English Pronominal Affixes in Logical Grammar

Transcription

1 Department of Linguistics The Ohio State University October 15, 2010

2 Overview and Selected Data The Unaccented Pronoun Constraint (current data adapted and extended from [Zwi86]) Reduced pronouns in question probably something like [1m] him and [1t] it

3 Overview and Selected Data The Unaccented Pronoun Constraint (current data adapted and extended from [Zwi86]) Reduced pronouns in question probably something like [1m] him and [1t] it (1) Martha told Noel the plot of Gravity s Rainbow.

4 Overview and Selected Data The Unaccented Pronoun Constraint (current data adapted and extended from [Zwi86]) Reduced pronouns in question probably something like [1m] him and [1t] it (1) Martha told Noel the plot of Gravity s Rainbow. (2) Martha told-im the plot of Gravity s Rainbow.

5 Overview and Selected Data The Unaccented Pronoun Constraint (current data adapted and extended from [Zwi86]) Reduced pronouns in question probably something like [1m] him and [1t] it (1) Martha told Noel the plot of Gravity s Rainbow. (2) Martha told-im the plot of Gravity s Rainbow. (3) * Martha told Noel-it.

6 Overview and Selected Data The Unaccented Pronoun Constraint (current data adapted and extended from [Zwi86]) Reduced pronouns in question probably something like [1m] him and [1t] it (1) Martha told Noel the plot of Gravity s Rainbow. (2) Martha told-im the plot of Gravity s Rainbow. (3) * Martha told Noel-it. (4)? Martha told-im-it. (dialectally restricted?)

7 Phenogrammar and Tectogrammar A tradition of Curryesque grammars including ACG [dg01], λ-grammar [Mus09], GF [Ran04], and others. Tectogrammar, sometimes called abstract syntax, is concerned with the structural properties of grammar (co-occurrence, case, agreement, tense, etc.). Phenogrammar, sometimes called concrete syntax, is concerned with what is actually going to come out of your mouth, before phonological effects have been computed. Phenogrammar encompasses word order, morphology, prosody, etc. The stuff that syntacticians think is phonology, and phonologists think is syntax. [Ref. unknown]

8 Analytical Strategy Reduced pronouns appear immediately right-adjacent to the words of which they are presumably arguments. Reduced pronouns are unacceptable if there is intervening material. Acceptable as full versions e.g. bearing a pitch accent. Verbs / Prepositions generally specify what their arguments should be. Reduced pronouns are affixes, i.e. functions that map words to words, rather than words themselves. Can potentially stack (as in (4))

9 Technicalia The grammar described here is logical, insofar as it uses a system of natural deduction inference rules to capture the flow of linguistic information. Our grammar essentially generates triples, encompassing phenogrammatical information, tectogrammatical information, and semantic information. Each component has its own logic. Derivations proceed in parallel, i.e. the grammar is relational, rather than functional. The logics of each component are related to each other by the parallel inference rules. Semantics, though obviously important, is omitted in this talk.

10 Technicalia: Natural Deduction Systems Our grammar is a natural deduction system, a proof calculus equipped with various inference rules. Inference rules encode the interaction between different expressions. Lexical entries are axioms of the logic, i.e. they are stipulated, not derived. Lexical entries consist of typing judgments (term-type pairs). Chains of inference are proofs. The goal is to start from lexical entries (axioms), and provide proofs of larger material (e.g. phrasal expressions).

11 Technicalia: Types and Terms Terms correspond to linguistic expressions. Types, roughly, tell us what kind of linguistic expression we are dealing with. Terms report what inference rules were used to show that a type is inhabited, i.e. that something has that type. These are analogous (though not perfectly) to sets and elements.

12 Technicalia: Types and Terms Typing judgments: Γ a : A read in the context Γ, a is a term of type A or it follows from Γ that the term a has type A The context can be thought of as a way to keep track of what you assumed along the way, but for purposes of expository clarity, nothing more about it will be said here. Whimsically, you could think of a typing judgment like manatee : Animal as saying It follows from no assumptions whatsoever that the manatee is a proof that there are animals.

