OF VERB SUBCATEGORIZATION
Sourabh Niyogi
Departmentof EletrialEngineering and Computer Siene
Massahusetts Instituteof Tehnology
Cambridge,MA 02139, USA
niyogimit.edu
Abstrat
Traditional aountsof verb subategorization, fromthe lassi workof Fillmore on, requireeither
aonsiderablenumberofsyntatirules to aount fordiversesenteneonstrutions,inluding
ross-languagevariation,orelseomplexlinkingrulesmappingthethematirolesofsemantieventtemplates
withpossible syntatiforms. Inthispaperweexhibitathirdapproah: weimplement,viaanexpliit
parser and lexion, the inorporation theory of Hale and Keyser (1993, 1998) to systematially over
mostpatterns in EnglishVerb Classes and Alternations (Levin1993), typially usingonly 1or 2
lex-ialentries perverb to subsume alarge numberof syntationstrutions and also most information
typiallyontainedinsemantievent templates, and,further, replaing thenotion of \thematiroles"
with preise strutural ongurations. The implemented parser uses the merge and move operations
formalized by Stabler (1997) inthe minimalistframework of Chomsky (2001). As a side benet, we
extendtheminimalistreognizerofHarkema(2000)toafullparsingimplementation. Wesummarizethe
urrentompatnessandoverage ofouraountandprovidethisminimalistlexionandparseronline
athttp://web.mit.edu/niyogi/www /mini mal. htm
1 The Problem of Verb Subategorization
Why do ertain verbs undergopartiular ertain alternations and not others? On some aounts,
e.g.Levin(1993),referredtohereafterasEVCA,alternationsprovideinsightintoverb
subategoriza-tionandhenehooksto parsing,ross-languagevariation, mahinetranslation,andlass basedverb
learning. However,fully implementedaountsofthephenomenaremainsanopenproblem, withat
leastthreealternativemodels,shownin Figure1.
Aounts may be solely desriptive { for example, lassifying verbs as having an intransitive, a
transitive,and/or ditransitiveform,asis familiar. Traditional omputational aounts (see1) map
these forms into individual grammarrules, (perhapsby maroexpansion-liketehniques) addingas
many rules as neessary to aount for naturally' ourring onstrutions (wh-movement, passive
forms, et.) For eah grammatial rule, a separate semanti deomposition is required, typially
labelingomponentphraseswithoneofseveral\thematiroles." Ariheraountprovidedbylexial
semantis(see2), exempliedin Jakendo(1983,1990) andRappaportHovavandLevin (1998),is
onethat hypothesizessemantitemplates, but requires linking rulesmappingsyntatiframes with
semanti templates governedby a partiular verb. Often these semanti templates are onstruted
inanadhomanner,and theorrespondinglinkingrulesareonsquentlyaolletionof
diÆult-to-implement heuristis. In this paper we implement arather dierent formalism(Hale and Keyser's
*Bobput. Butter wasputon thebread.
*Bob putbutter. Whatwas puton thebread?
Bobput butter onthebread. Wherewasthebutter put?
1.TraditionalAount
VP !V0 NP PP
lo
V0! put
VP !was VPass VPass! V0PP
lo
VP/NP !V0 NP/NPPPlo VP/NP! V0NP PPlo/NP
PPlo ! Plo NP Plo ! on |in|...
PPlo/NP! Plo NP/NP
Exhaustivemodellingwithaonsiderable
numberofgrammatialrules.
Semantisseparate,otherwiseunspeied.
2.LexialSemantisAount
2
4 put
V
NPjPPk
CAUSE [BOB℄
i
;GO [BUTTER℄
j
;TO [BREAD℄
k
3
5
Syntaxhandledbynumerousargument-fusing
\linkingrules",typiallydiÆulttoformalize.
Semantitemplatesmirroralternation
patterns,butaread-holyonstruted.
3.Minimalist/InorporationAount
/put/ =p
lo =d v
ause
((=p
lo
)((=d) (=p
lo =d)))
/on/ =d+k p
lo
((=d) ((x) ((gox) (pathself =d))))
// >vause +k =dpred
((>vause)((=d) ((ause>vause)=d)))
/-ed/ >pred++kt
((>pred)(tense >pred past))
Smallnumberoflexialentrieshandleall
syntatiphenomena.
Semantisdiretlyenodedinlexialentry.
Entriesstruturallygovernedbysmallnumber
ofrules,speifyinghowN/A/Parerelated.
Figure1: ThreeDierentAountsofVerbSubategorization
2 Inorporation Theory
AttheheartofournewontributiontomodelingverbsubategorizationisthemarriageofHaleand
Keyser's(1993,1998)argumentstruturetheorywithStabler's(1997)`minimalist'struturebuilding
rules. In the Hale and Keyser's theory, using the terminology of X-bar syntax, a partiular head
(labeledX), may or may ormay nottakeaomplement (labeledY) andmay ormaynot projeta
speier(labeledS),resultingin 4possiblestruturalongurations:
X
H H
X
Y
X
H H
S
X
H H
X
Y
H H
S
H H
X
X
(a)-subj,+omp(V) (b)+subj,+omp(P) ()+subj,-omp(A) (d)-subj,-omp(N)
Figure2: FourfundamentalprimitivesinHaleandKeyser'sinorporationtheory
TheombinatorialpossibilitiesofinorporationwithX=V,A,N,Pheads,plus`headmovement',is
designedtoyieldthespaeofpossiblesyntatiargumentstrutureongurations,presumablyaross
alllanguages. Notions of agent, patient,instrument, theme, goal, et. are not`primitives', but are
derivedfrompositions instrutural ongurations. InEnglish(butnotneessarilyin alllanguages),
(a) the ategory V takes a omplement but projets no speier; (b) the ategory P takes both a
omplementandprojetsaspeier;()theategoryAtakesnoomplementbut projetsaspeier;
(d)theategoryNtakesneitheromplementnorspeier. Apartiularverbalentry,beingofategory
V,mayinorporateoneormoreofthese struturesasitsomplement,asshownin Figure3:
Nounsinorporateddiretlyintoaverbalentryyieldstruturessuhas(a): nosubjetisprojeted
by the N. The phoneti material of the noun head inorporates (undergoes head movement) into
thephoneti material of the verb head, whih itself mayundergo further movement. Verbs suh
v
H H
v
do
// n
/glow/
v
H H H
n
/door/
v
H H
v
beome
// a
/open/
v
H H H
n
=book=i
v
H H H
v
beome
=lay=i
p
H H
p
/on/ n
/shelf/
(d) (e)
v
H H H
n
=book=j
v
H H H
vause
=put=i
p
H H
p
/on/ n
/shelf/
v
H H H
n
/book/
v
H H
v
ause
//
p
H H
p
// n
/shelf/
Figure3: ExamplesofStrutureBuildinginHaleandKeyser'sInorporationTheory
Adjetivesinorporatedinto averbalentryyields struturessuh as(b): asubjetisprojetedby
theA (i.e. /the door/). The phoneti material of the adjetive headinorporates into theverb
head,whihagain,mayundergofurthermovement. Verbssuhasthesearetransitivebynature,
re-sultingin/The door open -ed/and/Bob open -ed the door/. Thisargumentstruturetypies
externallyausablestatehanges.
