Towards Licensing of Adverbial Noun Phrases in HPSG - Stanford

19 Pages·2013·0.22 MB·English

Towards Licensing of Adverbial Noun
Phrases in HPSG
Beata Trawinski
UniversityofTu¨bingen
Proceedingsofthe11thInternationalConferenceon
Head-DrivenPhraseStructureGrammar
CenterforComputationalLinguistics,KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven
StefanMu¨ller(Editor)
2004
CSLIPublications
pages294–312
http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2004
Trawinski,Beata. 2004. TowardsLicensingofAdverbialNounPhrasesinHPSG.
InMu¨ller,Stefan(Ed.),Proceedingsofthe11thInternationalConferenceonHead-
DrivenPhraseStructureGrammar,CenterforComputationalLinguistics,Katholieke
UniversiteitLeuven,294–312. Stanford,CA:CSLIPublications.
Abstract
Thispaperfocusesonaspectsofthelicensingofadverbialnounphrases
(AdvNPs) in theHPSG grammarframework. In the(cid:2)rst part, empiricalis-
sueswillbediscussed. AnumberofAdvNPswillbeexaminedwithrespect
tovariouslinguisticphenomenainorderto(cid:2)ndouttowhatextentAdvNPs
share syntactic and semantic properties with non-adverbialNPs. Based on
empiricalgeneralizations,alexicalconstraintforlicensingbothAdvNPsand
non-adverbialNPs will be provided. Further on, problems of structural li-
censingofphrasescontainingAdvNPsthatarisewithinthestandardHPSG
framework of Pollard and Sag (1994) will be pointed out, and a possible
solution will be proposed. The objective is to provide a constraint-based
treatmentofNPs whichdescribesnon-redundantlyboththeiradverbialand
non-adverbial usages. The analysis proposed in this paper applies lexical
andphrasalimplicationalconstraintsanddoesnotrequireanyradicalmod-
i(cid:2)cations or extensionsof the standardHPSG geometryof Pollard andSag
(1994).
Since adverbial NPs have particularly high frequencyand a wide spec-
trum of uses in in(cid:3)ectional languages such as Polish, we will take Polish
dataintoconsideration.
1 Introduction
Apartfromadjectives, adverbs andrelative andadverbial clauses,manylanguages
use bare noun phrases for the purpose of modi(cid:2)cation (cf. (1) English and (2)
Germanexamples).
(1) a. Iwillvisityounextweek.
b. Doitthat way.
(2) a. Ichbesuche dichn(cid:228)chste Woche.
I visit you next week
‘Iwillvisityounextweek.’
b. Erhat denganzen Weggeschlafen.
hehasthe whole wayslept
‘Heslept thewholeway.’
Insyntacticcontextssuchasthosein(1)and(2),NPssuchastheitalicizedNPs
aboveclearly actasadjuncts, although, theyarenotprototypical modi(cid:2)ers.1 Typi-
cally,theyareusedinsyntactic structures assubjects andobjects. Thissyntactico-
functionalvariationindicatestwodifferentsetsofsyntacticandespeciallysemantic
properties. While adverbial NPs (AdvNPs) are assumed to act as semantic func-
(cid:0)
tors, as all modi(cid:2)ers do, non-adverbial NPs are usually considered as semantic
IthankAdamPrzepi(cid:243)rkowski, FrankRichter,ManfredSailer,andthereviewersandaudience
oftheHPSG04Conferencefortheircomments,andGuthrunLoveforherhelpwithEnglish.
1Here,wewillusethetermsadjunctandmodi(cid:2)ersynonymously.
295
arguments. To capture these two sets of features properly, one could assume two
lexicalentriesprovidingappropriate featuresforeachnounthatcanappearbothin
adverbial and non-adverbial context. This strategy, however, would lead to redun-
dancies inthelexicon.
In this paper we will attempt to treat this subject/complement(cid:150)adjunct varia-
tionwithintheframeworkofHPSGinthetradition of PollardandSag(1994). We
will propose an analysis of adverbial and non-adverbial NPs which captures their
syntactic, lexico-semantic as well as combinatorial properties. Based on empiri-
cal observations, we will formulate an underspeci(cid:2)cation-based lexical constraint
modeling both non-adverbial and adverbial nouns and we will provide a princi-
ple for a proper percolation of semantic information within structures containing
AdvNPs.
