From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:07:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.103937.4744@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
}...  If you have an
}alternative idea concerning VSO syntax, let's hear it.
}
}That's it for me for now (unless some substance is injected in to the
}discussion by someone),

I have no substance to offer, but I doubt there are any substantial
questions involved.  The attached handout shows how to group verb
and object and (schematically) how to describe "command" constraints
on anaphoric constructions with no VP.  There are no VSO examples
given, but you will see that it works just as well for VSO as SVO.
It's all smoke and mirrors.

-----------------------
Ling. 640X, Straggly trees without VPs, 10/1/92.

3.0 A context free phrase structure grammar which has no VP category
    (nor V nor any other primitive functional category) can be made to
    generate trees with verb and object grouped as a constituent.

3.1 In Montague-style trees, both form and category are given for each
    constituent.  We may need, for some reason, a structure which groups
    together the verb and object as a constituent -- a "VP".

	S -> Subj VP
	VP -> V Obj
	Subj -> john
	Obj -> mary
	V -> loves

	    S, john loves mary
            ________|________
            |               |
        Subj, john    VP, loves mary
                      ______|_______
                      |            |
                   V, loves    Obj, mary

3.2 A phrase structure rule with terminal(s) can be thought of as
    representing the grammatical category and subcategorization of
    the terminal(s).
        "Subj -> john" represents the lexical item "john" and gives the
	  category information that it forms a Subj.
	"V -> loves" represents the lexical item "loves" and gives the
	  category information that it forms a V.
	"S -> Subj loves NP" represents the lexical item "loves" and gives the
	  subcategorization information that it may be combined with a Subj on
	  the left and an Obj on the right to form a S.
	"S -> john loves mary" represents the phrase "john loves mary" and
	  gives the category information that it forms a S.
	"S -> Subj loves mary" represents the phrase "loves mary" and gives
	  the subcategorization information that it may be combines with a Subj
	  on  the left to form a S.

3.3 Montague-style trees can be reformulated as "straggly trees" to give form
    and category information for each constituent in the form of phrase
    structure rules.  There are no primitive categories V or VP, but there are
    corresponding constituents with complex categories.

	      S -> john loves mary
             __________|__________
             |                   |
        Subj -> john    S -> Subj loves mary
                        _________|__________
                        |                  |
               S -> Subj loves Obj    Obj -> mary

3.4 The bottom nodes of a straggly tree are the lexical items (which, in the
    example, constitute the grammar).

	Subj -> john
	S -> Subj loves Obj
	Obj -> mary

3.5 The nonlexical nodes of a straggly tree can be derived by applying phrase
    structure rules in their interpretation as rewriting rules.

	"S -> Subj loves mary" is derived from "S -> Subj loves Obj" by
	  applying the rule "Obj -> mary" to substitute "mary" for "Obj".
	"S -> john loves mary" is derived from "S -> Subj loves mary" by
	  applying the rule "Subj -> john" to substitute "john" for "Subj".

3.6 In the "normal" case where all phrases have lexical heads (i.e., all phrase
    structure rules have at least one terminal on the right), the entire grammar
    consists of lexical items, which are the basic phrase structure rules, and
    other constituents are derived by rewriting.  The sentences generated by the
    grammar are strings with "S ->" prefixed (e.g., "S -> john loves mary").
    No grammatical category "VP" is required, but there are VPs, sort of, since
    there is a constituent which contains the verb and all its complements other
    than the subject.  Thus, context free phrase structure grammar can be seen as
    very much like Starosta's Lexicase theory.

3.7 The same set of phrase structure rules can be used to construct either
	(1) bushy trees without a constituent corresponding to VP, or
	(2) straggly trees which do have such a constituent.
    From the grammar in (3.4) above:

	               bushy versus straggly
                                                 
                  S                    S -> john loves mary
         _________|_________          __________|__________
         |        |        |          |                   |
        Subj    loves     Obj    Subj -> john    S -> Subj loves mary
         |                 |                     _________|__________
        john              mary                   |                  |
                                        S -> Subj loves Obj    Obj -> mary

3.8 In Montague grammar, and in other varieties of categorial grammar,
    constituents are combined and a tree is formed by application of functions
    to arguments.  Every mother node is a value that results from applying the
    function that is one of its daughters to the arguments that are the rest of
    its daughters.  The functional application can be thought of as either
    determining the syntactic form or the semantic interpretation (or both).

	"john loves mary" is the value that results when the function
	  "loves mary" is applied to the argument "john".
	"loves mary" (a function) is the value that results when the
	  function "loves" is applied to the argument "john".