Similarly,inorporatedprepositionsyieldfundamentallytransitiveverbssuhas(),thusboth/The
book lay -ed on the shelf/and/Bob lay -ed the book on the shelf/isgrammatial.
To aount for why /The book lay -ed on the shelf/ is grammatial but */Bob put -ed on
the shelf/isnot,itishypothesizedthateitherthemanneroftheexternalargument(asin/put/)
ortheinternalargument(asin/lay/)isindexed intheverbalentry,asshownin (d).
Multipleinorporationsarepossible,suhasin(e),whereaprepositionisinorporatedintoaverbal
entry, and thepreposition itself has anoun inorporatedinto it (e.g. /shelf/) {the preposition
projets a subjet (e.g. /book/) through the verbal struture it is inorporated into. This kind
ofargumentstruture is ommonfor gure-inorporation,ground-inorporation, and
instrument-inorporation.
3 Minimalist Operations
WeannowshowhowoneanimplementHaleandKeyser'sinorporationtheoryin theframework
of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2000). In this framework, there are at least 2 fundamental
struture-building operations, Merge and Move. Stabler (1997, 2000) has formalized these into 4
spei struture-building operations for Merge and 2 for Move. In this model, a lexial entry (a
simplestruture)hasthefollowingform:
/phoneti-ontent/ feature-list -expression
where the phoneti-ontent(possibly null, denoted //) is what is atually pronouned, and the
feature-listisanorderedlistoffeatureshosenfromasetofliensors(e.g.>a,<a,=a,markingtheta
roleassignment),liensees(e.g.a,intuitively,markinganargumentneedingatheta-role),movement
triggers(e.g. ++k, +k, intuitively, ase assigners), and movement requirements (e.g. -k, intuitively,
struturesAand B(simple oromplex):
A theheadofaMergeoperation,whosefeature-listisheadedaliensorandwhose-expression
isoftheform((=a) exp),whosebodyexpreturnsansemantistrutureusingsemantiprimitives
andtheargument=a
B the argument of Merge, whose feature-list is headed by a mathing liensee and whose
-expressionisofanyformval.
reatesanewomplexstruture(A, B, <, -expression)or(B, A, >, -expression){where
the> and < symbols denote whih piee of theomplex struture was thehead prior to Merge. In
thisnew omplexstruture, theresultingnew internal A andB strutures havetheliensor-liensee
featurepairsdeleted,phonetimaterialmayberearranged,andthe-expressionoftheliensor is
appliedtothat oftheliensee.
Move,operatingonjustonestrutureA,alsoanelsfeatures(themovementtriggers/requirements),
but is semantially vauous: thesemantiresult of thenew omplexhas thesamevalue asthe old
omplex. Togenerateaderivation,struturesundergorepeatedMergeandMoveoperations,aneling
pairsoffeatures fromthe featurelists untilno featuresremainexept asinglegoalfeature, whih
speies that a omplete derivation has been onstruted. We omit here the lear omparison to
ategorialgrammaranditsrelatives;seeStabler(1997)andBerwikandEpstein(1995)foradditional
details. TheMergeandMoverules,summarizedfromStabler(1997),are:
OPERATION EXAMPLE
SimpleMerge
/h/ =aÆ ((=a)exp)
// a val!
(/h/ Æ,//,<, (((=a) exp) val)
/the/=n d-k ((=n)=n)
/book/ nself!
(/the/ d-k,/book/, <,...)
ComplexMerge
(/h/ =a Æ,:::, :::,((=a) exp))
/s/ a ::: val!
(/s/ :::(/h/ Æ, :::),>, (((=a) exp) val))
(/put/ =dv
ause
, (/on/,(/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<, :::)
/what/ d-k -wh(unknownself)!
(/what/-k -wh, (/put/ v
ause ,
(/on/, (/the/,/shelf/,<), <),<),>, :::)
LeftInorporate
/h/ <aÆ :::((<a)exp)
// a val!
(/h /Æ,// ,<, (((<a) exp)val))
/de-/<figureremovable =d vause
/bone/ figureremovable self!
(/de-bone/ =dvause, //,<,:::)
RightInorporate
/h/ >aÆ :::((>a)exp)
// a val!
(/ h/Æ,// ,<, (((>a) exp)val))
/-s/ >nd-k ((>n)(plural >n))
/book/ nself!
(/book -s/d-k,//, <,(plural (book)))
CovertMove
(:::(/h/ +k Æ, :::(// -k,:::),:::)!
(:::(/h/ Æ,:::(// ,:::),:::)
(/open/+k =d pred,
((/the/ -k,/door/,<),(//, //,<), >,:::)!
(/open/=d pred,
((/the/,/door/, <),(//, //,<),>, :::)
OvertMove
(:::(/h/ ++kÆ,
:::(// -k,:::), :::)!
(//,(:::(/h/ Æ,:::(*,:::), :::),>)
(/open -ed/ ++kt,
(//pred, ((/the/-k,/door/, <),(//, //,<),>),<)!
((/the/,/door/,<),
(/open -ed/ t,(// pred,(*,(//, //,<), >),<),>, :::)
Figure4: Minimalist Struture-buildingRules: MergeandMove
Weillustrate theuse ofthe abovestruture-building ruleswith thefollowinglexion,deriving/Bob
put -ed the book on the shelf/:
1 SimpleMerge:/the/=n d-k ((=n)=n)and/shelf/nself ! (/the/ d-k,/shelf/,<, (shelf))
2 SimpleMerge:/on/=d +k p
lo
((=d)((x) ((go x)(path self=d))))and(1)!
(/on/+k p
lo
,(/the/ -k,/shelf/,<),<, ((x) ((go x)(path (on)(shelf)))))
3 CovertMove:(2)! (/on/p
lo
,(/the/, /shelf/,<),<, (:::))
4 SimpleMerge:/put/=p
lo =d v
ause ((=p
lo
)((=d)(=p
lo
=d)))and(3)!
(/put/=d v
ause
,(/on/, (/the/,/shelf/,<),<), <,((=d) (((x)((go x) (path(on) (shelf))))=d)))
5 SimpleMerge:/the/=n d-k ((=n)=n)and/book/ nself !(/the/ d-k,/book/, <, (book))
6 ComplexMerge:(4)and(5) !
(/put/+k =d pred,((/the/ -k,/book/,<), (//,(/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<),>), <,
((=d) ((ause((go (book))(path (on)(shelf)))) =d)))
8 CovertMove:(7)! (/put/ =dpred,((/the/,/book/, <),(//, (/on/,(/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<), >),<, (:::))
9 ComplexMerge:/Bob/d-k selfand(7)!
(/Bob/-k, (/put/ pred,((/the/,/book/,<), (//,(/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<),>),<),>,
((ause ((go(book)) (path(on) (shelf))))(Bob)))
10 RightInorporate:/-ed/>pred++k t((>pred)(tense >pred'past))and(9)!
(/put-ed/ ++kt,(/Bob/-k,(//, ((/the/,/book/,<),(//,(/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<),>), <),>),<,
(tense ((ause((go (book)) (path(on) (shelf))))(Bob)) 'past))
11 OvertMove:(10) !
(/Bob/,(/put-ed/ t, (*,(//, ((/the/,/book/,<),(//, (/on/, (/the/,/shelf/,<),<),<),>),<),>),<),>, (:::))
12 SimpleMerge:// =t ((=t)=t) and(11) !
(//,(/Bob/, (/put-ed/, (*,(//, ((/the/,/book/,<),(//, (/on/, (/the/,/shelf/,<),<),<),>),<),>),<),>),<,
(tense ((ause((go (book)) (path(on) (shelf))))(Bob)) 'past))
Usingsemanti-struturebuildingprimitivessuhas:
unknown ((x) '(?,x))
query ((event)'(query :event ,event)))
ause ((event)((agent) '(ause:agent ,agent :effet,event)))
go ((theme)((path) '(go :theme ,theme :path,path)))
path ((dir ground)'(path :oper ,dir:terminal+,ground))
tense ((event val) (appendevent (list':tenseval)))
beome ((state)((thing) '(beome:theme,thing :goal ,state)))
weanreformattheresultin anystyledesired,forexample,asinJakendo (1983):
(ause:agent (bob) :effet(go:theme (book) :path (path:oper(onto) :terminal+(shelf))) :tense past)
Usingasmallnumberofadditionalentries:
/did/=pred+k t ((=pred) (query(tense =pred 'past)))
/where/p
lo
-wh ((x) ((go x) (path() (unknownself))))
//=t ++wh ((=t) =t)
/what/d -k-wh (unknownself)
/who/d-k -wh (unknownself)
weanderive/what did Bob put on the shelf/:
4 Seeabove!(/put/ =dvause,(/on/,(/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<, ((x) ((gox) (path(on) (shelf)))))
5 ComplexMerge:/what/d-k -wh(unknownself)and(4)!
(/what/-k -wh,(/put/ v
ause
, (/on/,(/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<), >,((go (unknownself)) (path(on) (shelf))))
6 RightInorporate:// >vause +k=d pred ((>vause)((=d)((ause >vause)=d)))and(5)!
(/put/+k =d pred,(/what/ -k-wh, (//, (/on/, (/the/,/shelf/,<), <),<),>),<,
((=d) ((ause((go (unknownself)) (path(on) (shelf))))=d)))
7 CovertMove:(6)!
(/put/=d pred,(/what/ -wh, (//, (/on/,(/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<),>),<,
((=d) ((ause((go (unknownself)) (path(on) (shelf))))=d)))
8 ComplexMerge:/Bob/d-k selfand(7)!
(/Bob/-k, (/put/ pred,(/what/-wh, (//, (/on/, (/the/,/shelf/,<), <),<),>),<),>,
((ause ((go(unknownself)) (path (on)(shelf)))) (Bob)))
9 SimpleMerge:/did/=pred+k t((=pred)(query (tense =pred'past)))and(8)!
(/did/+k t, (/Bob/ -k,(/put/,(/what/ -wh, (//,(/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<),>), <),>),<,
(query (tense ((ause((go (unknownself)) (path(on) (shelf))))(Bob)) 'past))))
10 CovertMove:(9)!
(/did/t, (/Bob/, (/put/,(/what/ -wh,(//, (/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<), >),<),>),<,(:::))))
11 SimpleMerge:// =t ++wh ((=t)=t)and(10) !
(//++wh ,(/did/, (/Bob/,(/put/, (/what/-wh, (//, (/on/,(/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<),>),<),>),<), <, (:::))))
12 OvertMove:(11) !
(/what/,(//,(/did/, (/Bob/,(/put/, (*,(//, (/on/, (/the/,/shelf/,<),<), <),>),<),>), <),<),>,
(query (tense ((ause((go (unknownself)) (path(on) (shelf))))(Bob)) 'past))))
) (query :event (ause :agent (bob):effet(go :theme (?(what))
:path(path:oper (on):terminal+ (shelf))):tense past))
Itis straightforwardto showthat we an derivesimple`wh-movement' variationsontheabovein a
omparablenumberofsteps:
/Whatdid Bobputthebook on/
)(query:event (ause :agent (bob):effet (go:theme (book)
:path(path:oper (on):terminal+ (?(what)))) :tense past))
/Where didBob putthebook/
)(query:event (ause :agent (bob):effet (go:theme (book)
/was/<predp ++kt ((<predp)(tense <predp 'past))
/-ed/>vause =pby? predp ((>vause)((=pby) (=pby >vause)))
/by/=d +k pby ((=d) ((event)((auseevent) =d)))
Note howp
by
is enoded asan optional liensor feature, marked with a ? in the entry for /-ed/.
