Filler-gap mismatches

Tue May 8 21:14:11 UTC 2001

At 02:52 08/05/01 -0400, Carl Pollard wrote:
>With all due respect, I disagree with the following statement:
>
> >
>I think the crucial difference between the theories is the one Ron has
>identified: modularity. [etc.]

I am not equipped to debate the formal similarities and differences between
the LFG and HPSG approaches, so I'll leave that to Ron :) But it seems to
me that representing everything as feature structures (AVM) is a claim
that, while the specific features may be different, all these different
dimensions are essentially the same.

> >
>So the basic conceptual reason for not including category information in
>f-structure is that categories are information about the distribution of
>elements of overt expression (which is what c-structure models),
> >>
>
>Aha, this is a point of convergence between LFG and categorial
>grammar.  This is a genuine difference between those two frameworks
>and HPSG.  In HPSG, categories (once valence information is removed
>from them) are essentially parts of speech, but these have more to do
>with paradigmatic than syntagmatic relations; the latter are
>determined by valence, not part of speech, and order is determined by
>interface constraints between syntax and phonology.
>
> >
>not functional information.
> >>
>
>I believe HPSG practicioners tend to be mystified by the LFG notion
>`functional', since the attributes that appear in an f-structure
>seem to be a mix of syntax-semantics interface (PRED), valence
>(SUBJ, OBJ, etc.) and morphosyntax (CASE, PFORM, etc.)
>
>What do you take to be the sense of `functional' that unites
>these things? What do (say) SUBJ and (say) PFORM have in common
>that makes them be grouped in the same module?

LFG divides f-structure attributes into grammatical functions and features.
Grammatical functions are "functional" in the sense that they specify the
purpose(s) of various elements in the syntax. Some elements in the syntax
function to express the arguments of predicates (SUBJ, OBJ, the OBL family
of functions, etc.), some function as adjuncts, and some to express
relationships between the clause (or elements thereof) and larger syntactic
units (SUBJ) and discourse units (FOCUS, TOPIC).

Features provide the content of the functions (the value in the AVM). The
PRED feature ties the argument-taking properties together and represents
the general meaningfulness of elements in syntax (not their meaning, which
is semantics, but the fact of their meaningfulness, which is relevant for
how things function in the syntax). In a sense, the PRED is the f-structure
"head". Other features, such as PERS, NUM, and GEND, provide other aspects
of the content of the functional elements of a sentence. Features like CASE
(and PCASE, if it really is distinct from CASE) help determine the function
of the element of which they are a part.

That having been said, of course there are grey areas, which can hopefully
be resolved by seeing whether things cohere in terms of c-structure
constituents or f-structure units. There also may be mismatches between
c-structure features and f-structure features. For example, in languages
with differential object marking we might want to say that "unmarked"
objects are Caseless in c-structure and have the feature [CASE ACC] in
f-structure.
 >
>Cross-pollination of ideas between theories
>is a good thing, and there certainly are many similarities between LFG and
>HPSG as constraint-based, lexicalist, unificationist theories. But LFG and
>HPSG are not notational variants of each other. Ultimately, empirical
>evidence will hopefully point the way to which theory is closer to the
>"truth"
> >>
>
>I hope not and think not. What I hope and think will happen is that
>further evidence will resolve conflicts between the two frameworks and
>cause them to both evolve into things that are more similar to each
>other. I cannot buy the view that there are two (or more) essentially
>static total packages and we are waiting to see which total package is
>best.
>
> >
>The best line to take is for proponents of
>each theoretical framework to develop the best analyses they can, and then
>we can see where they go.
> >>
>
>Again, I respectfully disagree. I have less than zero interest in
>holding HPSG fixed and trying to develop the best possible HPSG
>analyses, and boundless interest in trying to develop successor
>frameworks which incorporate the best features of frameworks like
>type-logical grammar, LFG, and HPSG. When I teach the HPSG intro.
>course at Ohio State, I always make clear that learning to use HPSG
>to analyze data is a secondary goal, and that what I am really trying
>to teach them to do is to make HPSG and other contemporary frameworks
>obsolete, by laying the groundwork for developing the frameworks
>of the future.
>
> >
>Trying to make LFG look more like HPSG (or vice
>versa) serves no purpose.
> >>
>
>The point is not to make one look more like the other but to try to
>resolve differences and converge on a common understanding. In fact,
>HPSG originated as an effort to resolve differences between GPSG, LFG,
>GB, and pre-Lambek categorial grammar (which may be why practicioners
>of all of these have accused HPSG of being a notational variant of
>their framework).

I am not sure we really disagree here, although maybe you think we are
farther along than I do. To tie this to the earlier thread on
P&P/GB/MP/transformational syntax/Chomskyan theory (or whatever one wants
to call it), I think it is important for all of us to be aware of
developments taking place in as many theoretical frameworks as we can. I
think it is premature to "resolve differences and converge on a common
understanding", because I think there are too many facts that are not well
enough known for there to be a common understanding of their import. The
filler-gap mismatches which the subject line of this thread refers to are a
case in point. They are old news for LFG, and not considered a problem.
However, they are apparently (at the very least) not as well known in HPSG,
and I would imagine even less known in derivational circles. So I don't see
that we are yet ready to converge. In the meantime, the various frameworks
*do* make different claims and different predictions, and it is worth
taking the time to test them out. This doesn't mean keeping the theory
static, either. The replacement of the original LFG "constituent control"
formalism for filler-gap constructions with functional uncertainty is a
nice example of a change that has resulted from exploring the predictions
of the theory.

--Yehuda

                            Yehuda N. Falk
       Department of English, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
                     Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel
                        msyfalk at mscc.huji.ac.il
      Personal Web Site    http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msyfalk/
     Departmental Web Site    http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~english/

"And because, in all the galaxy, they had found nothing more precious
than  Mind,  they  encouraged  its dawning  everywhere.  They  became
farmers  in the  fields of stars;  they  sowed,  and  sometimes  they
reaped."
--Arthur C. Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey