| II.3 GPSG, as described in (Thompson 1981 b). We simply | | I) omdat ik probeer Nikki te leren Nederlands te spreken 2) omdat ik probeer Nikki Nederlands te leren spreken 3) omdat ik Nikki probeer te leren Nederlands te spreken 4) omdat ik Nikki Nederlands probeer te leren |
| treat all non-terminals as sequences, many of only | | spreken |
| one element. The same basic technique of a bottom- | | 5) * omdat ik Nikki probeer Nederlands te leren |
| up chart parsing strategy, which substitutes for | | spreken. |
| matched variables in the active version of the | | With | the | proviso | that | (I) | is | often | judged |
| rule, will do the job. | | By restricting only one | | questionable, at least on stylistic grounds, this |
| sequence variable | to occur once in each non- | | pattern of judgements seems fairly stable among |
| terminal, the task of matching is kept simple and | | native speakers of Dutch from the Netherlands. |
| deterministic. | Thus we allow e.g. SIZIb but not | | There is some suggestion that this is not the |
| ZlblZ. | The | | substitutions | take | place | by | | pattern of judgements typical of native speakers of |
| concatenation, so that if we have an instance of | | Dutch from Belgium. |
| rule (~) matching first [a] and then [3,b,b,b] in | |
| the course of bottom-up processing, the Z on the | | III.2 Grammar rules for the Dutch data |
| right hand side will match [b,b], and the resulting | |
| substitution into the left hand side will cause the | | This pattern leads us to propose the following |
| constituent to be labeled [S,b,b]. | | | | | basic rules for subordinate clauses: |
| In making this extension to my existing system, | |
| the changes required were all localised to that | |
| part of the code which matches rule parts against | |
| nodes, and here the price is paid only if a | |
| sequence variable is encountered. | This suggests | |
| that the impact of this mechanism on the parsing | |
| complexity of the system is quite small. | | |
| III. APPLICATION TO DUTCH | | |
| Given the limited space available, I can present | |
| only a very high-level | account | of how | this | |
| extension to GPSG can provide an account of crossed | |
| serial dependencies in Dutch. In particular I will | |
| have nothing to say about the difficult issue of | |
| the precise distribution of tensed and untensed | |
| verb forms. | | | | | | | | | |
| III. 1 The Dutch data | | | | | | |
| Discussion of the phenomenon of crossed serial | |
| dependencies | in | Dutch | subordinate | clauses | The is | result | is again | prepended | to the unused |
| balance, if any. bedeviled by considerable disagreement about just | The patient reader can satisfy |
| what the facts are. | The following five examples | himself | that | this will | produce | the following |
| form the core of the basis for my analysis: | | (crossed) interpretation: |
"
},
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"text": "VP -> ... V ... ==> VPIZ -> ... ZlV ...",
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"content": "| reflected in rules associated with each VP rule |
| which introduces a VP complement, allowing the verb |
| to be lowered onto the complement. | | As this rule |
| must also expand VPs with verbs lowered onto them, |
| we want e.g. | | | | | | |
| cii) vPlz -> ~P wlzlv. | | |
| Rather than enumerate such rules, we can use |
| metarules to conveniently express what is wanted: |
| I) H) vP -> ... v vP o-> vPlz -> ... vP:z:v. | |
| (I) will apply to all three of (B) -(D), allowing |
| compound verbs to be discharged at any point. | (II) |
| will apply to (B) and (C), allowing the lowering |
| (with | compounding | if | needed) | of | verbs | onto |
| complements. | We need one more rule, to unpack the |
| compound verbs, and the syntactic part of our |
| effort is complete: | | | | | |
| E) wlz -> W Z, | | | | | | |
| where W is an ordinary variable whose range |
| consists of V. This slight indirection is necessary |
| to | insure | that | subcategorisation | information |
| propagates correctly. | | | | | . |
| | | | | | | Taken straight, these give us (I) only. | For (2) |
| | | | | | | -(4), we propose what amounts to a verb lowering |
| | | | | | | approach, where verbs are lowered onto VPs, whence |
| | | | | | | they lower again to form compound verbs. | (5) is |
| | | | | | | ruled out by requiring that a lowered verb must |
| | | | | | | have a target verb to compound with. The resulting |
| | | | | | | compound may itself be lowered, but only as a unit. |
| | | | | | | This approach is partially inspired by Seuren's |
| | | | | | | transformational account in terms of predicate |
| | | | | | | raising (Seuren 1972). |
| | | | | | | So the interpretation of the compound labels is |
| | | | | | | that e.g. [V,V] is a compound verb, and [VP,V,V! is |
| | | | | | | a VP with a compound verb lowered onto it. | It |
| | | | | | | follows | that | for | each | VP rule, | we | need | an |
| | | | | | | associated | compound | version | which | allows | the |
| | | | | | | lowering of (possibly compound) verbs from the VP |
| | | | | | | onto the verb, so we would have e.g. |
| | | | | | | | Di) VPIZ -> NP ZIV, |
| | | | | | | where we now use Z as a variable over sequences of |
"
},
"TABREF5": {
"html": null,
"text": "that it is indeed weakly equivalent to TAG, then strong support will be lent to the claim that an interesting new point on the Chomsky hierarchy between CFGs and the indexed grammars has been found.r\" is simply p applied to the pair