The objective is to ensure the licensing of AdvNPs without any lexical rules
and without an extension of the standard HPSG geometry. The analysis applies
lexical and phrasal implicational constraints in terms of HPSG in the tradition of
Pollardand Sag(1994) andenables anon-redundant description ofthesyntactico-
functional variation ofnoun phrases.
AdvNPs such as those in (1) and (2) have particularly high frequency and a
wide spectrum of uses in in(cid:3)ectional languages such as Polish. Hence, in this
paper, we will take Polish data into consideration. The analysis proposed here for
Polishdatacanbeapplied toNPsinother languages aswell.
2 Empirical Generalizations
AccordingtoSzober(1969)andUrban·czyk(1978),amongothers,genitive,dative,
accusative and instrumental NPs are possible in the adverbial function in Polish.
WhilegenitiveAdvNPsareusedforexpressingtemporalrelations(see(3a)),dative
AdvNPsdenote forinstance possessors (see(3b)),andaccusative AdvNPsspecify
measure (see (3c)) and also time (see (3d)), instrumental AdvNPs are truly poly-
functional (see (3e)(cid:150)(3h)). There are particularly many semantic uses associated
with relational instrumentals which necessarily take genitive complements, such
ascelem(‘forthepurpose of’),droga(cid:8)(‘bywayof’),kosztem (‘attheexpense of’),
wzgle(cid:8)dem(‘because of’),etc. (cf. (3i)).
(3) a. Janodjecha(cid:7) ostatniej nocy. (time)
Janleft lastgen nightgen
‘Jan leftlastnight.’
b. Mariawypi(cid:7)akoledze piwo. (possessor)
Mariadrank colleague beer
dat
‘Mariadrank colleague’s beer.’
c. Janzauwaz(cid:1)y(cid:7) Marie(cid:8) metr przed soba(cid:8). (measure)
Jannoticed Mary meteracc infrontofhim.
‘Jan noticed Maryonemeterinfrontofhim.’
296
d. Mariap(cid:7)aka(cid:7)a ca(cid:7)a(cid:8) godzine(cid:8). (time)
Mariacried wholeacc houracc
‘Mariawascrying forawholehour.’
e. Piotruciek(cid:7) lasem. (space)
Piotrescaped forest
instr
‘Piotrescaped through theforest.’
f. Janczyta wieczorem. (time)
Janreads evening
instr
‘Jan readsintheevening.’
g. Mariazabi(cid:7)apaja(cid:8)ka gazeta(cid:8). (means)
Mariakilled spider newspaper
instr
‘Mariakilled thespider withanewspaper.’
h. Piotrodszed(cid:7) wolnym krokiem. (manner)
Piotrwent slow step
instr inst
‘Piotrwentslowly.’
i. Janwyjecha(cid:7) celem odpoczynku. (goal)
Janleft purposeinstr recreationgen
‘Jan leftforthepurpose ofrecreation.’
In order to make appropriate generalizations about the distribution of Polish
NPsinadverbial contexts, wewillexaminearange ofAdvNPswithrespect tode-
termination and quanti(cid:2)cation, modi(cid:2)cation, pluralization and referentiality. The
objective is to specify aset of syntactic and sematic properties that AdvNPs share
with ordinary, non-adverbial NPs, and to determine properties that AdvNPs pro-
vide in contrast to ordinary NPs. Given this, we can determine whether we can
describe NPs by means of only one lexical entry for each noun and what lexical
constraints willbeneeded tolicense bothuses ofNPs.
In this paper we will focus exclusively on AdvNPs that modify VPs, leaving
AdvNPsmodifying NPsforafuture work.
2.1 MorphologicalCases in Polish
FirstofallwewillgiveashortoverviewofmorphologicalcasesinPolishandstate
whichcasescanmarkadverbial NPs.