ThisisOptional Merge,where theliensorfeatureanbeanelledwithoutaorrespondingliensee
feature. However,thesemantivalueofthemissinglienseeistakenfromadatabaseof-expression
appliations,oneperliensee possibility,generated throughanappliation ofwhat would ordinarily
beexpetedinsuhaposition. Forexample,fortheliensor=p
by
,thesemantivalueforthemissing
liensee is (((=d) ((event) ((ause event) =d))) 'somebody), i.e. the same merge as /by/
/somebody/. Illustratingtheourseofthederivationof/the book was put -ed on the shelf/:
6 Seeabove!
((/the/-k,/book/,<),(/put/v
ause
, (/on/,(/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<), >,((go (book))(path (on) (shelf)))
7 SimpleMerge:/-ed/>vause =pby? predp ((>vause)((=pby)(=pby >vause)))and(6)!
(/put-ed/ =pby? predp,((/the/ -k,/book/,<), (//,(/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<), >),<,
((=pby)(=pby ((go (book))(path (on) (shelf)))))
8 OptionalMerge:(7) with(((=d) ((event)((ause event) =d)))'somebody)!
(/put-ed/ =p
by ? pred
p
,((/the/ -k,/book/,<), (//,(/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<), >),<,
((ause ((go(book)) (path(on) (shelf))))) 'somebody))
9 LeftInorporate:/was/<pred
p
++k t((<pred
p
)(tense <pred
p
'past))and(8)!
(/wasput-ed/ ++kt, (//,((/the/ -k,/book/,<),(//, (/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<), <),<),>),<), <,
(tense ((ause((go (book)) (path(on) (shelf))))) 'somebody)'past))
10 OvertMovement:(9)!
((/the/,/book/,<),(/was put-ed/ t,(//, (*,(//, (/on/, (/the/,/shelf/,<),<),<), >),<),<),>, (:::))
11 SimpleMerge:// =t and(10)!
(//,((/the/,/book/,<), (/wasput-ed/, (//,(*,//,(/on/, (/the/, /shelf/,<),<),<),>), <),<),>),<,
(tense ((ause((go (book)) (path(on) (shelf))))) 'somebody)'past))
) (ause :agent (somebody):effet(go :theme (book):path (path:oper(on) :terminal+(shelf)))
Using the above rules, we havethus extendedthe work of Harkema(2000) from a reognizer to a
parser: it is straightforward to design a bottom-up hart-based parser that reovers thederivation
stepsandsemantistruturefromagiveninputsentene. SeetheAppendixforthebasialgorithm.
4 Inorporation
WenowshowhowHaleandKeyser'sinorporationtheoryanbeimplementedwiththeabove
mini-malistframework,reognizingthatothergrammatialframeworks,suhaslexializedTreeAdjoining
Grammars (e.g. Vijay-Shanker and Weir 1999) or ategorial grammars (e.g. Steedman 2000), are
likelyto beapable ofimplementing thesametheory. Using inorporationtheory, wewillshowhow
A-inorporation,P-inorporation,andN-inorporationompatgrammarstoaverysmallnumberof
entries(1 or2)perverb.
4.1 A-Inorporation
Addingjust 6newentriestothegrammarwehavebuiltsofar:
Root/AdjetiveEntry VerbalEntries
=open= (45:4)
stateself
//>state a((>state) >state))
// >state =dv
beome
((>state) ((=d)((beome>state) =d)))
// >v
beome
+k =d pred((>v
beome
)((=d) ((ause>v
beome )=d)))
// >v
beome
pred ((>v
beome )>v
beome )
/-ed/ >v
beome =p
by ? pred
p ((>v
beome )((=p
by )(=p
by >v
beome )))
derives/The door open -ed/:
1 SimpleMerge:/the/=n d-k ((=n)=n)and/door/ nself !(/the/ d-k,/door/, <, (door))
2 RightMerge://>state =d v
beome
((>state) ((=d) ((beome>state)=d)))and/open/ stateself!
(/open/=d v
beome
,//,<, ((=d)((beome(open)) =d)))
(/open/pred,((/the/ -k,/door/, <),(//, //,<),>, (:::))
5 SimpleMerge:/-ed/>pred++k tand(4)!
(/open-ed/ ++kt, (//, ((/the/-k, /door/,<),(//, //,<), >),<, (tense((beome(open)) (door)))'past))
6 OvertMove:(5)!((/the/,/door/,<),(/open -ed/ t, (//, (*,(//, //,<),>),<), >,(:::))
7 SimpleMerge://=t ((=t) =t)and(5)!
(//,((/the/,/door/, <),(/open -ed/,(//, (*,(//, //, <),>),<),>),<,(:::))
) (beome :theme(door) :goal (open):tense past)
Likewise,thederivationof/Bob open -ed the door/proeedsfrom step(3)aboveasfollows:
4 RightMerge://>v
beome
+k =d pred ((>v
beome
) ((=d)((ause >v
beome
)=d)))and(3)!
