Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Representing argument structure 1

  • LIVNAT HERZIG SHEINFUX (a1), NURIT MELNIK (a2) and SHULY WINTNER (a1)
Abstract

Existing approaches to the representation of argument structure in grammar tend to focus either on semantics or on syntax. Our goal in this paper is to strike the right balance between the two levels by proposing an analysis that maintains the independence of the syntactic and semantic aspects of argument structure, and, at the same time, captures the interplay between the two levels. Our proposal is set in the context of the development of a large-scale grammar of Modern Hebrew within the framework of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). Consequently, an additional challenge it faces is to reconcile two conflicting desiderata: to be both linguistically coherent and realistic in terms of the grammar engineering effort. We present a novel representation of argument structure that is fully implemented in HPSG, and demonstrate its many benefits to the coherence of our Hebrew grammar. We also highlight the additional dimensions of linguistic generalization that our proposal provides, which we believe are also applicable to grammars of other languages.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Representing argument structure 1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Representing argument structure 1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Representing argument structure 1
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Author’s address: University of Haifa, Israel lherzigs@staff.haifa.ac.il
Author’s address: The Open University, Israel nuritme@openu.ac.il
Author’s address: University of Haifa, Israel shuly@cs.haifa.ac.il
Footnotes
Hide All
[1]

This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no 505/11). We are indebted to Petter Haugereid for his contribution to this project in its earlier stages, and to Tali Arad Greshler and Adam Przepiórkowski for their help and advice with previous drafts of this paper. We are grateful to the Journal of Linguistics anonymous reviewers for many helpful and constructive comments. All remaining errors and misconceptions are, of course, our own.

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Chuck Fillmore (1929–2014) and Ivan Sag (1949–2013).

Abbreviations used in this paper for agreement are 1/2/3 = person; s/p = number; f/m = gender. In addition acc = accusative case.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Arad Greshler, Tali, Herzig Sheinfux, Livnat, Melnik, Nurit & Wintner, Shuly. 2015. Development of maximally reusable grammars: Parallel development of Hebrew and Arabic grammars. In Müller (ed.), 2740.
Baker, Carl Leroy. 1968. Indirect questions in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Baroni, Marco, Bernardini, Silvia, Ferraresi, Adriano & Zanchetta, Eros. 2009. The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources And Evaluation 43.3, 209226.
Bender, Emily M., Flickinger, Dan & Oepen, Stephan. 2002. The grammar matrix: An open-source starter-kit for the rapid development of cross-linguistically consistent broad-coverage precision grammars. In Coling-02 Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation, 17. Morristown, NJ, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics; doi:10.3115/1118783.111878.
Bond, Francis, Oepen, Stephan, Nichols, Eric, Flickinger, Dan, Velldal, Erik & Haugereid, Petter. 2011. Deep open-source machine translation. Machine Translation 25.2, 87105.
Bonial, Claire, Hwang, Jena, Bonn, Julia, Conger, Kathryn, Babko-Malaya, Olga & Palmer, Martha. 2012. English PropBank annotation guidelines (Version 3.1) [Annotation guidelines].
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Rob & Sag, Ivan. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 165.
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu (Dissertations in Linguistics Series). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Copestake, Ann. 1999. The (new) LKB system. Technical Report, Stanford University.
Copestake, Ann. 2002a. Definitions of typed feature structures. In Oepen, Stephan, Flickinger, Dan, Tsujii, Jun-ichi & Uszkoreit, Hans (eds.), Collaborative language engineering, 227230. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Copestake, Ann. 2002b. Implementing typed feature structure grammars. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Copestake, Ann. 2009. Slacker semantics: Why superficiality, dependency and avoidance of commitment can be the right way to go. In The 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–9. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3.2–3, 281332; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-6327-9.
Davis, Anthony R. & Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 2000. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language 76.1, 5691.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.3, 547619.
Emonds, Joseph E. 1991. Subcategorization and syntax-based theta-role assignment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9.3, 369429.
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm, 111137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach & Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 188. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. Some problems for case grammar. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 24, 3556.
Fillmore, Charles J. 2012. Encounters with language. Computational Linguistics 38.4, 701718.
Fillmore, Charles J., Johnson, Christopher R. & Petruck, Miriam R. L.. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16.3, 235250.
Flickinger, Dan. 2000. On building a more efficient grammar by exploiting types. Natural Language Engineering 6.1, 1528; doi:10.1017/S1351324900002370.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10.2, 279326.
Gruber, Jeffrey Steven. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Haugereid, Petter. 2012. A grammar design accommodating packed argument frame information on verbs. International Journal of Asian Language Processing 22.3, 87106.
Herzig Sheinfux, Livnat, Arad Greshler, Tali, Melnik, Nurit & Wintner, Shuly. 2015. Hebrew verbal multi-word expressions. In Müller (ed.), 122135.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1985. Multiple subcategorization and the -criterion: The case of climb. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3.3, 271295.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18.3, 369411.
Jaworski, Wojciech & Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2014a. Semantic roles in grammar engineering. The 3rd Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2014), 81–86. Association for Computational Linguistics and Dublin City University; http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/S14-1011.
Jaworski, Wojciech & Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2014b. Syntactic approximation of semantic roles. Advances in natural language processing: The 9th International Conference on NLP (PolTAL 2014), 193201. Springer International Publishing.
Kaplan, Ronald & Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 173281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kingsbury, Paul & Palmer, Martha. 2003. Propbank: The next level of treebank. The Second Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, 105116. Växjö, Sweden.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Davis, Anthony R.. 2006. The key to lexical semantic representations. Journal of Linguistics 42.1, 71108.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Müller, Stefan(ed.). 2015. The 22nd International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Oepen, Stephan. 2001. [incr tsdb()]– competence and performance laboratory. User manual. Technical Report, Computational Linguistics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Palmer, Martha, Gildea, Dan & Kingsbury, Paul. 2005. The proposition bank: A corpus annotated with semantic roles. Computational Linguistics 31.1, 71106.
Pesetsky, David. 1996. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Chicago, IL/Stanford, CA: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1999. On complements and adjuncts in Polish. In Borsley, Robert D. & Przepiórkowski, Adam (eds.), Slavic in HPSG, 183210. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Przepiórkowski, Adam, Hajnicz, Elżbieta, Patejuk, Agnieszka, Woliński, Marcin, Skwarski, Filip & Świdzib́ski, Marek. 2014. Walenty: Towards a comprehensive valence dictionary of Polish. The 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2014), 27852792; http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/summaries/279.html.
Sag, Ivan A. & Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67, 63113.
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily M.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction, 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Schuler, Karin Kipper. 2005. VerbNet: A broad-coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, AAI3179808.
Sowa, John F. 2000. Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole Publishing Co.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 124
Total number of PDF views: 355 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1048 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th August 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.