tailieunhanh - Báo cáo khoa học: "Features and Agreement"

This paper compares the consislencybased account of agreement phenomenaing sections up to the conclusion discusses an important difference between the two approaches. 2 Features Grammar in Lambek Categorial in 'unification-based' grammars with an implication-based account based on a simple feature extension to Lambek Categorim G r a m m a r (LCG). We show that the LCG treatment accounts for constructions that have been recognized as problematic for 'unification-based' treatments. | Features and Agreement Sam Bayer and Mark Johnson Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences Box 1978 Brown University b ay er mj @ cog. brown. edu Abstract This paper compares the consistencybased account of agreement phenomena in unification-based grammars with an implication-based account based on a simple feature extension to Lambek Categorial Grammar LCG . We show that the LCG treatment accounts for constructions that have been recognized as problematic for unification-based treatments. 1 Introduction This paper contrasts the treatment of agreement phenomena in standard complex feature structure or unification-based grammars such as HPSG Pollard and Sag 1994 with that of perhaps the simplest possible feature extension to Lambek Categorial Grammar LCG Lambek 1958 . We identify a number of situations where the two accounts make different predictions and find that generally the LCG account is superior. In the process we provide analyses for a number of constructions that have been recognized as problematic for unification-based accounts of agreements Zaenen and Karttunen 1984 Pullum and Zwicky 1986 Ingria 1990 . Our account builds on the analysis of coordination in applicative categorial grammar in Bayer 1994 and the treatment of Boolean connectives in LCG provided by Morrill 1992 . Our analysis is similiar to that proposed by Mineur 1993 but differs both in its application and details. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section describes the version of LCG we use in this paper for reasons of space we assume familiarity with the treatment of agreement in unificationbased grammars see Shieber 1986 and Pollard and Sag 1994 for details. Then each of the follow- We would like to thank Bob Carpenter Pauline Jacobson John Maxwell Glynn Morrill and audiences at Brown University the University of Pennsylvania and the Universitãt Stuttgart for helpful comments on this work. Naturally all errors remain our own. ing sections up to the conclusion discusses an .