TherearesevenmorphologicalcasesincontemporaryPolish: nominative,gen-
itive,dative, accusative, instrumental, locative andvocative. AswecanseeinFig-
ure1,fourofthesevencases canmarkAdvNPs.2
2TheabbreviationRMintheglossofthenon-adverbialinstrumentalstandsforare(cid:3)exivemarker.
297
F
igure1:O vocative locative instrumen accusativ dative genitive nominativ
v ta e e
er l
v
ie
w
o
f
N
morphologicalcasesinPolish ‘Wait,mama!’mamawait(cid:1) ,poczekaj!Mamo ‘Janisinschoolnow.’Janisnowinschool(cid:1) Janjestterazw.szkole ‘Janusedaknife.’JanusedRMknife(cid:1) Janpos(cid:7)u(cid:1)zy(cid:7)si(cid:8)e.no(cid:1)zem ‘JansawMaria.’JansawMaria(cid:1) Janzobaczy(cid:7).Mari(cid:8)e ‘PiotrdedicatedhisthesistohPiotrdedicatedhisthesis(cid:1) Piotrdedykowa(cid:7)sw(cid:243)jdoktor ‘Mariademandedthemoney.’Mariademandedmoney(cid:1) Mariaza(cid:1)z(cid:8)ada(cid:7)a.pieni(cid:8)edzy ‘Janissleeping.Janis_sleeping(cid:1) spi.Jan·Ps
in is at
theconte parents.’parentsrodzicom
x
t .
o
f
th
e
ir
u
se n n n A
ina one(cid:1) one(cid:1) ‘PioPio(cid:1) Pio ‘MaMa(cid:1) Ma ‘MaMa(cid:1) Ma ‘JanJan(cid:1) Jan one(cid:1) dvN
dverbialandnon-adverbialfunctio trescapedthroughtheforest.’trescapedforesttruciek(cid:7).lasem riawascryingforawholehour.’riawascryingwholehourriap(cid:7)aka(cid:7)a.ca(cid:7)(cid:8)agodzin(cid:8)e riadrankJohn’sbeer.’riadrankJohnbeerriawypi(cid:7)apiwo.Janowi leftthatnight.’leftthisnightodjecha(cid:7).tejnocy Ps
n
s
298
While the Polish nominative is mainly used on subjects and predicative com-
plements, the locative appears not freely, but rather as a prepositional object, and
the vocative has a special, non-sentential status, genitive, dative, accusative and
instrumental cases canbeassigned toboth argument NPsandadverbial NPs.3
Whereas the licensing of nominative-, locative- and vocative-marked nouns
does not cause any problems and is rather unspectacular due to the compatibility
oftheirsyntactico-semantic featuresineachsyntacticcontextinwhichthesenouns
may occur, an adequate and particularly non-redundant modeling of genitive-,
dative-,accusative-, andinstrumental-marked nouns seemsmorechallenging.
Previous con(cid:2)gurationally motivated approaches focus particularly on the as-
pectsofcaseassignmenttoAdvNPs. ThusEmonds(1976),BresnanandGrimshaw
(1978) andMcCawley(1988) treatAdvNPsasbeing embedded inaPPheaded by
a null preposition assigning case to those NPs. Larson (1985) argues against such
aposition, assuming that AdvNPsare bare NPs. However, since they are not gov-
(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:7)
ernedbyacasemarking element, Larson(1985) proposes thefeaturespeci(cid:2)cation
for nouns heading adverbial NPs. In the case a NP cannot be structu(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:8)ra(cid:5)(cid:8)lly(cid:7)
case marked (because it does not appear in aposition governed by acase marking
element),itisassigned itscasefromthecaseassigning feature speci(cid:2)cation .
In contrast, Jaworska (1986) suggests a possibility based on the assumption that
(cid:2) (cid:7) (cid:2) (cid:7) (cid:2) (cid:7)
AdvNPshave no case at all.4(cid:9) However, bas(cid:9)ed on Polish data,(cid:9)she assumes a spec-
i(cid:2)cation of the form CASE INST , CASE GEN , and CASE ACC in the lexical
entryofeachnounthatcanheadanadverbialNP.5 Thisstrategy,however,leadsto
redundancies inthelexicon.