(/open/+k =dpred,((/the/ -k,/door/,<),(//, //,<),>, ((=d)((ause ((beome(open))(door)))=d)))
5 CovertMove:(4)!(/open/ =dpred, ((/the/,/door/,<), (//,//, <),>,(:::))
6 SimpleMerge:(5)and/Bob/ d-kself!
(/Bob/-k, (/open/pred, ((/the/,/door/,<),(//, //,<), >),>,((ause ((beome(open))(door)))(Bob)))
7 SimpleMerge:/-ed/>pred++k t((>pred)(tense >pred'past))and(6)!
(/open-ed/ ++kt, (/Bob/ -k,(//, ((/the/,/door/, <),(//, //,<),>),>,
(tense ((ause((beome (open))(door)))(Bob)) 'past))
8 OvertMove:(7)!(/Bob/, (/open -ed/t, (*,(// pred,((/the/,/door/,<), (//,//, <),>),>),>, (:::))
9 SimpleMerge://=t ((=t) =t)and(8)!
(//,(/Bob/, (/open -ed/,(*,(// pred,((/the/,/door/, <),(//, //,<),>),>),>), <,(:::)))
) (ause :agent (bob):effet (beome:theme (door) :goal(open)) :tense past)
Wederivepassivesandquestionsusing thelexialentriesaboveaswell:
/the door wasopen -ed/ )(ause :agent (somebody):effet(beome :theme (door) :goal(open)):tense past)
/who open -edthedoor/ )(ause :agent (?(who)) :effet (beome:theme (door) :goal(open)) :tense past)
/whatopen -ed/ ) (beome:theme (?(what)) :goal(open)) :tense past)
/whatwas open -ed/) (ause :agent(somebody) :effet(beome :theme(? (what)) :goal(open)):tense past)
/did bobopen thedoor/ )
(query:event (ause :agent (bob) :effet(beome:theme (door) :goal (open)):tense past))
*/WasBob open -edthedoor/
*/Whoopen the door/
*/What wasopen (byBob)/
*/What didopen -ed(by Bob)/
4.2 P-Inorporation
We havealready seen how verbal entries inorporate prepositional entries: /put/ selets p
lo , and
\loative"prepositionssuhas/onto/,/on/,/in/,/into/,/below/,et., haveentries ofthesame
form:
//=d +k plo ((=d) ((x) ((go x)(path self=d))))
Foraverbalentrylike/lay/,ontheotherhand,werequireaseparateentry:
/lay/=pbe
lo
=d vbeome ((=pbe lo)((=d)(=pbe
lo =d)))
where \stativeloative"prepositions/on/ butnot /onto/,/in/but not/into/,et. havep
be lo
entries:
//=d +k p
be lo
((=d) ((x) ((be-loationx)(plae self =d))))
Thisderives,asdesired:
/Book-s lay-edon/*onto theshelf/
)(be-loation:patient(plural(book)) :loation(plae :oper (on):loation (shelf)):tense past)
/Bob lay-edbook -s on/*ontotheshelf/
)(ause:agent (bob) :effet(be-loation:patient(plural (book)))
:loation(plae :oper (on)(shelf)):tense past)
Asanotherillustrationofprepositioninorporation,onsider thedativealternation(/Bob give -ed
water to Sue/ /Bob give -ed Sue water/). Inthisase,wehave2entriesfor/give/(.f. Pinker
Possession
=give= (13:1)
=p
goal =d v
ause
((=p
goal
)((=d)(spae 'poss (=p
goal =d))))
/Bob give -edwaterto Sue/
=give= (13:1)
=p
have
? +k ++kv
ause2
((=p
have
) (spae'poss =p
have ))
/Bobgive -edSue water/
Loation
=send= (11:1)
=pgoal? =d vause
((=p
goal
)((=d)(spae 'lo (=p
goal =d))))
/Bob send -edaletter toSue/
=send= (11:1)
=phave? +k ++kvause2
((=p
have
) (spae'lo =p
have ))
/Bobsend -edSue aletter/
Identity
=turn= (26:6)
=pgoal =psoure? =dvbeome
((=pgoal)((=psoure)((=d)(spae 'ident
(ombine-paths(=pgoal =d)(=psoure =d))))))
/Bob turn -ed(fromaprine) intoafrog/
=appoint= (26:1)
=phave? +k ++kvause2
((=phave) (spae'ident =phave))
/Sueappoint -edBobsheriff/
Information =read=
(37:1)
=pgoal? =d vause
((=pgoal)((=d)(spae 'info (=pgoal =d))))
/Bob read -edastoryto Sue/
=read= (37:1)
=phave? +k ++kvause2
((=phave) (spae'info =phave))
/Bobread -edSue astory/
Figure5: DierentspaeswithP-Inorporation
terminalofapath,andthe\spae"ismarkedtodierentiatebetweenverbsoftransfer. Otherwisethe
derivationof/Bob give -ed water to Sue/issimilarto/Bob put -ed the book on the shelf/.
Thedative form is dierent, and results in a dierent semantigloss. Following Baker (1997) and
Harley(2000),thedoubleobjetformderivationis:
1 SimpleMerge://=d =d p
have
((=d)((=d2)((have =d)=d2)))and/Sue/d-k self !
(//=dp
have
,/Sue/-k,<, ((=d2)((have (Sue)) =d2)))
2 ComplexMerge:(1)and/water/d-k self!(/water/-k, (//phave,/Sue/ -k,<),>, ((have (Sue))(water)))
3 SimpleMerge:(2)and/give/ =phave +k ++kvause2 ((=phave)(spae 'poss=phave))!
(/give/+k ++kvause2,(/water/-k,(//, /Sue/-k, <),>),<, (spae 'poss((have (Sue))(water))))
4 CovertMove:(3)!(/give/ ++kv
ause2
,(/water/, (//, /Sue/-k,<),>), <,(:::))
5 OvertMove:(4)!(/Sue/, (/give/vause2,(/water/, (//, *, <),>),<),>, (:::))
6 RightInorporate:(5)and// >vause2 =d pred ((>vbeome)((=d)((ause >vbeome) =d)))!
(/give/=d pred,(/Sue/, (//,(/water/, (//, *,<), >),<),>),<,
((=d) ((ause(spae 'poss((have (Sue)) (water))))=d))))
