Sarah über Syntax about syntax ausgeliehen. borrowed. 'Sarah borrowed a book on .... (Roberts 2003) and have to be part of the background of a sentence.
HPSG approaches to information structure
• A basic HPSG approach (Engdahl & Vallduv´ı 1996; Engdahl 1999)
The Interface of Syntax and Information Structure from an HPSG perspective
• Using information structure to explain away syntactic stipulations: – Explaining Constraints on NP-PP Split in German (De Kuthy 2002)
Kordula De Kuthy Introduction to HPSG, July 13, 2009
2/44
The approach to information structure of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı
• The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996) is built on the information packaging theory of Vallduv´ı (1992), and they assume the same partitioning of focus and ground, with the ground further divided into link and tail.
The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
• Following Bolinger (1958), Engdahl & Vallduv´ı assume that focus and link (topic) are each marked by a pitch accent: A accent (falling contour) and B accent (fall-rise). • The connection between intonation and information structure is expressed in HPSG by extending the phon value with a feature accent and specifying:
• Engdahl (1999) encodes this approach by enriching HPSG signs with the following information structure representation: 2 sign 6 6 6 6synsem|local|context 4
The interface between prosody and information structure
3 2 2 337 focus content 7 " #777 6 6info-struc 6 77 link content 4 5 4 55 ground tail content
word
→
2 3 phon|accent "A #7 6 content 1 5∨ 4 synsem|loc context|info-struc|focus 1
2 3 phon|accent "B #7 6 content 1 5∨ 4 synsem|loc context|info-struc|ground|link 1
3/44
2 3 phon|accent "unaccented # 6 7 content content 4 5 synsem|loc context|info-struc info-struc
4/44
An example analysis: Narrow object focus Sfin
2
2
An example analysis: Wide VP focus
33 # 6 6 77 link 4 55 4synsem|loc|context|info-struct 4 ground tail 2
2
NPnom
focus
NP
nom 3 phon |accent B " # 6 7 content 4 4 5 s|l cxt|info-struct|ground|link 4
2
VPfin
John "
Vfin phon|accent un s|l|content 2
The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
plays
#
"
NP
acc 3 phon |accent A " # 6 7 content 1 4 5 s|l cxt|info-struct|focus 1
2
RUGBY
"
synsem|loc|context|info-struct
32 2 33 phon|accent B content #7 "3 #77 6 " 6 6 content 4 focus 1 4 5 4s|l 4 55 s|l cxt|info-struct cxt|info-struct|ground|link 4 ground|tail 2
John
Sfin
"
"1
5/44
Information structure values of phrases
"
## i h3 ground link 4 focus
VPfin
"
content 3 s|l cxt|info-struct|focus 3
Vfin phon|accent un s|l|content 2
#
##
NP
acc 3 phon | accent A " # 6 7 content 1 4 5 s|l cxt|info-struct|focus 1
2
plays
RUGBY
The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
6/44
Word order and information structure
• Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996) propose that the general ID schemata for English should be enriched by instantiation principles for the info-struc features.
• In their work on Catalan, Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996) observe that there is a correlation between the position in the sentence and the information status: – Link material is left-dislocated and tail material is right-dislocated. – What remains inside the core clause is interpreted as focal.
• These principles are not fully formulated and include notions such as “not instantiated”, which cannot be interpreted in the model theoretic architecture of HPSG (Pollard & Sag 1994).
• To account for this correlation, the ID schemata for Catalan that license dislocation also constrain the informational status of the daughters. (2) a. Link ID-schema: "
• Focus projection for English is specified so that focus can only project from the most oblique argument daughter.
b. Tail ID-schema: "
Note that for intransitive verbs, this focus projection principle licenses focus projection from the subject, as in (1). (1) a. [[Your MOTHER]]F phoned. b. [[Your MOTHER phoned.]]F The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
S focus 1 link 2
S focus 1 tail 2
NP S # → h i , " # content 1 content 2 focus 1
NP S # → h i , " # content content 2 1 focus 1
• The word order is constrained so that a constituent whose link value is instantiated precedes the focus, which in turn precedes a tail, if there is one. 7/44
The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
8/44
Problems with content as the value of information features
Incorrect focus values I: narrow focus
• Engdahl (1999) does not discuss the nature of the content that is structure-shared with the info-struc features focus, link, and tail.
"
– Under their approach, the semantics of a phrase is already assembled in the lexical specifications of the semantic head. The content of the mother and the semantic head daughter are structure shared, i.e., identical.
9/44
Incorrect focus values II: VP focus 2
2 cat|head 3 6 6 4s|l 4cont 6 cxt|info-str|focus
(4) Q: What does she drink? A: She [[drinks wine]]F . s "
phon synsem 1
2 cat|head 3 6 6 4s|l 4cont 6 cxt|info-str|focus
33
#
2
2
33 cat|head 3 77 6 6 55 4s|l 4cont 6 cxt|info-str|focus 6
c
# 3 " phon phon 2 3 " #7 6 head 3 synsem 2 6 E 77 D 7 6 6cat 7 6 6 7 subcat 1 NP 4 , 2 NP 5 77 6 6 2 3 6 6 77 6 6 77 drink’ 6s|l 6 77 6 6cont 6drinker 7 77 64 45 6 6 77 6 6 77 drunken 5 4 4 55 cxt|info-str|focus 6 10/44 2
The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
The following aspects of the approach need to be rethought:
77 55 6
• Where in a sign is the info-struc appropriately placed?
2
h
6
h
Open issues in the approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı
h #
phon synsem 1
77 55
h
– This leads to unwanted results in the cases of narrow focus on the verb and VP focus, since in both cases the focus value is identical to the focus value of an all-focus utterance, as illustrated on the next page.
The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
2 cat|head 3 6 6 4s|l 4cont 6 cxt|info-str|focus
s
• It is important to note that this cannot be the traditional content representation of HPSG proposed in Pollard & Sag (1994):
33
2
(3) Q: Does she hate wine? A: No, she [[drinks]]F wine.
• What are appropriate values for the information structure features focus and ground?
33 77 55 6
c
3 32 phon phon 2 3 " " ## " # 6 7 6 76 7 head 3 6 E 77 D 5 6 6cat 7 4s 2 loc cont 7 6 6 77 cxt | info-str | focus NP , NP subcat 7 1 2 6 6 4 5 77 6 6 2 3 77 6s|l 6 77 drink’ 6 6 77 6 7 6 6 77 4 4cont 64drinker 4 5 55 drunken 5 11/44
• Proper principles determining the distribution of info-struc in the tree need to be formulated.
2
The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
12/44
Our approach to information structure in HPSG
Phenomenon I: NP-PP Split in German
• Two empirical challenges from the grammar of German I. Accounting for context-effects on the grammaticality of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002) II. Explaining the definiteness effect that is observable when subjects occur as part of fronted non-verbal constituents (De Kuthy & Meurers 2003)
Fronting of a PP ¨ (5) Uber Syntax hat Sarah [ein Buch] ausgeliehen. about syntax has Sarah a book borrowed ‘Sarah borrowed a book on syntax.’
Fronting of a partial NP (6) [Ein Buch] hat Sarah u ¨ber Syntax ausgeliehen. a book has Sarah about syntax borrowed
• We address these empirical challenges by
‘Sarah borrowed a book on syntax.’
– investigating information structure requirements for partial fronting ∗ focus and focus projection ∗ connecting focus projection to what can be fronted – developing an HPSG account taking as its starting point the approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
The approach of Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996)
13/44
Lexical restrictions affecting the NP-PP Split
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
14/44
Context effects affecting the NP-PP Split
¨ (7) a. * Uber Syntax hat Sarah [ein Buch] geklaut. on syntax has Sarah a book stolen
(8) Gestern wurde in der Bibliothek eine Anzahl von Linguistikb¨ uchern geklaut. Vor allem Semantikb¨ ucher verschwanden dabei. ‘Yesterday, a number of linguistics books were stolen from the library. Mostly books on semantic disappeared.’
‘Sarah stole a book on syntax.’
b. * [Ein Buch] hat Sarah u ¨ber Syntax geklaut. a book has Sarah about syntax stolen
¨ Uber Syntax wurde jedoch [nur ein einziges Buch] geklaut. on syntax was however only one single book stolen
‘Sarah stole a book on syntax.’
‘There was, however, only one book on syntax stolen.’
(9) Gestern war Klaus seit langem mal wieder in der Bibliothek. ‘Yesterday, Klaus went to the library.’
# [Ein Buch] wollte er dort u ¨ber Syntax ausleihen. a book wanted he there on syntax borrow ‘He wanted to borrow a book on syntax there.’ An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
15/44
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
16/44
Accounting for the context effect
Information structure in German Primitives: We assume a division into focus and background, following the perspective that the new, information-bearing part of the sentence is the central aspect of information structure (cf., e.g., Sgall et al. 1986; Stechow 1981).
To account for the context effects, we • explore possible focus-background structures of NP-PP split
Manifestation: German is a so-called intonation language in which focused constituents are signaled by pitch accent (F´ery 1993).
