Robert D. Borsley

An HPSG approach to Welsh

Welsh differs from English in a number of ways. The most obvious point is that it is a VSO language, but it also has distinctive agreement phenomena and clitics. For this reason, it is natural to ask of any theory of syntax that has been developed primarily on the basis of English: how can it handle Welsh? Welsh has had fairly extensive attention within the Government-Binding theory (see, for example, Harlow, 1981; Sproat, 1985; Sadler, 1988, and Hendrick, 1988). It has also had some attention within Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) (see Harlow, 1983; Borsley, 1983; 1988a). In this paper, I will consider how some of the central features of Welsh can be accommodated within Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). This is a framework developed over the last few years by Carl Pollard, Ivan Sag and others, which seeks to combine the insights of GPSG, categorial grammar and certain other theories (see Pollard, 1985, 1988; Sag & Pollard, 1987, and Pollard & Sag, 1988). In fact, I will be mainly concerned with the version of HPSG developed in Borsley (1986, 1987, 1988 b), but I will also have something to say about standard HPSG.

Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar

List of Contributors. Introduction: Robert D. Borsley (University of Essex) and Kersti Borjars (University of Manchester). 1. Elementary principles of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Georgia M Green). 2. Advanced topics in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar Andreas (Kathol, Adam Przepiorkowski and Jesse Tseng). 3. Lexical-Functional Grammar: interactions between morphology and syntax (Rachel Nordlinger Joan Bresnan). 4. Lexical-Functional Grammar: functional structure (Helge Lodrup). 5. Combinatory Categorial Grammar (Mark Steedman and Jason Baldridge). 6. Multi-Modal Type-Logical Grammar (Richard T Oehrle). 7. Alternative minimalist visions of language (Ray Jackendoff). 8. Feature-based grammar (James P. Blevins). 9. Lexicalism, periphrasis and implicative morphology (Farrell Ackerman, Gregory T Stump and Gert Webelhuth). 10. Performance-compatible competence grammar (Ivan A Sag and Thomas Wasow). 11. Modelling grammar growth: universal grammar without innate principles or parameters (Georgia M. Green). 12. Language Acquisition with feature-based grammars (Aline Villavicencio). Index of Subjects. Index of Languages.

Phrase-structure grammar and the Barriers conception of clause structure

A major theme of Chomskys Barriers monograph is the extension of X-bar theory to the so-called nonlexical categories I (INFL) and C (COMP). The extension of X-bar theory to C is a matter of considerable interest. Hence, it is natural to ask whether the analysis can be incorporated into Other frameworks. In particular, it is natural to consider whether it can be incorporated into a phrase-structure-grammar framework such as generalized phrase-structure grammar or head-driven phrase-structure grammar. This is indeed possible. Specifically, it is possible to incorporate it into the version of HPSG developed in Borsley (1986,1987, forthcoming) given Jacobsons (1987) proposal that verb-initial sentences involve a type of bounded dependency which can be analyzed in terms of a feature DSL (double-slash) and the assumption that complementizers are a specialized kind of verb.

Agreement and the position of subjects in Breton

Like the other Celtic languages, Breton is generally considered to be a VSO language. Stump (1984) argues that affirmative subject-initial sentences in Breton are ordinary subject-verb sentences, and not topicalized verb-subject sentences. His argument is based on the fact that these sentences show no verbal agreement. Stump suggests that this lack of agreement is an instance of a Complementarity Principle, a generalization which states that overt argument NPs do not cooccur with agreement in Breton. In this paper, we show that the empirical generalization underlying Stumps analysis is quite dubious. Moreover, it is impossible to prevent a topicalization analysis for affirmative subject-initial sentences; indeed, evidence from coordination shows that the topicalization analysis must be available. We suggest that the absence of agreement is due to a different generalization: there is no agreement with wh-trace subjects in affirmative clauses. Thus there is no reason to think that Breton has a class of ordinary subject-verb sentences.

On Subject-Auxiliary Inversion and the notion “purely formal generalization”

Abstract English Subject-Auxiliary Inversion (SAI, hereafter) has been considered by many linguists to be a prime example of a formal generalization that does not allow a characterization in functional or semantic terms. However, Adele Goldbergs target article argues that the internal syntactic form of SAI can indeed by characterized in such terms. We provide a considerable amount of evidence that Goldberg is unsuccessful in her attempt to mount a counter-challenge to the idea that SAI represents a significant purely formal generalization in the grammar of English.