While most of the con(cid:2)gurational studies on AdvNPs concentrate on case as-
signment, the constraint-based approach of Kasper (1997) discusses mainly com-
binatorial aspects of modifying and non-modifying NPs. In Section 3.2 we will
workoutthedetails ofthisapproach.
In our strictly lexicalist approach, an analysis of NPs will be offered which
captures both their syntactic, lexico-semantic as well as combinatorial properties.
To do this we will examine AdvNPs with respect to a number of syntactic and
semantic phenomena.
2.2 Determination and Quanti(cid:2)cation
In Polish, in contrast to English or German, there is no obligatory determination
and quanti(cid:2)cation. NPscan occur in asentence in abare form. However, they are
permitted to combine with determiners and quanti(cid:2)ers. We will examine below
the ability of AdvNPs to select a determiner and a quanti(cid:2)er in order to (cid:2)nd out
3For more details on morphological cases and case assignment in Polish, see Przepi(cid:243)rkowski
(1999)foraconstraint-basedapproachandTajsner(1990)foracon(cid:2)guration-basedapproach.
4Her considerations apply to English bare NPs in an adverbial position and are based on the
observation that those NPs never show any morphological variation, nor do they have any other
propertiesthatmightberelatedtocase.
5Shedoesnotmakeastatementaboutthedativecase.
299
whethertheybehave analogically tonon-adverbial NPsinthisrespect.6
(4) a. Jan odjecha(cid:7) *(tej /pewnej) nocy.
John left thisgen somegen nightgen
‘John leftthat/somenight.’
b. Mariawypi(cid:7)a(temu /jakiemus· /kaz(cid:1)demu) koledze piwo.
Mary drank this some every colleague beer
dat dat dat dat
‘Marydrank this/some/everycolleague’s beer.’
c. Mariauczy(cid:7)a sie(cid:8) (te(cid:8) /kaz(cid:1)da(cid:8)) godzine(cid:8) wdomu.
Mary studied RM thisacc everyacc houracc athome
‘Marystudied forthat/everyhour athome.’
d. Piotr uciek(cid:7) (tym /jakims·) lasem.
Peterescaped this some forest
instr instr instr
‘Peterescaped through this/someforest.’
Aswecanseeintheexamples above,7 AdvNPscanoccur both asbare NPsas
well as in combination with determiners and quanti(cid:2)ers, and in this respect they
behave like non-adverbial NPs. Only genitive AdvNPs show a behavior which is
somewhat atypical for Polish NPs, not only permitting but requiring a determiner
or a quanti(cid:2)er (cf. (4a)). In fact, genitive AdvNPs in Polish do not necessarily
require a determiner or a quanti(cid:2)er. The presence of a modi(cid:2)er, such as naste(cid:8)pny
(‘next’) orp(cid:243)(cid:7) (‘half’), willalsoensure thegrammaticality ofthesentence.8
2.3 Adjectival and ParticipialModi(cid:2)cation
InthissectionwewillexaminewhetherAdvNPscanbemodi(cid:2)edbyadjectivesand
adjectival participles, asarenon-adverbial NPs.
(5) a. Jan odjecha(cid:7) *(ostatniej /minionej) nocy.
John left lastgen pastgen nightgen
‘John leftlast/pastnight.’
b. Mariawypi(cid:7)a(niemieckiemu /spragnionemu) koledze piwo.
Mary drank German thirsty colleague beer
dat dat dat
‘Marydrank theGerman/thirsty colleague’s beer.’
c. Mariauczy(cid:7)a sie(cid:8) (ca(cid:7)a(cid:8) /miniona(cid:8)) godzine(cid:8) wdomu.
Mary studied RM wholeacc pastacc houracc athome
‘Marystudied forthewhole/pasthour athome.’
6InourapproachweadopttheproposalofPollardandSag(1994)assumingamutualselection
instructuresconsistingofadetermineroraquanti(cid:2)erandanoun,andweassumethatthesyntactic
headoftheentirephraseofthatformisanounandnotadetermineroraquanti(cid:2)er.
