<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Hi Carl,<br>
<br>
I think I understand the second issue here, and in fact I think that LFG
and R-LFG don't suffer from it precisely because c(onstituent)-structure
isn't integrated into the logic of features (i.e., there isn't a single "logic"
of all of LFG, but instead it consists of a heterogenous collection of different
but coupled "logics").<br>
<br>
Is the problem as follows? Suppose a substring is ambiguous; it has one
analysis as an NP ACC, and another completely different one as an NP DAT.
In a type-logical system or similar in which the feature structure logic
(specifically, disjunction and conjunction) is tightly integrated with the
c-structure (so to speak) so that there's only really one logic, one would
then be able to prove that the string also derives the "over-specified" category
NP DAT /\ ACC. But unfortunately ambiguous strings don't behave like the
lexically neutral forms "Frauen", showing that the "/\" cannot be regular
logical conjunction. (But it still could be a different binary operator
in a multi-modal logic, couldn't it?)<br>
<br>
The reason why I think that LFG and R-LFG don't suffer from this is that
each distinct c-structure is associated with its own f-structure; an f-structure
is formed from the constraints from exactly one c-structure, so this merging
of features from different c-structures simply cannot occur.<br>
<br>
Have I got it right (more or less)?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
Carl Pollard wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid200210071951.g97JpUZ18722@julius.ling.ohio-state.edu">
<pre wrap="">Hi Mark,<br><br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are you referring here to examples of syncretism (or neutrality, or<br>underspecification, as opposed to ambiguity) like the celebrated<br><br> Er findet und hilft Frauen<br> he finds and helps women-ACC/DAT<br><br>If so, what would it mean (in your terms) to analyze this in terms<br>of what you called feature cancellation?<br><br></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Yes -- you know about the 1995 ACL paper that Sam Bayer and I wrote (you <br>can get it from my Web page), and Sam's Language paper a year or so <br>later. <br></pre>
<pre wrap=""><!----><br>There are (at least) a couple of serious problems with analyzing<br>syncretism in terms of Lambek's meet ($\sqcap$) operation. The first<br>one you're probably already aware of: that there is no way to<br>neutralize [F a, G b] and [F c, G d] without also getting<br>[F a, G d] and [F c, G b] in the mix. <br><br>The other is a foundational problem with the "frame semantics" (= the<br>prosodic interpretation of types as strings), pointed out in Neal<br>Whitman's (2002) dissertation: there is no way to distinguish<br>neutrality from ambiguity, under the standard assumption that<br>phonological identity entails prosodic identity. For example,<br>accusative and genitive neutralize in Polish (Dyla 1984) but<br>accusative and nominative don't, even when the forms are homophonous.<br>In order to retain the ambiguity/neutrality distinction and at<br>the same time the standard interpretation of meet as intersection<br>in the frame semantics, one must say that h
omophonous forms<br>that don't neutralize have distinct prosodies, e.g. the Polish<br>nominative and accusative interrogative pronouns have to have<br>distinct prosodies <co, 1> and <co, 2>. (This consequence was<br>arrived at independently by Whitman, and by Glyn Morrill (p.c.<br>to Whitman).)<br><br>Examples like this suggest three analytic options:<br><br>1. Continue to maintain that the ambiguity/neutrality distinction is<br> syntactically based, but accept that prosodies can include a<br> phonologically vacuous component (diacritic, uniquifier, index,<br> subscript, whatever you want to call it). This is what Morrill<br> (p.c.) opts for.<br><br>2. Say that the neutrality/ambiguity distinction has no syntactic<br> basis, but rather, whether ambiguous forms can neutralize is<br> governed by pragmatic factors. This is the tentative conclusion<br> drawn by Whitman)<br><br>3. Continue to maintain BOTH that the ambiguity/neutrality distinction<br> i
s syntactically based, and that prosody has no phonologically<br> vacuous component, but that the type logic is something other than<br> that of Lambek 1958/1961 (or elaborations thereof). This is the<br> option I am exploring (but the type logic that I have found to<br> work is not resource-sensitive).<br><br>Carl<br><br></pre>
<pre wrap=""><!---->That's a very interesting idea. Given this set-up, can you predict what <br>aspects of grammar will show resource sensitivity and which ones won't? <br></pre>
<pre wrap=""><!----><br>Metaphorically, you can use syntactic/semantic resources freely, but<br>you have to write IOU's every time. Prosody is the IOU's.<br><br>Carl<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>