Phrase Structure Grammar: the next generation

Hukari, Thomas E.; Levine, Robert D.

doi:10.1017/s0022226700015978

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But as Hukari and Levine (1996) note, this account is problematic on various fronts. Not only adverbs can be extracted when verbs take VP complements, but there are a number of languages for which valent and modifier extraction triggers exactly the same morphophonological processes.…”

Section: Lexical Gap Additionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction-based cumulation and adjunct extraction

Chaves

2009

hpsg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous HPSG accounts of extraction blur the distinction between valents and adjuncts by allowing verbs to lexically control the modifiers that combine with their phrasal projections. However, assuming that adjuncts are valents runs into various difficulties. This paper argues that the distinction between complements and adjuncts can be maintained, and that certain semantic phenomena that challenge traceless theories of extraction can be seen as an instance of a more general process. Finally, this paper also discusses a uniform mechanism for case assignment to valents and adverbial nominals.

show abstract

Section: Lexical Gap Additionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction-based cumulation and adjunct extraction

Chaves

2009

hpsg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This potential comes from the SLASH specifications that are posited in all nodes along the extraction path (the path between filler and gap). However, as Hukari and Levine (1994, 1995, 1996 have observed, the HPSG analysis presented by Pollard and Sag (1994) fails to embody the generalizations required in order to explain key universal properties of UDCs, in particular the 'registration' of such dependencies in cases of subject-and adverb-extraction. This demonstration led Bouma et al (2001) to propose a revised UDC analysis that avoids these difficulties by 'threading' the SLASH specfications through all heads within an extraction domain.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverb extraction and coordination: A reply to Levine

Sag

2005

hpsg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HPSG accounts of filler-gap dependencies hold considerable potential for explaining the cross-linguistic variation in unbounded dependency constructions (UDCs), specifically filler-gap dependencies. This potential comes from the SLASH specifications that are posited in all nodes along the extraction path (the path between filler and gap). However, as Hukari and Levine (1994, 1995, 1996) have observed, the HPSG analysis presented by Pollard and Sag (1994) fails to embody the generalizations required in order to explain key universal properties of UDCs, in particular the ˋregistration' of such dependencies in cases of subject- and adverb-extraction. This demonstration led Bouma et al. (2001) to propose a revised UDC analysis that avoids these difficulties by ˋthreading' the SLASH specfications through all heads within an extraction domain. However, Levine (2002) points out that this analysis encounters a new difficulty concerning the interaction of extraction and coordination. This paper revisits these issues, arguing that a small modification of the BMS analysis provides a solution to the important problem observed by Levine.

show abstract

“…However, a number of facts have more recently been seen to converge in favor of treating subject extraction as simply another instance of the same filler-gap relation as is seen in complement extraction. For example, the fact that in several languages a clause whose morphology reflects the fact that it is missing an argument is marked the same way whether it is missing a subject or a complement (Clements et al, 1983) suggests that there ought to be a universally available means of treating subject and complement extraction uniformly (Hukari & Levine 1996;Bouma et al, 2001;Ginzburg & Sag 2001: ch. 6;Levine & Hukari 2006: ch.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2). Furthermore, sentences such as (49a), which have parasitic gaps dependent on subject gaps in non-complement clauses, would not be allowed if subject extractions were described by a rule that treated missing subjects as constructions that were stipulated to consist of just an S[slash {NP}] mother and an unslashed VP daughter, as the original acount maintained (Haegeman 1984;Hukari & Levine 1996;Levine & Hukari 2006: ch. 2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%