• develop an information-structure component for HPSG
– The syllable bearing the pitch accent is called the focus exponent. – Only one syllable is stressed by a pitch accent, but through focus projection larger parts of a sentence can be focused.
• formulate constraints on the focus-background structures of NP-PP split which interact with the syntactic account
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
17/44
Pitch accents in German
18/44
Focus-background structures of NP-PP split
Narrow Focus (10) What did Karl give to the child? a. Karl hat dem Kind [das BUCH\]F geschenkt. Karl has the child the book given
• Which questions are compatible with which accents in the NP-PP split examples? • We have investigated: – Fronted PPs ∗ accent on the partial NP ∗ accent on the PP
‘Karl has given the book to the child.’
Multiple focus construction (11) Who travels where? a. [GABI/]F f¨ahrt [nach BERLIN\]F . Gabi travels to Berlin
– Fronted partial NPs ∗ accent on the partial NP ∗ accent on the PP
Topic accent – I-topicalization (12) Who slept? a. [GESCHLAFEN/]T hat [KEINER\]F von uns, aber . . . slept has no-one of us but . . . An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
• Based on this empirical investigation we conclude: The split NP and PP cannot both be part of the same focus projection or the background.
19/44
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
20/44
Fronted PPs – accent on the NP (I)
Fronted PPs — accent on the NP (II)
Only focus on NP possible
Multiple focus construction and i-topicalization
(13) a. What did Sarah borrow about Mozart? ¨ Uber Mozart hat Sarah [ein BUCH\]F ausgeliehen. about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
(14) a. About which composer did Sarah borrow what? ¨ [Uber MOZART/]F hat Sarah [ein BUCH\]F ausgeliehen. about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
b. What did Sarah borrow? ¨ # [Uber Mozart]F hat Sarah [ein BUCH\]F ausgeliehen. about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
b. What did Sarah borrow about famous composers? ¨ [Uber MOZART/]T hat Sarah [ein BUCH\]F ausgeliehen. about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
c. What happened? ¨ # [Uber Mozart hat Sarah ein BUCH\ ausgeliehen.]F about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
21/44
Fronted PPs – accent on the PP
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
Fronted NPs – accent on the PP
Only focus on PP possible
Only focus on PP possible
(15) a. About what did Sarah borrow a book? ¨ [Uber MOZART\]F hat Sarah ein Buch ausgeliehen. about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
(16) a. About what did Sarah borrow a book? Ein Buch hat Sarah [¨ uber MOZART\]F ausgeliehen. a book has Sarah on Mozart borrowed
b. What did Sarah borrow? ¨ # [Uber MOZART\]F hat Sarah [ein Buch]F ausgeliehen. about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
b. What did Sarah borrow? # [Ein Buch]F hat Sarah [¨ uber MOZART\]F ausgeliehen. a book has Sarah on Mozart borrowed
c. What did Sarah do? ¨ # [Uber MOZART\]F hat Sarah [ein Buch ausgeliehen.]F about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
22/44
c. What did Sarah do? # [Ein Buch]F hat Sarah [¨ uber MOZART\ ausgeliehen.]F a book has Sarah on Mozart borrowed
23/44
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
24/44
Fronted NPs – accent on the NP
Fronted NPs – accent on the PP (II)
Multiple focus construction and i-topicalization
Only focus on NP possible
(17) a. About which composer did Sarah borrow what? [Ein BUCH/]F hat Sarah [¨ uber MOZART\]F ausgeliehen. a book has Sarah about Mozart borrowed
(18) a. What did Sarah borrow about Mozart? [Ein BUCH\]F hat Sarah u ¨ber Mozart ausgeliehen. a book has Sarah about Mozart borrowed b. What did Sarah borrow? # [Ein BUCH\]F hat Sarah [¨ uber Mozart]F ausgeliehen. a book has Sarah about Mozart borrowed
b. Material about which composer did Sarah borrow? [Ein BUCH/]T hat Sarah [¨ uber MOZART\]F ausgeliehen. a book has Sarah about Mozart borrowed
c. What did Sarah do? # [Ein BUCH\]F hat Sarah [¨ uber Mozart ausgeliehen.]F a book has Sarah about Mozart borrowed
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
25/44
The Specificity Effect
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
26/44
Counterexamples to the Specificity Effect
M¨ uller (1996) and others claim that NP-PP split exhibits a specificity effect, a classical restriction on extraction (Fiengo & Higginbotham 1981).
Pafel (1993) shows that specificity of NP does not always disallow fronting of an embedded PP.