13 Technicalia: Basic Architecture The architecture of a statement in our grammar: pheno-term : Pheno-Type context tecto-term : Tecto-Type semantic term : Semantic Type

14 Technicalia: The Lambda Calculus A proof calculus allowing us to encode the various operations used in constructing proofs β-reduction allows for the substitution of an expression of a particular type, for a variable of that same type, in a different expression. An example:

15 Technicalia: The Lambda Calculus A proof calculus allowing us to encode the various operations used in constructing proofs β-reduction allows for the substitution of an expression of a particular type, for a variable of that same type, in a different expression. An example: λ y:st λ x:st.x kissed y (elvis)(hildegard)

16 Technicalia: The Lambda Calculus A proof calculus allowing us to encode the various operations used in constructing proofs β-reduction allows for the substitution of an expression of a particular type, for a variable of that same type, in a different expression. An example: λ y:st λ x:st.x kissed y (elvis)(hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard)

17 Technicalia: The Lambda Calculus A proof calculus allowing us to encode the various operations used in constructing proofs β-reduction allows for the substitution of an expression of a particular type, for a variable of that same type, in a different expression. An example: λ y:st λ x:st.x kissed y (elvis)(hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard)

18 Technicalia: The Lambda Calculus A proof calculus allowing us to encode the various operations used in constructing proofs β-reduction allows for the substitution of an expression of a particular type, for a variable of that same type, in a different expression. An example: λ y:st λ x:st.x kissed y (elvis)(hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard) hildegard kissed elvis : St

19 Technicalia: The Lambda Calculus A proof calculus allowing us to encode the various operations used in constructing proofs β-reduction allows for the substitution of an expression of a particular type, for a variable of that same type, in a different expression. An example: λ y:st λ x:st.x kissed y (elvis)(hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard) hildegard kissed elvis : St Or, more simply: λ yx.x kissed y (elvis)(hildegard)

20 Technicalia: The Lambda Calculus A proof calculus allowing us to encode the various operations used in constructing proofs β-reduction allows for the substitution of an expression of a particular type, for a variable of that same type, in a different expression. An example: λ y:st λ x:st.x kissed y (elvis)(hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard) λ x:st.x kissed elvis (hildegard) hildegard kissed elvis : St Or, more simply: λ yx.x kissed y (elvis)(hildegard) hildegard kissed elvis : St

21 Technicalia: Simple Application The inference rule of implication elimination (or function application, and sometimes modus ponens), encodes a common line of reasoning: If A implies B, and A, then B This rule, with terms and types, commonly looks like the following: Γ f : A B a : A E Γ, f (a) : B If we have a term f of type A B, and a term a of type A, then applying f to a constructs a proof term of type B.

22 Tectogrammar Basic types: S, Case (Open) type expressions: NP x:case If a is a term of type A, and B x:a is an open type expression, then x:a.b x is a type family, and B a is a type. If A and B are types, then A B is a type. Most of the time, the tecto-terms will be suppressed, as they mostly represent information about the order in which expressions combine. The main exception to this will be the terms that provide information about case.

23 Tectogrammar: Linear Logic The logic of our tectogrammatical type system is linear logic, with the addition of dependent product types, after [dgm07]. Formulas are thought of as consumable (or producible) resources. A formula A B can be thought of as looking for an A in order to produce a B. For example, you could think of an intransitive verb as looking for a nominative noun phrase, in order to produce a sentence. Thinking of as being a notational variant of will probably not lead you too far astray.

24 Tectogrammar: Dependent Products and Subtyping The dependent product allows us to handle the fact that some (most) noun phrases are ambiguous with respect to case. We re ignoring person and number here, but we can use dependent types for that too. Informally, it allows us to pick the version of NP that we want, based on whatever case specifications are available. Here we refer to the relevant inference rule as the Subtyping rule: Γ g : x:a.b x a : A Subtyping Γ, g(a) : B a As noted before, the tecto-term (the g(a) part) will typically be suppressed in actual derivations.

