
being very schematic, and such a move does not compromise lexicalism in
the (a) sense above. The crucial thing for (a) is that, after you've
composed the constructions to create a well-formed sign, you end up with
something which accords to the constraints set by a lexicalist grammar
(in the (a) sense).

Thus, I fail to see the incompatibility that you are asking about. On
the one hand, you have the structural assembly of morphemes into words
and words into phrases; on the other, the composition of constructions
into signs. These are two different things and don't have to be strictly
parallel. Constructions constrain some combination of phonology,
morphology, syntax and semantics simultaneously, but still these levels
can have their own independent organizational principles. You can
assemble lexicalistically well-formed sentences out of listed units
which are not all strictly lexical items.

--
Luis Casillas
Department of Linguistics
Stanford University