7 ComplexMerge:(6)and/Bob/d-k self!
(/Bob/-k, (/give/pred, (/Sue/,(//, (/water/,(//, *, <),>),<), >),<),>,
((ause (spae'poss ((have (Sue)) (water)))(Bob)))
8 RightInorporate:(7)and/-ed/ >pred++kt((>pred) (tense>pred 'past))!
(/give-ed/ ++kt, (/Bob/ -k,(//, (/Sue/, (//,(/water/, (//, *,<), >),<),>),<),>), >,
(tense ((ause(spae 'poss ((have (Sue)) (water)))(Bob)) 'past))
9 OvertMove:(8)!(/Bob/, (/give -ed/t,(*,(//, (/Sue/,(//, (/water/, (//,*,<),>),<),>), <),>),>),>, (:::))
10 SimpleMerge:(9)and//=t!
(//,(/Bob/, (/give -ed/,(*,(//, (/Sue/, (//,(/water/, (//, *, <),>),<),>),<), >),>),>),>,
(tense ((ause(spae 'poss ((have (Sue)) (water)))(Bob)) 'past))
) (ause :agent (bob):effet (have:possessor(Sue):theme (water) :spae 'poss) :tense past)
4.3 N-Inorporation
Nounsinorporate triviallyinto verbs,aswith verbslike/glow/,orinto prepositions,whih anbe
inorporatedintoverbsinturn,aswithverbslike/butter/(gure),/shelf/(ground),and/shovel/
(instruments):
Consideringthe derivation of /Bob shelf -ed the book/ vs. /Bob butter -ed the bread/, the
oredistintionisinhowtheargument/the book/and/the bread/areappliedtothetwoprimitives
p
lo1 andp
lo2
that havedierentordersofseleting\gure"and\ground":
plo1 ((figure)((ground) ((go figure)(path ()ground))))
plo2 ((ground)((figure) ((go figure)(path ()ground))))
The two derivations proeed identially in form, but results in a dierent semanti struture as a
resultoftheabovegure-groundreversal:
/Bob butter -edthebread/
)(ause:agent (bob) :effet(go:theme (butter):path (path:oper(bread) :terminal+())) :tensepast)
Proesses/Ativities
=glow= (40:2)
emission
// >emissionnidentity
/a glow/
// >emission v
do
((>emission)(do>emission))
/The lightglow -ed/
Figures
=butter= (9:9)
figurelo
// >figurelonidentity
// >figurelod-k identity
/the butter/,/butter/
// >figurelo =d vause
((>figurelo)((=d) ((plo1 =d)>figurelo)))
/Bob butter -edthebread/
=pit= (10:7) ,=whale= (13:7) ,=ut= (21:1) , =dye= (24) ,=autograph= (25:3) ,=alf= (28) , =knight= (29:8) ,=love= (31:2) , =whisper= (37:3) , =vomit= (40:1:2) ,=braid= (41:2:2) , =smell= (43:3) ,=frature= (54:2) Grounds =shelf= (9:10) ground lo // >ground lo nidentity /a shelf/
// >groundlo =d vause
((>groundlo)((=d) ((plo2 =d)>groundlo)))
/Bob shelf-ed thebook/
=mine= (10:9) ,=videotape= (25:4) ,=tutor= (29:8) Instruments =shovel= (9:3) instlo
// >instlo nidentity
/the shovel/
// >instlo =plo? =d vause
((>instlo)((=plo)((=d)
((using >instlo)(=plo =d)))))
/Bob shovel -edthedirt (onto thetruk)/
=mop= (10:4:2) , =whip= (8:3) ,=lamp= (2:4) , =penil= (25:2) ,=email= (37:4) ,=ferry= (11:5) , =yle= (51:4:1) ,=paddle= (51:4:2)
Figure6: DierentkindsofN-Inorporation
Thesamealternationpatternsseenin/butter/,/shelf/,and/shovel/anbeobservedinavariety
of other \spaes" in addition to the \loation" spae - removal, possession, impression, identity,
emotion,information,bodypossession,materialpossession,andpereptualspae.
5 Implementation Analysis
We havemodeled all of the verb lassesin Levin (1993)through ombinationsof N-inorporation,
A-inorporation, and P-inorporation in verbal entries. Our urrent lexion ontainsa totalof 347
entries,where:
1. 199areverbalentries. Frequently,oneentryoversmorethan1EVCAverblass.
2. 51are pure root entries (e.g. /glow/ emission), 37 are nominalizing entries (e.g. // >emission
n),and4areadjetivalentries(e.g.// >state a)
3. 20areprepositionentries(e.g./on/ =d +k p
lo
). Oneentryoftenoversmorethanonepreposition
(e.g./on/,/in/)
4. 77are\other"entries(e.g. // =t ),inludingnounentries.
Ofthe 199verbalentries (markedwith v
do , v
beome , v
ause
, et.), 142ontain1ormoreinstanes of
P-inorporation,60ontainN-inorporation,and 4ontainA-inorporation. Totheextentthat the
oremeaningoftheverbsinreetedinthetypesofstruturesthatareinorporated,thisillustrates
howprevalentinorporationis. Atpresent,theseverbalentries fallintotraditionalbroadlasses:
INTRANSITIVES:NotExternallyCausable /The lightglow -ed/*/Bobglow -edthelight/
//>vdo pred ((>vdo)(>vdo =d))
=glow= (40:2)
emissionself
// >emissionvdo ((>vdo)(do >emission))
INTRANSITIVE/TRANSITIVES:ExternallyCausable /The door open -ed//Bob open-ed thedoor/
//>vbeome +k=d pred ((>vbeome)((ause>vbeome)=d))
//>vbeome pred((>vbeome)>vbeome)
/-ed/>v beome =p by ? pred p ((=p by )(=p by >v beome )) =open= (45:4) state self
// >state v
beome
((>state) ((=d)((beome>state) =d)))
TRANSITIVES:ExternallyCaused /Bob put-ed thebook ontheshelf/
//>vause +k=d pred ((>vause)((ause>vause)=d))
/-ed/>v ause =p by ? pred p ((=p by )(=p by >v ause )) /put/=p lo =dv ause ((=p lo
)((=d) (=p
lo =d)))
DITRANSITIVES:ExternallyCaused /Bob give -edSuethe book/
//>vause2 =dpred ((>vause2)((ause >vause2)=d))
/-ed/>vause2 =pby? predp ((=pby)(=pby >vause2))
whether anevent isnot externallyausable (/glow/vs. /open/), orwhether it must be externally
aused (/lay/vs. /put/). Verbs suh as/open/(A-inorporation)or /lay/(P-inorporation)are
ofthev
beome
lass, andneed onlyoneentryto generate 2alternationpatterns, asdisussed earlier.