7Thenotation*(X)asusedin(4a)impliesthatthepresenceofXisnecessaryforthegrammati-
calityofthesencence.
8ThisobservationwasalsomadeinSzober(1969)andJaworska(1986).
300
d. Piotr uciek(cid:7) (ge(cid:8)stym /ciemnym)lasem.
Peterescaped dense dark forest
instr instr instr
‘Peterescaped through thedense /darkforest.’
The examples in (5) show that genitive, dative, accusative and instrumental
AdvNPsall allow adjectival and participial modi(cid:2)cation and that they behave like
typicalNPsinthisrespect. Asmentionedintheprevioussection,genitiveAdvNPs
require a determiner or quanti(cid:2)er and/or a modi(cid:2)er. This fact is con(cid:2)rmed again
by(5a).
Jaworska (1986) claims that accusative AdvNPs, similar to genitive AdvNPs,
must contain modi(cid:2)ers, e.g. ca(cid:7)y (‘whole’). However, examples such as those in
(6)showthatthisrequirement does nothold.
(6) a. Mariapracowa(cid:7)a godzine(cid:8).
Mary worked houracc
‘Maryworked foranhour.’
b. Piotr przebywa(cid:7) miesia(cid:8)c w szpitalu.
Peterstayed month inhospital
instr
‘Peterstayed inahospital foramonth.’
2.4 Pluralization
Ifnoformaland/orlexico-semanticrestrictionsarepresent,nounscanbepluralized
in an straightforward way. Below we will test whether this holds for AdvNPs as
well.
(7) a. *Jan odjecha(cid:7) ostatnich nocy.
John left last nights
gen, pl gen, pl
‘John leftlast/pastnight.’
b. Mariawypi(cid:7)akolegom piwo.
Mary drank colleagues beer
dat, pl
‘Marydrank thecolleagues’ beer.’
c. Mariauczy(cid:7)a sie(cid:8) ca(cid:7)e godziny wdomu.
Mary studied RM whole hours athome
acc, pl acc, pl
‘Marystudied forentire hours athome.’
d. Piotr ucieka(cid:7) lasami.
Peterescaped forests
instr, pl
‘Peterescaped through forests.’
Aswecan seedative,accusative and instrumental AdvNPscan occur inplural
form. In contrast, the occurrence of genitive plural AdvNPs seems to be either
very restricted in Polish or not possible at all.9 The ungrammaticality of (7a) can
9Toourknowledge,therearenodetailedstudiesonthisissuesofar.
301
be explained by the incompatibility of the semantic contribution of the adverbial
genitive NPitself(asapoint intime)andthesemantics ofplural.
2.5 Control of Relative and PersonalPronouns
In the following section, we will investigate AdvNPs with regard to referentiality.
As an indication for referentiality, we will consider here the ability of a NP to
control pronouns.
In(8),eachAdvNPismodi(cid:2)edbyarelativeclause.10 Astheindicesshow,both
genitive, dative, accusative and instrumental AdvNPs are capable of controlling
relative pronouns introducing relative clauses. This fact indicates that all AdvNPs
in(8)arereferential.
(cid:10) (cid:10)
(8) a. Jan odjecha(cid:7) tej nocy , kt(cid:243)rej przyby(cid:7)a Maria.
John left thisgen nightgen which arrived Mary
‘John leftthenightthat Ma(cid:10)ryarrived.’ (cid:10)
b. Mariawypi(cid:7)apiwokoledze , kt(cid:243)rego nie lubi.
Mary drank beer colleague whom notlikes
dat
‘Marydrank thebeero(cid:10) fthecolleague w(cid:10) homshedoes notlike.’
c. Mariap(cid:7)aka(cid:7)a godzine(cid:8) ,wcia(cid:8)gu kt(cid:243)rej spali(cid:7)a dziesie(cid:8)c· papieros(cid:243)w.
Mary cried houracc during which smoked ten cigarettes
‘Marywascryingfor(cid:10) anhour,d(cid:10)uringwhichshesmokedtencigarettes.’
d. Piotr uciek(cid:7) lasem , kt(cid:243)ry dobrze zna(cid:7).