25 Phenogrammar A first pass in the spirit of [Oeh94], to be refined later: Basic Types: St If S is a type, then S S is a type. Terms are either strings, or functions over strings For clarity s sake, the type St n tells us the arity of the function, i.e. how many more strings we need in order to build a single string E.g. St 2 abbreviates the type St St St So St 0 is just the same as St.

26 Phenogrammar: Linearization Functions Initially, we consider pheno-terms in the manner of [Oeh94] Terms are either strings, or functions over strings. The intended purpose is to specify the linear order that occurs when functions combine with their arguments. Recall:

27 Phenogrammar: Linearization Functions Initially, we consider pheno-terms in the manner of [Oeh94] Terms are either strings, or functions over strings. The intended purpose is to specify the linear order that occurs when functions combine with their arguments. Recall: λ yx.x kissed y : St 2

28 Phenogrammar: Linearization Functions Initially, we consider pheno-terms in the manner of [Oeh94] Terms are either strings, or functions over strings. The intended purpose is to specify the linear order that occurs when functions combine with their arguments. Recall: λ yx.x kissed y : St 2 λ yx.x kissed y (elvis)

29 Phenogrammar: Linearization Functions Initially, we consider pheno-terms in the manner of [Oeh94] Terms are either strings, or functions over strings. The intended purpose is to specify the linear order that occurs when functions combine with their arguments. Recall: λ yx.x kissed y : St 2 λ yx.x kissed y (elvis) λ x.x kissed elvis : St 1

30 Phenogrammar: Linearization Functions Initially, we consider pheno-terms in the manner of [Oeh94] Terms are either strings, or functions over strings. The intended purpose is to specify the linear order that occurs when functions combine with their arguments. Recall: λ yx.x kissed y : St 2 λ yx.x kissed y (elvis) λ x.x kissed elvis : St 1 λ x.x kissed elvis (hildegard)

31 Phenogrammar: Linearization Functions Initially, we consider pheno-terms in the manner of [Oeh94] Terms are either strings, or functions over strings. The intended purpose is to specify the linear order that occurs when functions combine with their arguments. Recall: λ yx.x kissed y : St 2 λ yx.x kissed y (elvis) λ x.x kissed elvis : St 1 λ x.x kissed elvis (hildegard) hildegard kissed elvis : St

32 Phenogrammar: Pairing and Projection The rule of Pairing allows us to create the Cartesian product of two types, and a new pair term out of two other terms. Γ s : S t : T Pairing Γ, s, t : S T It has rules of projection associated with it, that allow us to recover the left-hand side of the pair: and the right-hand side: Γ p : S T Proj 1 Γ π(p) : S Γ p : S T Proj 2 Γ π (p) : T

33 Phenogrammar: Linearization Refined Instead of the pheno-term being a linearization function, with the word itself contained somewhere within it, why not a pair? The word, coupled with its linearization information: word, λ h λ yx.x h y : Wd St 3 Necessitates a placeholder (h) where the word itself will eventually go We differentiate between a word and a length-one string containing that word: word vs. word

34 Phenogrammar: Encapsulation Recovers the Oehrle-style linearization function from a word-function pair A to-string function, which creates a length-one string out of a word: tost : Wd St Encapsulation closes off a word from further suffixation by providing the left-hand side to the right-hand side as an argument, changing the phenogrammatical type: encap = def λ p.π (p)(tost(π(p))) Associated with the non-logical rule Encap: p : Wd Stn Γ f : A Encap encap(p) : Stn 1 Γ f : A

35 Pheno-Tecto-Semantics: Application One rule to rule them all: f : S T a : S Γ f : A B a : A f : M N a : M f (a ) : T Γ, f (a) : B f (a ) : N App