Verbssuhas/put/,ontheotherhand,requireonlyoneentrybeausetheyhaveonlyoneanonial
surfaerealization,and mustbeexternallyaused. Insomeases,verbssuh as/give/requiretwo
entriesforeahoftheiranonialsurfaerealizations. Averysmallnumberofentries(3)generateall
thepassiveformsforthev
beome ,v
ause , v
ause2
broadlasses: oneforeahlass.
For the 183 verb lasses of EVCA, a distributional analysis of entries perlass reveals that 141
setionshaveexatly1entryin ourlexion(e.g.the/put/lass,the/lay/lass, the/open/lass),
32setionshaveexatly2entries in ourlexion(e.g. the/give/lass),and only10setionshave3
ormoreentries in ourlexion (e.g.the/email/lass). Usinginorporationtheory,wehaveredued
thevastmajorityofEVCAsetions(77%)tojust 1entry. Onlyaminority(42/183,23%) needmore
than 1entry, and wesuspet that some of these may redue to 1entry with further analysis. We
shouldsimultaneouslystress, however,thatat presentnotall alternationsdesribed inLevin (1993)
anbeurrentlymodeledfully,requiringnewoperations(seletion,adjuntion,agreement,reexives,
partiles,aspet,et.) Wesummarizeourpresentoverage:
ALTERNATIONSMODELED ALTERNATIONS NOTMODELED
Modeled,doesnotneed2entries:
1.1.2Causative
2.4.3/2.4.4TotalTransformation
5.1VerbalPassive
5.2Prep ositionalPassive
Currentlyrequires2ormoreentries
butprobablyanbereduedto1:
1.1.1Middle(+effet)
1.3Conative(+motion,+ontat)
2.12Bo dy-PartPossessorAsensionAlternation
7.1CognateObjetConstrution
7.2CognatePrep ositionalPhraseConstrution
Modeled,urrentlyneeds
2entrieswhen2alternationspossible:
1.1.3Substane/SoureAlternation
1.2UnexpressedObjetAlternation
1.4.Prep ositionDropAlternation
2.1Dative(give)
2.2Benefative(arve)
2.3Lo ativeAlternation
2.4.1/2.4.2Material/Pro dutAlternation
2.6FulfillingAlternation
2.7ImageImpressionAlternation
2.8With/AgainstAlternation
2.9Through/WithAlternation
2.10BlameAlternation
2.11SearhAlternation
2.14AsAlternation
Requiresseletion/adjuntion:
2.5Reipro alAlternations
2.13Possessor-AttributeFatoringAlternations
3.1TimeSubjetAlternation
3.2NaturalForeSubjetAlternation
3.3InstrumentSubjetAlternation
3.4AbstratCauseSubjetAlternation
3.5Lo atumSubjetAlternation
3.6Lo ationSubjetAlternation
3.7ContainerSubjetAlternation
3.8RawMaterialSubjet
3.9SumofMoneySubjetAlternation
3.10SoureSubjetAlternation
7.3ReationObjetConstrution
7.4X'sWayConstrution
7.5ResultativeConstrution
7.8DiretionPhraseswithNondiretedMotion
8.5ObligatoryAdverb
8.6ObligatoryNegativePolarityElement
Requiresbinding/reexiveoperations:
4.1VirtualReflexiveAlternation
4.2ReflexiveofApp earane
5.3/5.4AdjetivalPassive
6.1There-insertion
7.6UnintentionalInterpretationofObjet
7.7BoundNonreflexiveAnaphorasPrep ositionalObjet
8.1ObligatoryPassive
8.2ObligatoryReflexiveObjet
8.3InalienablyPossessedBo dy-Part
8.4ExpletiveItObjet
WeanextendourminimalistoperationstoinludeAgree(seeChomsky2001)andAdjoin(Chomsky,
forthoming),oruse alreadywelldevelopedtheories from earlierformalisms. This is thesubjet of
futurework.
Our redution to one or two entries perverb lass is in stark ontrast to a typial CFG, whih
would ontain many more entries. Whereas /lay/ =d =p
be lo
is represented with 1 entry in our
implementation, we would expet at least seven grammar rules to handle basi onstrutions in a
typialCFG:
VP !V0 NPPP
lo
/Helay-edthe bookon theshelf/ VP! V0 PP
lo
/The book lay-edon theshelf/
VPass! V0PPlo /The bookwas lay-edon theshelf/ VP/NP! V0PPlo/NP /What didthebook layon/
VP/NP! V0NP/NP PP
lo
/Whatwaslay -edonthe shelf/ VP/PP! V0PP
lo
/PP /Where didthe booklay/
VP/NP! V0NP PP
lo
/NP /Where wasthebook lay-ed/
Wedonotlaimthat theminimalist implementationpresentedhereistheonlyaountthat an
re-duethemajorityofEVCAverblassestojust oneentryperverb. Itislikelythatotherframeworks
sontobelearnedisthatbyimplementingHaleandKeyser'sinorporationtheoryinsomeframework,
thereisenormousompation,resultinginagrammarthatismoreeasily engineeredorlearned.
Ourparserandlexion(writteninMITSheme),andanextensivearrayofsamplederivationsand
resultingsemantistruturesisfreelyavailableathttp://web.mit.edu/niyogi/www/minimal.htm
Aknowledgements
IthankProfessorRobertC.Berwikformotivatingandsupportingthiswork,andforprovidingmany
usefulommentsinimprovingthispaper. KennethHaleandAndrewNevinsprovidedmanyengaging
disussions.