	                        S, john loves mary
                           _____________|_____________
                           |                         |
                function: VP, loves mary    argument: Subj, john
                ___________|____________
                |                      |
        function: V, loves    argument: Obj, mary

3.9 In a straggly tree, we can think of the constituents as combining by
    functional application, if we like.  Now, the phrase structure rules that
    were used to do rewriting are regarded as arguments.

	"S -> Subj loves mary" is the value that results from applying the
	   function "S -> Subj loves Obj" to the argument "Obj -> mary".
	"S -> john loves mary" is the value that results from applying the
	   function "S -> Subj loves mary" to the argument "Subj -> john".

    In a straggly tree, the linear order of daughter branches makes no
    difference to what sentences are generated, so we may as well put the
    functions before the arguments, to help keep the two straight.

                                          S -> john loves mary
                                ____________________|____________________
                                |                                       |
                       S -> Subj loves mary    applies to:         Subj -> john
             ___________________|___________________
             |                                     |
    S -> Subj loves Obj    applies to:        Obj -> mary

3.10 We get the wrong constituent structure when a verb-function applies to its
     subject argument before applying to its object argument.  To prevent this
     we must make a convention that subject arguments are applied to last.  In
     general, using the jargon of relational grammar where subjects are 1s,
     direct objects are 2s, indirect objects are 3s, a function must not apply
     to a lower numbered argument before applying to any possible higher
     numbered arguments.

	                                    S -> john loves mary
                                           __________|___________
                                           |                    |
                                 *S -> john loves Obj=2    Obj -> mary
                   ________________________|________________________
                   |                                               |
        S -> Subj=1 loves Obj=2    must not apply to:         Subj -> john

3.11 It would be nice to have more impressive sounding terms for the two sorts
     of tree structures than "bushy" and "straggly".  Since bushy trees,
     constructed according to the tree well-formedness interpretation of phrase
     structure rules, reflect the subcategorization of forms, let's say those
     are "subcategorizational structures".  Since straggly trees can be
     interpreted as reflecting functional application, let's call those
     "functional structures".

3.12 Does the constituent of functional structure which groups together the
     verb and direct object truly replace a VP?  We have to know what VPs are
     good for, to answer that.  One reason to have VPs is to formulate
     constraints on anaphoric constructions in terms of command or C-command.

	A commands B when B is within every sentence that contains A.
	A C-commands B when B is within every constituent that contains A.
	An antecedent may C-command the pronoun for which it is antecedent,
	  but the pronoun may not C-command the antecedent (approximation!).

	   S, mary loves herself
            _________|_________
            |                 |
        Subj, mary    VP, loves herself
                       _______|_______
                       |             |
                    V, loves    Obj, herself

	"Subj, mary" C-commands "Obj, herself", since "Subj, mary" is within
	  the S constituent, which also contains "Obj, herself".

	    *S, herself loves mary
              ________|_________
              |                |
        Subj, herself    VP, loves Mary
                         ______|_______
                         |            |
                      V, loves    Obj, mary

	"Obj, mary" does not C-command "Subj, herself", since "Obj, mary" is
	  within the VP constituent, which does not contain "Subj, herself".

3.13 In functional application, the arguments determine the interpretation of
     the function, and not vice versa.  E.g., "loves" has an indeterminate
     interpretation, but when this function is applied to "mary" and "john", the
     result "john loves mary" has has a determinate interpretation; however,
     "mary" alone has a determinate interpretation and so does not require a
     function to apply to it in order for its interpretation to be determined.
     Antecedents determine the interpretation of pronouns, and not vice versa.
     Consequently, we expect to find that antecedents may be arguments for
     pronouns in the functions that apply to them, but not vice versa.  This is
     true.

	                 S -> mary loves herself
                          __________|__________
                          |                   |
               S -> Subj loves herself   Subj -> mary
                 _________|__________
                 |                  |
        S -> Subj loves Obj   Obj -> herself

	                  *S -> herself loves mary
                          ___________|___________
                          |                     |
                 S -> Subj loves mary    Subj -> herself
                 _________|__________
                 |                  |
        S -> Subj loves Obj    Obj -> mary

3.14 The constituent of functional structure which groups together the verb
     and direct object does truly replace a VP, since it allows us to
     formulate appropriately certain constraints on anaphoric constructions.
     In fact, the constraints on anaphoric constructions even make a certain
     amount of sense in functional structures, while the constraints formulated
     in terms of VPs and C-command seem quite arbitrary.
-----------------------------------
--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.lang