Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Phrase structure grammar: Phrase structure grammar (PSG) is a type of syntactic theory that describes the hierarchical structure of sentences. It uses a set of rules to specify how words can be combined to form phrases, and how phrases can be combined to form clauses and sentences. See also Grammar, Categorial Grammar, Transformational Grammar, Syntax._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
John Lyons on Phrase Structure Grammar - Dictionary of Arguments
I 215 Constituent structural grammar/history/Lyons: three stages: 1. Bloomfield: introduced the term. Thesis: The analysis is appropriate if it takes the meanings into account. 2. Wells and Harris: Distribution, distributional criteria. >Distribution. 3. Chomsky: Investigation of the nature of the rules that generate sentences. >N. Chomsky, >L. Bloomfield, >Z.S. Harris. Ambiguity/Grammar/Lyons: Example a) beautiful (girls dress) or b) (beautiful girl's) dress: requires brackets (and therefore layers). Constituent: is made clear by brackets. On the other hand: 2. E.g. they can fish: there is no difference in the brackets, instead "fish" can be interpreted as a verb (they can fish) or a noun (they fill fish into cans). I 216 3. E.g. some more convincing evidence: Possible views: a) some evidence, which is more convincing: - some (more convincing) evidence b) some more evidence, which is convincing: - (some more) (convincing evidence). N.B.: here, however, there is a difference in the distributional classification of the elements beyond the difference in brackets. E.g. some less convincing evidence is no longer ambiguous. Nor, for example, some more good convincing evidence. Distribution: e.g. more belongs to at least two distributional classes: a) It combines like less with adjectives to adjective complexes (but its distribution is more limited than that of less, because here more is in complementary distribution with the suffix -er. Similar to e.g. nicer versus more nice), b) In contrast to less, it combines with a preceding some to a "closer definition" (modification) of nouns and nominal groups (cf. some more evidence to some less evidence). Ambiguity/Grammar/Lyons: can therefore 1. be a consequence of the constituent structure or 2. the distributional classification of the final or intermediate constituents. This applies to many languages. Solution: Naming the nodes (or bracket structures) of the family tree. E.g. ∑{ NP ( A [poor] + N[John]) + VP(V [ran] + Adv [away] ) } Brackets: there is no ranking between the two types of brackets used here. The different brackets are for readability only. I 217 Modification/Tradition/Lyons: in traditional theory "poor John" would be classified as a nominal complex because he "assumes the function of a noun" in sentences. Distribution: this can be interpreted in such a way that expressions of the form adjective + noun have the same distribution in the sentences generated by the grammar as nouns. The corresponding node is characterized by "NP". Ambiguity/Grammar/Lyons: can be removed: instead of A + N1 + N2 we write brackets: (A+ N1) + N2 or A + (N1 + N2). For example fresh (fruit market) or (fresh fruit) market and new fruit market, but not (new fruit) market. For simplicity's sake, we assume that neither fresh fruit market nor new fruit market have more than one interpretation. Semantics: from their point of view we will say that they are clear. Grammar: Question, can they still be grammatically ambiguous? I 218 For example, is the constituent structure fresh (fruit market) and in the other case (new fruit) market grammatically permissible? Cf. >Acceptability. Problem: an explicit grammar must be able to answer this. It is a matter of subclassification with two limiting uncertainty factors and the question of "decreasing yield" - grammar must not become too complicated. Rules should not only apply to the creation of a few sentences. Constituents/Grammar/Lyons: Constituent grammar allows sentences to be understood as composed of layers of constituents. The main reason for this: more economical and intuitively more appropriate description. (as by "subject"/"predicate"). In addition, ambiguities can be eliminated (by brackets corresponding to the layers). I 218 Constituent Structure Grammar/Constituent Structure/Lyons: 1) It is about finding out where to put the brackets. 2) It is about constructing a system of rules that clearly assign correct constituent structures to these sentences. First of all: we will only look at the following systems, which were examined by Chomsky: Concatenating replacement systems/Chomsky/Grammar/Lyons: I 219 We call these Simple constituent structure grammars/phrase structure grammar/Chomsky: Replacement systems/Chomsky/Lyons: E.g. (1) ∑ > NP + Vp (2) VP > V + Adv (3) Np > A + N >Rules/Lyons, >Ambiguity/Lyons, >Unambiguity. I 226 Discontinuous constituents/Grammar/Lyons: Problem: Constituents of a construction do not have to stand next to each other. Example: Interrupted constituents: e.g. to call ...up a) John called up Bill b) John called Bill up c) John called him up Wrong: John called up him. Discontinuous constituents/grammar/Lyons: Problem: Constituents of a construction do not have to stand next to each other. Example Interrupted constituents: e.g. to call ...up Structure: called up is not only a common constituents of a) - c), but these three also have the same constituent structure. Solution: distinction optional/obligatory: the rule operates optionally in the case of a) and b), and in the case of c) obligatory ((s) i.e. in a) and b) the word position can be changed, but not in c)). Problem: this assumes that we can specify the conditions under which the rule is optional or obligatory. Word order: e.g. free word order: Latin. For example: Catullous Clodiam amabat, allows all permutations, because the accusative is marked by the ending. Solution: we need additional permutation rules. I 227 Problem: if the word order were really completely free, the permutation rules would be simple, but the order of certain words is subject to restrictions, which complicates the question. I 237 Distribution/constituent grammar/Lyons: the distributional basis for the replacement rules is clear here: Each rule of the form A > B + C is based on the distributional identity of A and B + C. The A disappears, except as the name of a higher node. I 238 Replacement Rules/Lyons: in a grammar with replacement rules, the terms "endocentric" and "exocentric" are not introduced at all! >Terminology/Lyons. Constituent Structural Grammar/Lyons: NP and VP could just as easily be called X and Y. The relationship between nominal complexes, nouns and pronouns ((s) categories) is not expressed by the nomenclature as in the "classificatory" approach, but by the fact that they are derived from a common node. I 238 Categorical Grammar/Tradition/Lyons: here the term dependency (dependency similar to subordination) is fundamental. >Categorial grammar._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
||
> Counter arguments against Lyons
> Counter arguments in relation to Phrase Structure Grammar
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-27