Referenes
[1℄ Baker,M.(1997).\Thematirolesandsyntatistruture."InL.Haegeman(eds.)ElementsofGrammar:
Handbookof GenerativeSyntax.Dordreht,Kluwer,pp.73-137.
[2℄ Berwik, R. and Epstein, S. (1995). \Computational Minimalism: The Convergene of the Minimalist
SyntatiProgramandCategorialGrammar."AMILP'95Workshop.
[3℄ Chomsky,N.(2000).\MinimalistInquiries." InR.Martin, D.Mihaelsand J.Uriagereka(eds.) Stepby
Step: EssaysonMinimalistSyntaxinhonorofHoward Lasnik.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.
[4℄ Chomsky,N.(2001).\DerivationbyPhase."InM.Kenstowiz(ed.)KenHale: ALifeinLanguage.MIT
Press,Cambridge,MA.
[5℄ Chomsky,N.(forthoming).\BeyondExplanatoryAdequay."Ms.,MIT.
[6℄ Harley,H.(2000)\Possessionandthedoubleobjetonstrution."Ms.,UniversityofArizona.
[7℄ Hale,K.andKeyser,S.J.(1993).\OnArgumentStrutureandLexialExpressionofSyntatiRelations."
InK.HaleandS.J.Keyser(eds).TheViewfromBuilding20,pp.53-109.Cambridge,Mass.: MITPress.
[8℄ Hale,K.andKeyser,S.J.(1998).\Thebasielementsofargumentstruture."InH.Harley,ed.,Papers
from theUPenn/MITRoundtableonArgumentStruture andAspet,pp.73-118.MITWorkingPapersin
Linguistis32. MITWPL,DepartmentofLinguistisandPhilosophy,MIT,Cambridge,Mass.
[9℄ Harkema,H.(2000)\Areognizerforminimalistgrammars."InSixthInternationalWorkshoponParsing
Tehnologies,IWPT2000.
[10℄ Jakendo,R.S.(1983)SemantisandCognition.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.
[11℄ Jakendo,R.S.(1990)SemantiStrutures.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.
[12℄ Levin, B. (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, University of
ChiagoPress,Chiago,IL.
[13℄ Pinker,S.(1989)LearnabilityandCognition.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.
[14℄ RappaportHovav,M.andLevin,B.(1998)\BuildingVerbMeanings."InM.ButtandW.Geuder(eds.),
TheProjetionofArguments: LexialandCompositionalFators,CSLIPubliations,Stanford,CA,97-134.
[15℄ Stabler,E.(2000)\MinimalistgrammarsandReognition."ManusriptfortheSFB340workshopatBad
Teinah.
[16℄ Stabler,E.(1997)\Derivationalminimalism."AppearsinRetore(ed.)LogialAspets ofComputational
Linguistis.Springer,1997,pp68-95.
[17℄ Steedman,M.(2000)The SyntatiProess.MITPress,Cambridge, MA.
[18℄ Vijay-Shanker,K.,andWeir,D.(1999)\ExploringtheUnderspeiedWorldofLexializedTreeAdjoining
Below isadenition ofan agenda-driven,hart-based parser forminimalist grammars. Fora given
grammarandinputstring,thereisasetofitems,allthemaxioms,thataretakento representtrue
grammatiallaims. Giventheseaxioms,andthestruture-buildingrulesthatallowustomakenew
truegrammatiallaims,weandesignaparser,whih,givenaninputstring,determinesthetruthof
theinputstring. Ifastruturehasapartiularsetofgoalfeatures(i.e. )andphonetifeaturesthat
maththeinput,thentheinputstringin isthelanguagedenedbyourgrammar.Ourproedureto
ndallitemsthat aretrueforagivengrammarandinputstringworksasfollows:
1. Initialize the hart and the agenda (both modeled as an indexable stak) to be an empty set
of items { an item has the form (S;f;i
A ;i
B
) where the rst element S is a simple or omplex
struture,theseondelementf is asymbolrepresentingthesoureofthestruture(Merge,Move,
Optional-Merge,orAxiom),andi
A andi
B
areindiesintoelementsinhartwhihreatedS. The
axiomsarepushedontotheagenda,withf =Axiom,i
A =i
B
=0,andS beingaunderivedsimple
strutureofthe form/phoneti/ feature-list -expression. Inourase, theaxiomsarethe
unionof(1)allphonetiallynulllexialitemsand(2)thelexialentry(s)foreahwordintheinput.
2. Repeatthefollowinguntiltheagendaisempty:
(a) Popanitemotheagenda,allitthetrigger.
(b) Pushthetriggerontothehart,ifthetriggerhasnotalreadybeenplaedonthehart.
() Ifthetriggeritemwasaddedto thehartin(b),then:
i. generateallitemsthatanbederivedfromMergeofthetriggeritemandanyitemsofthehart,
pushingeahnewitemontotheagendawithf =Merge,andi
A
beingtheindextotheliensor
itemandi
B
beingtheindex tothelienseeitem(oneofi
A ori
B
beingthetrigger'sindex)
ii. generateallitemsthatanbederivedfromthetriggeritemsolely(viaMove,orOptionalMerge),
pushing eah newitem onto theagenda withf =Move(or f = Optional Merge), i
A being
theindexofthetriggeritem,i
B =0.
3. Whentheagenda is empty, san all itemsin thehartforstrutures that ontain solely thegoal
features(afeature). Ifsuhastrutureexists, thenitsphonetiontentis\spelled-out"{ifthe
phoneti ontent mathes the input string, then we print the derivation reoveryand omputed
semantistruture:
(a) Toprintthederivationofanitem(S,f,i
A ,i
B
),weanprintthederivationsofitemi
A andi
B
(ifnon-zero),andthenprinttheresultingstrutureS.
(b) Toomputethesemantisofanitem(S, f,i
A ,i
B
),weonditiontheresultonf:
iff =Merge,thenreturntheresultofapplyingthesemantisofitemi
A
tothatofitemi
B
iff =Move,thenreturnthesemantisofitemi
A
iff =Optional-Merge,thenreturntheresultofapplyingthesemantisofitemi
A
toa
preom-puted-expressionbasedontheoptional featureskipped.
