Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

A-Z 677grammatical function of the obligatory and optional complements are specified, not theirsyntactic category. In LFG many syntactic relations described by transformations intransformational grammar (e.g. those between sentences with transitive verbs and thecorresponding sentences with passive, middle, or causative verbs) are produced in thelexicon rather than the syntax. Lexical rules relate the corresponding verb classes andproduce the correspondences between the complement position in the PRED attribute.Non-local dependencies, e.g. in wh-questions and topicalization, were originally dealtwith by feature transmission. A newer version of LFG treats non-local dependenciesthrough functional uncertainty (see Kaplan and Zaenen 1989). The functional structureof a sentence, especially the predicate expression that is the value of the attribute PRED,is the basis for semantic interpretation. Halvorsen (1983) suggests a semantic componentborrowed from Montague grammar. Fenstad et al. (1987) use functional structure forthe encoding of situational schemata, feature-based representations of meaning, whichcan be interpreted by using situation semantics. LFG was used for many descriptions ofindividual languages, e.g. English (Bresnan 1982), for Warlpiri (Simpson and Bresnan1983), Chichewa, Japanese, and Serbo-Croatian (Iida et al. 1987). It also serves as thebasis for the implementation of numerous computational natural language systems on thecomputer, e.g. Reyle and Frey (1983), Block and Haugeneder. (1988), and Kaplan andMaxwell (1988).ReferencesBlock, H.U. and H.Haugeneder. 1988. An efficiency-oriented LFG parser. In U.Reyle and C.Rohrer (eds), Natural language parsing and linguistic theories. Dordrecht. 149–76.Bresnan, J. 1982. Control and complementation. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation ofgram-matical relations. Cambridge, MA. 282–390.Dalrymple, M. 1993. The syntax of anaphoric binding. Chicago, IL.Fenstad. J.E., P.K.Halvorsen, T.Langholm, and J. van Benthem. 1987. Situations, language andlogic. Dordrecht.Halvorsen, P.K. 1983. Semantics for Lexical-Functional Grammar. LingI 14. 567–615.Horn, G.M. 1983. Lexical-Functional Grammar. Berlin and New York.Iida, M., S.Wechsler, and D.Zec (eds) 1987. Working papers in grammatical theory and dis-coursestructure. Stanford, CA.Kaplan, R.M. and J.T.Maxwell. 1988. Constituent coordination in Lexical-Functional grammar.COLING 88 1. 303–5.Kaplan, R.M. and Z.Zaenen. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, andfunctional uncertainty. In M.Baltin and A.Kroch (eds), Alternative conceptions of phrasestructure. Chicago, IL. 17–42.Kiss, T. 1993. Lexical-Functional Grammar. In J. Jacobs et al. (eds) Syntax: an internationalhandbook of contemporary research. Berlin and New York. 581–600.Reyle, U. and W.Frey. 1983. A Prolog implementation of Lexical-Functional Grammar. IJCAI 83.693–5.Simpson, J. and J.Bresnan. 1983. Control and obviation in Warlpiri. NL&LT 1. 49–64.Simpson, J. 1991. Warlpiri morpho-syntax: a lexicalist approach. Dordrecht.