Mutation and constituent structure in Welsh

Abstract Like the other Celtic languages, Welsh has systems of word-initial consonant alternations known as mutations. Typically, mutation is triggered by an immediately preceding lexical item of some kind. However, Harlow (1989) pointed out that there are examples where mutation seems to be triggered by an immediately preceding NP. Borsley and Tallerman (1998) argue that mutation is in fact triggered by any immediately preceding and c-commanding phrase. This proposal seems a promising one, but it faces a number of problems. Some of the problems are associated with assumptions specific to the Principles and Parameters (P&P) framework, but others look like problems for any theoretical framework. It seems, however, that a version of the Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) framework can provide a simple account of the facts in which the various problems disappear. More generally, it seems that whereas P&P assumptions about syntactic structure are quite problematic in this area, HPSG provides just the right sort of syntactic structure to give a satisfactory account of the process.

The syntax of Welsh negation

Colloquial Welsh negation involves many complexities. Negative sentences require an n-word in subject or object position or as a post-subject adverb. The picture is complicated by the fact that the main negative adverb is homophonous with a negative quantifier. Further, there are differences between negative subjects and negative objects, and between different negative adverbs. Non-finite negation often involves a negative verb, but it seems somewhat simpler than finite negation. It allows, but does not require, an n-word. The main facts can be accommodated fairly readily within Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). Within this framework non-finite negation can be analysed in terms of a small number of negative heads, finite negation, in terms of a number of types of negative verb.

Apparent Filler-gap Mismatches in Welsh

Abstract Filler–gap dependencies involving a clause-initial filler constituent of some kind followed by a matching gap are an important feature of human languages. There are also certain cases where what looks like a filler differs in some way from the following gap. In the case of Welsh there is a mismatch between apparent filler and gap in some nominal cleft sentences. It can be argued, however, that the initial constituent is not a filler but one term of a hidden identity predication. There are various other complexities in this area. There is one word, the identity copula, which only allows a complement that is a gap. There are two cases where a deletion process conceals the identity of the initial constituent in a cleft sentence, making a Progressive Phrase look like a Verb Phrase and a Predicative Phrase look like an Adjective Phrase or a Noun Phrase. Finally, there are three cases where a verb with a gap as a dependent has a special form, two cases involving the predicational copula and one involving all transitive verbs. Thus, a number of mechanisms are required to deal with the full set of facts.

GPSG and Welsh clause structure

The approach taken within generalized phrase-structure grammar (GPSG) to certain phenomena involving subjects seems to necessitate the assumption that Welsh sentences have an NP VP structure. Evidence that verb-subject sentences have an NP VP structure poses no problems for a transformational framework. On the face of it, however, it is problematic for GPSG. For GPSG, the structural description of a sentence is a single tree. Hence, a verb-subject sentence cannot literally have an NP VP structure. It is possible, however, within a version of GPSG which employs what can be called complex ID rules for a verb-subject sentence to be associated with an NP VP structure in a way that allows the GPSG approach to the crucial phenomena to be maintained. Thus, it is possible to accommodate the Welsh phenomena within GPSG assumptions. This approach is not just relevant to Welsh. It is likely that most VSO languages have similar phenomena. Hence, it is probably relevant to most VSO languages. It is also probably relevant to most languages with VSO structures, whatever their dominant word order. As Chung (1983) observes, research into the syntax of VSO languages has generally found that they differ rather less from SVO languages than one might expect. Chung illustrates this point with the VSO language Chamorro. She shows that, given certain assumptions of the government-binding framework (GB), certain features of Chamorro necessitate the assumption that Chamorro sentences have an NP VP structure as well as the obvious flat, verb-initial structure. Essentially the same point is made in Sproat (1985) in connection with another VSO language, Welsh. In this paper, I will be concerned like Sproat with Welsh, but I will focus on another theoretical framework, generalized phrase-structure grammar (GPSG). My basic conclusion will be similar to Chungs and Sproats. I will show that the GPSG approach to certain phenomena involving Linguistics 26 (1988), 365-382 0024-3949/88/0026-0365

Syntactic Theory: A Unified Approach

2.00 (c) Mouton de Gruvter. Amsterdam