Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:41:04.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argument Structure, Valence, and Binding

Review products

ManningC. D. & SagI. A. 1998. Argument Structure, Valence, and Binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 21, 107–144.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Christopher D. Manning  and
Ivan A. Sag
Christopher D. Manning
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, F12, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: cmanning@mail.usyd.edu.au.
Ivan A. Sag
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. E-mail: sag@csli. Stanford, edu
Get access

Extract

This paper develops within HPSG a model of grammar with two syntactic levels, valence lists and argument structure, at which sentences may have different representations: syntactically ergative and Western Austronesian languages are distinctive by allowing different prominence orderings between the valence lists and argument structure, while forms like passives and causatives have nested argument structure lists. While binding theory and related phenomena have traditionally been described in terms of surface grammatical relations or configurations, we demonstrate that binding theory is actually correctly described in terms of argument structure configurations. Such an approach generalizes nicely over accusative and ergative constructions, correctly predicts binding patterns with causative and passive verbs, and supports the lexicality-preserving account of passives and causatives advocated within HPSG.

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2 , December 1998 , pp. 107 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abeillé, A., Godard, D. & Sag, I. A., 1998. Two Kinds of Composition in French Complex Predicates. In Kathol, A., Hinrichs, E. & Nakazawa, T. (eds), Complex Predicates in Non-Derivational Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. L. 1979. The Structure of Causative Constructions. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Alsina, A. 1992. On the Argument Structure of Causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 517–555.Google Scholar
Alsina, A. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Alsina, A. 1997. A Theory of Complex Predicates: Evidence from Causatives in Bantu and Romance. In Alsina, A., Bresnan, J. & Sells, P. (eds), Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 203–246.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. 1985. The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1, 62–154.Google Scholar
Arka, I. W. 1998. From Morphosyntax to Pragmatics in Balinese. PhD thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Arka, I. W. & Manning, C. D. 1998. On the Three Subjects in Indonesian: Evidence from Binding. In Proceedings of the Third LFG Conference (LFG-98), University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Arka, I. & Wechsier, S. 1996. Argument Structure and Linear Order in Balinese. In Butt, M. & King, T. H. (eds), Proceedings of the First LFG Conference (LFG-96), Rank Xerox, Grenoble. http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications/LFG/lfgl.html.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. F. 1986. Russian Reflexlvization: A Comparison of Syntactic Accounts. Bachelor's Thesis, Harvard.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, M. 1992. Ergativity, Binding, and Scope. MS, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, R. 1989. Phrase-Structure Grammar and the Barriers Conception of Clause Structure. Linguistics 27, 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, G., Malouf, R. & Sag, I. A. 1998. Satisfying Constraints on Extraction and Adjunction. MS, Gronlngen University and Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S. A. 1995. The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Moshi, L. 1990. Object Asymmetries in Comparative Bantu Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21(2), 147–186.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Zaenen, A. 1990. Deep unaccusativity in LFG. In Dziwirek, K., Farrell, P. & Mejías-Bikandi, E. (eds), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 45–57.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Copestake, A. 1992. The Representation of Lexical Semantic Information. Technical Report Cognitive Science Research Papers 280, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Daliymple, M. 1993. The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Davis, A. 1996. Linking and the Hierarchical Lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford.Google Scholar
Davis, A. & Koenig, J.-P. 1996. Lexical Semantics and Linking Constraints in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on HPSG, Marseille.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. 1984. The Intonation System of Toba Batak. In Schachter, P. (ed.) Studies in the Structure of Toba Batak. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 5, 37–58.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin Jr, R. D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, M. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iida, M. 1992. Context and Binding in Japanese. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Iida, M., Manning, C. D., O'Neill, P. & Sag, I. A. 1994. The Lexical Integrity of Japanese Causatives. MS, Stanford University. Paper presented at the 68th meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 1977. On Relational Constraints on Grammars. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. M. (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. R. 1980. Ergativity in Inuktitut (Eskimo), in Montague Grammar and in Relational Grammar. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of “Subject”. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 303–333.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Klenin, E. R. 1974. Russian Reflexive Pronouns and the Semantic Roles of Noun Phrases in Sentences. PhD thesis, Princeton.Google Scholar