36 Pheno-Tecto-Semantics: Application One rule to rule them all: f : S T a : S Γ f : A B a : A f : M N a : M f (a ) : T Γ, f (a) : B f (a ) : N App

37 Pheno-Tecto-Semantics: Application One rule to rule them all: f : S T a : S Γ f : A B a : A f : M N a : M f (a ) : T Γ, f (a) : B f (a ) : N App

38 Pheno-Tecto-Semantics: Application One rule to rule them all: f : S T a : S Γ f : A B a : A f : M N a : M f (a ) : T Γ, f (a) : B f (a ) : N App

39 Lexical Entries: Nouns martha : St : x:case.np x noel : St : x:case.np x the plot of gravity s rainbow : St : x:case.np x

40 Lexical Entries: Nouns martha : St : x:case.np x noel : St : x:case.np x the plot of gravity s rainbow : St : x:case.np x

41 Lexical Entries: Nouns martha : St : x:case.np x noel : St : x:case.np x the plot of gravity s rainbow : St : x:case.np x

42 Lexical Entries: Verbs told, λh.λ yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S

43 Lexical Entries: Verbs told, λh.λ yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S

44 Lexical Entries: Verbs told, λh.λ yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S

45 Lexical Entries: Verbs told, λh.λ yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S

46 Derivation: Verb Noun Combination 1. told Encap 3. Martha Subtyping 2. told 4. Martha App 5. told Martha told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S λyzx.x told y z : St 2. 3 [ : NP ] acc NP acc NP nom S martha : St 3. : x:case.np x martha : St 4. [ : NP acc ] λzx.x told martha z : St 5. 2 : NP acc NP nom S

47 Derivation: Verb Noun Combination 1. told Encap 3. Martha Subtyping 2. told 4. Martha App 5. told Martha told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S λyzx.x told y z : St 2. 3 [ : NP ] acc NP acc NP nom S martha : St 3. : x:case.np x martha : St 4. [ : NP acc ] λzx.x told martha z : St 5. 2 : NP acc NP nom S

48 Derivation: Verb Noun Combination 1. told Encap 3. Martha Subtyping 2. told 4. Martha App 5. told Martha told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S λyzx.x told y z : St 2. 3 [ : NP ] acc NP acc NP nom S martha : St 3. : x:case.np x martha : St 4. [ : NP acc ] λzx.x told martha z : St 5. 2 : NP acc NP nom S

49 Derivation: Verb Noun Combination 1. told Encap 3. Martha Subtyping 2. told 4. Martha App 5. told Martha told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S λyzx.x told y z : St 2. 3 [ : NP ] acc NP acc NP nom S martha : St 3. : x:case.np x martha : St 4. [ : NP acc ] λzx.x told martha z : St 5. 2 : NP acc NP nom S

50 Derivation: Verb Noun Combination 1. told Encap 3. Martha Subtyping 2. told 4. Martha App 5. told Martha told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S λyzx.x told y z : St 2. 3 [ : NP ] acc NP acc NP nom S martha : St 3. : x:case.np x martha : St 4. [ : NP acc ] λzx.x told martha z : St 5. 2 : NP acc NP nom S

51 Derivation: Verb Noun Combination 1. told Encap 3. Martha Subtyping 2. told 4. Martha App 5. told Martha told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S λyzx.x told y z : St 2. 3 [ : NP ] acc NP acc NP nom S martha : St 3. : x:case.np x martha : St 4. [ : NP acc ] λzx.x told martha z : St 5. 2 : NP acc NP nom S

52 Derivation: Verb Noun Combination 1. told Encap 3. Martha Subtyping 2. told 4. Martha App 5. told Martha told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S λyzx.x told y z : St 2. 3 [ : NP ] acc NP acc NP nom S martha : St 3. : x:case.np x martha : St 4. [ : NP acc ] λzx.x told martha z : St 5. 2 : NP acc NP nom S