Peterescaped forest whichwell knew
instr
‘Peterescaped through theforest whichheknewwell.’
The examples below con(cid:2)rm this assumption. Here each AdvNP in the (cid:2)rst
clausecontrols apersonal pronoun inthesecond clause. Thisisindicated againby
indexing.
(cid:10) (cid:10)
(9) a. Jan odjecha(cid:7) tej nocy . By(cid:7)aona ciemnai deszczowa.
John left thisgen nightgen was it dark andrainy
‘John leftthisnight. I(cid:10)twasdark andrainy.’ (cid:10)
b. Mariawypi(cid:7)akoledze piwo. Dlatego by(cid:7) on z(cid:7)y.
Mary drank colleague beer that’s_why washe angry
dat
‘Marydrank thecolleague’s beer. That’swhyhewasangry.’
10Exceptfortherelativeclausein(8c),allrelativeclausesin(8)arerestrictive.Wespeculatethat
restrictiverelativeclausesmodifyingaccusativeAdvNPsareuncommoninPolish,but,infact,there
arenoproper studiesonthistopictoour knowledge. Incontrastgenitive, dative andinstrumental
AdvNPspermitbothrestrictiveandnon-restrictiverelativeclausestobemodi(cid:2)edby.
Sincethesefactsdonotaffectouranalysisandthetreatmentofrelativeclausesexceedsthescope
ofthispaper, theseaspects ofmodi(cid:2)cationwillbeignored here. Forprevious analyses ofrelative
clausesintheHPSGframeworkseee.g.PollardandSag(1994),Sag(1997),Holler-Feldhaus(2003)
orKiss(2004).
302
(cid:10) (cid:10)
c. Mariap(cid:7)aka(cid:7)a godzine(cid:8) . Spali(cid:7)a wcia(cid:8)gu niej dziesie(cid:8)c· papieros(cid:243)w.
Mary cried houracc smoked during it ten cigarettes
‘Marywascrying fo(cid:10)ranhour. She(cid:10) smoked tencigarettes inthattime.’
d. Piotr uciek(cid:7) lasem . Zna(cid:7) go dobrze.
Peterescaped forest knewit well
instr
‘Peterescaped through theforest. Heknewitwell.’
2.6 Summary ofEmpirical Observations
Intheprevioussectionsgenitive,dative,accusativeandinstrumentalAdvNPshave
been examined with respect to determinability and quanti(cid:2)ability, modi(cid:2)ability,
pluralizability and referentiality. Figure 2 summarizes the results of the applied
tests.
determ(cid:3)ination/ (cid:3) (cid:11) (cid:3)
modi(cid:2)cation pluralization control
quanti(cid:2)cation (cid:12)
(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)
genitive /
(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)
dative
(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)
accusative
instrumental
Figure2: Summaryoftheresults oftests applied toAdvNPs
Except for genitive AdvNPs, which always seem to require a determiner, a
quanti(cid:2)er or an adjective, all other AdvNPs can occur both as bare NPs and NPs
containing determiners, quanti(cid:2)ers and adjectives, anddo notdiffer inthis respect
from non-adverbial NPs. Further on, all examined AdvNPscan appear in the plu-
ral form. Finally, every AdvNP can control pronouns. We can thus conclude that
AdvNPs share their syntactic features with non-adverbial NPsand, since they can
act as controllers as their non-adverbial counterparts do, they are referential ob-
jects. The crucial difference between adverbial and non-adverbial NPs seems to
relate totheirselectional andlexico-semantic properties.
In the next section, we will provide an HPSGaccount of AdvNPsthat re(cid:3)ects
thesegeneralizations.
3 The Analysis
3.1 LexicalLicensing
According tothestandard HPSGapproach of PollardandSag(1994), adjuncts are
treated as both syntactic and semantic selectors. The selection proceeds via the
MOD feature appropriate for the sort substantive and thus for all objects of type
noun. While the MOD feature’s value of adjuncts is of sort synsem (cf. Figure 3),
the MOD feature ofnon-adjuncts isvalued asnone (cf. Figure 4).
303