¨ (19) a. * Uber Syntax hat Karl [das Buch] gelesen. on syntax has Karl the book read
¨ (20) a. Uber Syntax hat Karl nur dieses, aber nicht jenes Buch gelesen. on syntax has Karl only this but not that book read
‘Karl read the book on syntax.’
‘Karl only read this book on syntax and not that one.’
b. ?? [Das Buch] hat Karl u ¨ber Syntax gelesen. the book has Karl on syntax read
b. [Nur dieses Buch] hat Karl u ¨ber Syntax gelesen. Only this book has Karl on syntax read ‘Karl only read this book on syntax.’
Our idea: Reduce this specificity effect to information structure principles.
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
27/44
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
28/44
The pragmatics of definite determiners
a) Definite NPs which refer to entities present in the discourse
We need to distinguish two classes of definite NPs: a) Definite NPs which have as antecedent a discoure referent introduced via the utterance of a preceding NP and thus are discourse old or strongly familiar (Roberts 2003) and have to be part of the background of a sentence. b) Definite NPs which are used deicticly, endophorically or as a semantic definite (i.e., which are weakly familiar, Roberts 2003), which are often not discourse old and can thus be in the focus of a sentence.
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
29/44
b) Definite NPs which do not refer to such present entities
(21) Yesterday, I saw an interesting book on syntax at Osiander. a. Ich habe mir [das Buch u ¨ber Syntax] heute gekauft. I have me the book on syntax today bought ‘Today, I bought this book on syntax.’
¨ b. # Uber Syntax habe ich mir [das Buch] heute gekauft. on syntax have I me the book today bought The entire definite NP including the embedded PP in (21b) is in the background of the sentence → ungrammaticality expected.
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
30/44
An HPSG analysis
We couch our analysis in the HPSG approach to the information structure-syntax interface developed in De Kuthy (2002), taking Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996) as a starting point, but extending it as spelled out here and in the following:
Such NPs can be in the focus of an utterance: (22) What did you buy at Osiander? Ich habe mir das Buch u ¨ber Syntax gekauft, das Du mir letztlich I have me the book on syntax bought which you me recently empfohlen hast. recommended have
The value of the information structure features • The values of the info-struc features are chunks of semantic information.
‘I bought the book on syntax that you recommended to me very recently.’
• The language Ty2 of two-sorted type theory is chosen as the semantic object language, as proposed in Sailer (2000).
This supports a definite NP in the focus, with the PP in the background: (23) What did you borrow on syntax? ¨ Uber Syntax habe ich mir [das Buch, das Du mir empfohlen on syntax have I me the book which you to me recommended hast,] ausgeliehen. has borrowed
• The values of focus and topic in the information structure are lists of Ty2 expressions, called meaningful expressions.
‘On Syntax I borrowed the book that you recommended to me.’ 31/44
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
32/44
Location of information structure in signs
Representation of information structure
• Information structure as part of local objects as assumed by Engdahl & Vallduv´ı (1996) is problematic in connection with unbounded dependencies. • In long-distance dependencies, only the filler should contribute to the information structure of a sentence, not the trace.
(24) Peter [[liest ein BUCH.]]F Peter reads a book
• Information structure as part of synsem object would only make sense if it played a role in syntactic selection.
2 3 phon hPeter,liest,ein,Buchi 6 7 0 0 6s|loc|cont|lf "∃x[book (x) ∧ read (p, x)] #7 6 7 6 focus hλy∃x[book0(x) ∧ read0(y, x)]i 7 4info-struc 5 topic hi
• Conclusion: Information structure should be appropriate for sign objects. 2
3 sign 6phon 7 list 6 7 6 7 synsem 5 4synsem info-struc info-struc
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
In the tradition of the structured meaning approaches (Stechow 1981; Jacobs 1983; Krifka 1992), the background of a sentence is defined to be that part of the logical form of the sentence which is neither in focus nor in topic.
33/44
Structured Meaning and Information Structure
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (De Kuthy 2002)
Example for structured meaning and information structure
Information structure (info-struc) is represented for unembedded signs.
2
3 structured-meaning 6 7 4focus list(meaningful-expr )5 topic list(meaningful-expr )
3 sign 7 6phon list 7 6 6 7 synsem 4synsem 5 structured-meaning struc-meaning
embedded-sign "
"
3 s|loc|cont|lf ∃x[book0 (x) ∧ read0 (peter 0 , x)] h D Ei7 6 0 0 6struc-mean 1 focus 2 λy∃x[book (x) ∧ read (y, x)] 7 4 5 info-struc 1
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (based on De Kuthy 2002)
Peter
" # s|loc|cont|lf λP [P (peter 0 )] struc-mean|focus hi
# unembedded-sign info-struc struc-meaning
info-struc 1 unembedded-sign → structured-meaning 1
Peter liest ein BUCH
2
The components of the semantic representations which a sign can contribute to the topic/focus of the unembedded sign is encoded in structured-meaning.
