status of words; HPSG and CG

[dmellow at sfu.ca]

Hello,

I have a question about the status of words and the different feature
complexes in HPSG and Construction Grammar.

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.  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.”

Following Goldberg, I wonder if it is reasonable to include, within a
feature complex, combinatorial features of word structure that are parallel
to combinatorial features of phrase structure.	For example, consider noun
incorporation structures in Cree (an Algonquian language spoken by about
100,000 people in northern Canada):

(1) pahpaw-ahow-iiw    mistatimwa
brush-IS-IS    horse	(IS = inflectional suffix – oversimplified here)
‘He brushes the horse(s).’

(2)  pahpaw–astimw–ii–w
brush-horse-IS-IS
‘He brushes the horse(s).’

In (1), the NP that follows the verb could be represented by a syntactic
feature (e.g., subcategorization, valence), as in (3) (a rather simple
feature complex):

(3)
PHON <pahpaw>
POS <Verb>
SYN <NP>

In (2), the polysynthetic noun incorporation might be represented by a
parallel morphological feature, as in (4):

(4)
PHON <pahpaw>
POS <Verb>
MORPH <N>     (there are reasons to think it is a noun rather than an NP)

If the feature complex in (4) was feasible, we might also propose something
similar for inflectional suffixes.  Thus, the English phrase ‘walked to the
store’ might be represented by (5):

(5)
PHON <walk>
POS <Verb>
MORPH <PAST>
SYN <PP>

The sign <PAST> would include regular suffixes.  Internal change and
suppletion would require something else.

Given these possible feature complexes, I am interested in comments and
references that address issues such as:
- in CG and HPSG, are the assumptions about the status of words
reconcilable?
- what arguments exist against including features of morphological
combination within signs/feature structure?  How do these arguments relate
to data and proposals such as these? (e.g. what do we do about irregular
morphology?)
- are there previous HPSG analyses of morphological structure that provide
insight here?
- if analyses such as (5) were adopted, we would need additional features
associated with MORPH and SYN.	Which features would be similar and which
would be different?

Many thanks in advance for any ideas.

Dean Mellow
Simon Fraser University

Reference: Goldberg, Adele E.  (1995).	Constructions: A Construction
Grammar approach to argument structure.  Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.