53 Lexical Entries: Pronominal Affixes λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A λp. π(p) suf -it, λ t.π (p)(t)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A

54 Lexical Entries: Pronominal Affixes λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A λp. π(p) suf -it, λ t.π (p)(t)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A

55 Lexical Entries: Pronominal Affixes λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A λp. π(p) suf -it, λ t.π (p)(t)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A

56 Lexical Entries: Pronominal Affixes λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A λp. π(p) suf -it, λ t.π (p)(t)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A

57 Lexical Entries: Pronominal Affixes λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A λp. π(p) suf -it, λ t.π (p)(t)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A

58 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

59 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

60 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

61 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

62 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

63 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

64 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

65 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

66 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

67 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

68 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

69 Derivation: Verb Affix Combination 1. told 2. -im App 3. told-im Encap 4. told-im told, λh.λ 1. yzx.x h y z : Wd St 4 : NP acc NP acc NP nom S 2. λp. π(p) suf -im, λ s.π (p)(s)(ɛ) : (Wd St n ) (Wd St n 1 ) : (NP acc A) A told 3. suf -im, λ s.λ zx.x s ɛ z : Wd St 3 [ : NP acc NP nom ] S λzx.x told 4. suf -im ɛ z : St 2 : NP acc NP nom S

70 Blocking: Pheno / Positional So how are the ungrammatical examples blocked? Encapsulation serves two purposes: 1 It allows words to combine with other words 2 It closes words off from morphological alteration So, (3) Martha told Noel-it is impossible to derive, since in order to combine with Noel, told is rendered unable to combine with -it. A similar (though slightly more complicated) story can be told in the case of particle verbs. This is phenogrammatical blocking.

71 Blocking: Tecto / Case Another natural question is the question of why reduced pronouns can t occur as subject arguments. This is prevented by the tecto-type of the pronominal affix itself: (NP acc A) A Pronominal affixes may only combine with expressions that are looking for accusative NPs (type NP acc ). Verbs that are ready to combine with their subject argument are looking for nominative NPs (type NP nom ), so no combination is possible. This is tectogrammatical blocking.

72 Future Work Decide on an appropriate semantic representation for pronominal affixes Examine problematic data from coordination and idiomatic forms e.g. hugged and kissed-im, pistol-whipped-im Explore other ways that distinguishing tectogrammar and phenogrammar can be exploited, in particular morphology and prosody

73 Conclusion Distinction between phenogrammar and tectogrammar Richer phenogrammatical representations Phenogrammatical blocking reduced pronouns as affixes Tectogrammatical blocking case specification Bridging the gap between syntax, morphology, and phonology

74 Acknowledgements I am grateful for the judgments, examples, and feedback provided by my mentors, colleagues, and friends, in particular Carl Pollard, Bob Levine, Dave Odden, Cynthia Clopper, Julie McGory, Scott Martin, Vedrana Mihalicek, Dahee Kim, Lia V.D. Mansfield, and Kevin Gabbard, as well as the students of the Spring 2010 section of Linguistics 502. The blame for any factual errors, formal errors, or general shortsightedness unquestionably lies with me.

75 References I Philippe de Groote. Towards Abstract Categorial Grammars. In Association for Computational Linguistics, 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, Proceedings of the Conference, pages , Philippe de Groote and Sarah Maarek. Type-theoretic Extensions of Abstract Categorial Grammars. In Reinhard Muskens, editor, Proceedings of Workshop on New Directions in Type-Theoretic Grammars, Reinhard Muskens. New Directions in Type-Theoretic Grammars. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, DOI /s

76 References II Richard Oehrle. Term-Labeled Categorial Type Systems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17: , Aarne Ranta. Grammatical Framework: A Type-Theoretical Grammar Formalism. Journal of Functional Programming, 14: , Arnold M. Zwicky. The Unaccented Pronoun Constraint in English. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, 32: , 1986.