2
34/44
#
liest ein BUCH
" # s|loc|cont|lf 2 λy∃x[book0 (x) ∧ read0 (y, x)] ˙ ¸ struc-mean|focus 2
liest
" # ein BUCH # s|loc|cont|lf λwλy[read0 (y, w)] " 0 s | loc | cont | lf 3 λQ∃x[book (x) ∧ Q(x)] struc-mean|focus hi ˙ ¸ struc-mean|focus 3
ein
35/44
" # s|loc|cont|lf λP λQ∃x[P (x) ∧ Q(x)] struc-mean|focus hi
BUCH
" # s|loc|cont|lf 4 λz[book0 (z)] ˙ ¸ struc-mean|focus 4
Encoding Accents
Relating pitch accents and lexical information structure
To encode whether a word bears an accent or not, we enrich the phonology of signs with the feature accent. 3 " #7 6 phon-string list 4 5 phon accent accent 2
sign
A small type hierarchy specifies the three values for the new attribute: accent unaccented
accented rising-accent
word
∨...
falling-accent
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (based on De Kuthy 2002)
37/44
The information structure of phrases
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (based on De Kuthy 2002)
38/44
Footnote for the formally inclined: Relation definitions
Focus projection principles define which parts of the sentence can be in the focus given a particular pitch accent placement. Focus projection in NPs and PPs: If the rightmost constituent in a PP or NP is focused, the entire NP or PP can be. 2
phrase →
3 phon|accent falling-accent 7 6 6s|loc|cont|lf "1 #7 7 → 6 7 6 4struc-meaning focus h 1 i 5 topic hi 2 3 phon|accent rising-accent 6 7 6s|loc|cont|lf "1 # " #7 7 ∨6 6 7 4struc-meaning focus hi ∨ focus h 1 i 5 topic h 1 i topic hi 2 3 phon|accent "unaccented # 7 focus hi 5 ∨6 4 struc-meaning topic hi 2
3 struc-meaning|focus 1 ⊕ collect-focus ( 2 ) 6 7 4head-dtr|struc-meaning|focus 1 5 non-head-dtrs 2 2 3 phon|" phon-str 1 ⊕ 2 # 7 6 7 6 6s|loc cat|head noun ∨ prep 7 7 6 cont | lf 3 6 7 7 6 ∨ 6struc-meaning |focus h 3 i 02 317 6 7 7 6 phon|phon-str 2 6 6 7C7 7 6a-dtrB s | l | cont | lf 4 @ 4 5 A 4 5 struc-meaning|focus h 4 i
collect-focus (hi) := hi. h D Ei# " " # first 1 first struc-meaning|focus 1 collect-focus ( ) := . rest collect-focus ( 2 ) rest 2
h i a-dtr ( head-dtr 1 ) := 1 . h i a-dtr ( non-head-dtrs element ( 1 ) ) := 1 . h i element ( first 1 ) := 1 . h i element ( rest 2 ) := element ( 2 ).
∨... An information structure account of NP-PP Split (based on De Kuthy 2002)
39/44
An information structure account of NP-PP Split (based on De Kuthy 2002)
40/44
Example analyses: information structure in NP-PP split
A multiple-focus structure 2
3 ¨ p|ps D E#7 " 6 0 0 6 focus 1 λy[ueber (y, m)], 2 λQ∃x[buch (x) ∧ Q(x)] 7 4is 5 topic hi
(25) a. Was hat Sarah u ¨ber welchen Komponisten ausgeliehen? f
‘About which composer did Sarah borrow what?’
¨ [Uber MOZART/]F hat Sarah [Ein BUCH\]F ausgeliehen. about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
2
h 2
3
¨ p|ps 7 6s| 4 l|co|lf 1 7 6 " ˙ ¸# 7 6 focus 1 5 4 sm topic hi
b. Was hat Sarah u ¨ber ber¨ uhmte Komponisten ausgeliehen?
2
‘What did Sarah borrow about famous composers?’
6 4
¨ [Uber MOZART/]T hat Sarah [ein BUCH\]F ausgeliehen. about Mozart has Sarah a book borrowed
h
3 ¨ > p|ps p|ps