Kroeger, P. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1991. Pragmatic Leduction of the Binding Conditions Revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27, 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. D. 1996a. Argument Structure as a Locus for Binding Theory. In Butt, M. & King, T. H. (eds), Proceedings of the First LFG Conference (LFG-96), Rank Xerox, Grenoble. http://www-csli.Stanford.edu/publications/LFG/lfg1.html.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. 1996b. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. & Sag, I. A. 1995. Dissociations between Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Paper presented at the Tübingen HPSG workshop.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., Sag, I. A. & lida, M., in press. The Lexical Integrity of Japanese Causatives. In Levine, R. and Green, G. (eds), Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. P. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meurers, D. 1995. Towards a Semantics for Lexical Rules as Used in HPSG. Paper presented at the Conference on Formal Grammar, Barcelona, Spain, at the Tübingen HPSG workshop, and the ACQUILEX II Workshop on Lexical Rules, Cambridge, UK. Revised version available at http://www.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/~dm/.Google Scholar
Miller, B. W. 1988. Non-Configurationality in Tagalog. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Miller, P. H. & Sag, I. A. 1997. French Clitic Movement Without Clitics or Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Grammatical Relations and Anaphora in Malayalam. In Marantz, A. & Stowell, T. (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 4. Papers in Syntax. Department of Linguistics, MIT.Google Scholar
Mohanan, T. 1990. Arguments in Hindi. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. 1984. The Inadequacy of Some Monostratal Theories of Passive. In Perlmutter, D. M. & Rosen, C. E. (eds), Studies in Relational Grammar, Vol. 2. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 3–37.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1992. Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport, G. C. 1986. On Anaphor Binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. 1993. Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies: A Case Study of Bar- Adjectives in German. Master's thesis, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. (in press). Type-based Derivational Morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. T. 1989. Argument Structure and Complex Predicates. PhD thesis, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1980. Noun Incorporation in Greenlandic: A Case of Syntactic Word Formation. Language 56, 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1994. Reflexive Reference in West Greenlandic. Contemporary Linguistics 1, 137–159.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. & Fodor, J. D. 1994. Extraction Without Traces. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 13. Stanford Linguistics Association, 365–384.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. & Godard, D. 1994. Extraction of de-phrases from the French NP. In Gonzàlez, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society, 24, 519–541.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. 1976. The Subject in Philippine Languages: Topic, Actor, Actor-Topic or None of the Above. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 491–518.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. 1977. Reference Related and Role-Related Properties of Subjects. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. M. (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, 279–306.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. 1984. Semantic-Role-Based Syntax in Toba Batak. In Schachter, P. (ed.), Studies in the Structure of Toba Batak. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 5, 122–149.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1988. Voice in Philippine Languages. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugamoto, N. 1984. Reflexives in Toba Batak. In Schachter, P. (ed.), Studies in the Structure of Toba Batak. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 5, 150–171.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1998. Causatives and the nature of argument structure. In Kathol, A., Hinrichs, E., & Nakazawa, T. (eds), Complex Predicates in Non-Derivational Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. 1995. The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. & Arka, I. 1998. Syntactic Ergativity in Balinese: An Argument Structure Based Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 387–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, W. 1988. Thematic Structure and Reflexivization. In Wilkins, W. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic Relations, San Diego: Academic Press, 191–213.Google Scholar
Woodbury, A. C. 1977. Greenlandic Eskimo, Ergativity, and Relational Grammar. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. M. (eds), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, 307–336.Google Scholar
Xue, P., Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1994. A New Perspective on Chinese ziji. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 13. Stanford, CA. CSLI, 432–447.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. 1985. The Relation between Morphophonology and Morphosyntax: The Case of Romance Causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 247–290.Google Scholar