1. From Structural Syntax to Constructive Adpositional Grammars F. Gobbo & M. Benini University of Insubria, Italy C CC BY: $ 1 of 14
2. What is dependency?The posthumous book by Tesni`re (1959) is considered a masterpiece, eas it introduces the two key concepts of dependency and valency.Nonetheless, unlike valency, there is no agreement among scholars andspecialists on how to treat precisely the concept of dependency. How Tesni`re really deﬁned dependency? e 2 of 14
3. What is dependency?The posthumous book by Tesni`re (1959) is considered a masterpiece, eas it introduces the two key concepts of dependency and valency.Nonetheless, unlike valency, there is no agreement among scholars andspecialists on how to treat precisely the concept of dependency. How Tesni`re really deﬁned dependency? e What can be saved – and adapted – from his work nowadays? 2 of 14
4. Tesni`re talked about connection, not dependency! e parle parle I ami I Alfred I mon Stemma 1 Stemma 2In Alfred parle (‘Alfred speaks’), the verb parle is the governor(r´gissant), the noun Alfred being the dependent (´l´ment e eesubordonn´). eTheir relation “indicated by nothing” (1, A, ch. 1, 4) is theirconnection (connexion). Connections are recursive (stemma 2). 3 of 14
5. Tesni`rian Structural Syntax triple eFor instance, in Alfred parle (Alfred speaks, stemma 1):1. governor (parle) 4 of 14
6. Tesni`rian Structural Syntax triple eFor instance, in Alfred parle (Alfred speaks, stemma 1):1. governor (parle)2. dependent (Alfred) 4 of 14
7. Tesni`rian Structural Syntax triple eFor instance, in Alfred parle (Alfred speaks, stemma 1):1. governor (parle)2. dependent (Alfred)3. connector ( ) 4 of 14
8. Tesni`rian Structural Syntax triple eFor instance, in Alfred parle (Alfred speaks, stemma 1):1. governor (parle)2. dependent (Alfred)3. connector ( ) – empty? yes, but it does exist indeed! 4 of 14
9. Tesni`rian Structural Syntax triple eFor instance, in Alfred parle (Alfred speaks, stemma 1):1. governor (parle)2. dependent (Alfred)3. connector ( ) – empty? yes, but it does exist indeed!Tesni`rian unary trees – even if recursive – tend to obscure the econnector in the triple, especially when it is collocational (syntactic)instead than morphological. 4 of 14
10. From unary to binary treesStemma 2 in Constructive Adpositional Grammars (CxAdG): p ↔ ¡e ¡ e ¡ F e p¡ e ↔ ¡e parle ¡ e ¡ F e G ¡ e mon ami D G 5 of 14
11. From unary to binary treesStemma 2 in Constructive Adpositional Grammars (CxAdG): p ↔ ¡e ¡ e ¡ F e p¡ e ↔ ¡e parle ¡ e ¡ F e G ¡ e mon ami D G G indicates the grammar character of governors 5 of 14
12. From unary to binary treesStemma 2 in Constructive Adpositional Grammars (CxAdG): p ↔ ¡e ¡ e ¡ F e p¡ e ↔ ¡e parle ¡ e ¡ F e G ¡ e mon ami D G G indicates the grammar character of governors D indicates the grammar character of dependents 5 of 14
13. From unary to binary treesStemma 2 in Constructive Adpositional Grammars (CxAdG): p ↔ ¡e ¡ e ¡ F e p¡ e ↔ ¡e parle ¡ e ¡ F e G ¡ e mon ami D G G indicates the grammar character of governors D indicates the grammar character of dependents F indicates the grammar character of adpositions 5 of 14
14. From unary to binary treesStemma 2 in Constructive Adpositional Grammars (CxAdG): p ↔ ¡e ¡ e ¡ F e p¡ e ↔ ¡e parle ¡ e ¡ F e G ¡ e mon ami D G G indicates the grammar character of governors D indicates the grammar character of dependents F indicates the grammar character of adpositions (= connectors) 5 of 14
15. Dependency in adpositional treesIn adpositional trees (adtrees): governors are put on the right, dependents on the left; adpositions are put in evidence; they deﬁne the structure of constructions through the adtree ﬁnal grammar character (F); left-to-right indicators (→) sign dependency, where the information prominence is in the dependent; right-to-left indicators (←) sign government, where the information prominence is in the governor; left-to-right & right-to-left indicators (↔) sign underspeciﬁcation, where the information prominence is not relevant. 6 of 14
16. The only mention of “dependency” in Tesni`re (1959) e rulsseaux ruisseaux ruisseaux J, petits f petits I INCIDENCE INCIDENCE petits STRUCTURALE SÉMANTIQUE Sl ettrma 2L Stemma 22 Stemma 23In adtrees, indicators are interpretations of incidence structural andincidence semantique (a kind of “dependency”) in terms ofinformation prominence, adapted from the dichotomy trajectors(tr) vs. landmarks (lm) by Langacker (1987). 7 of 14
17. The role of grammar characters chante /4. T OE ,4 cousrne délicie usement votrc je,une AA S Lern ln a réel Sternma virtuel Stenlma 43 Stemrna 44Tesni`re borrowed from Esperanto ﬁnal suﬃxes the letters of the four euniversal grammar characters (same characters already in Whorf1945). 8 of 14
18. Adtrees put all Tesni`rian structure together e q ¡e ¡←e ¡ I e q ¡ e ¡ e ¡e e ¡→e e -ment ¡ E e e eq ¡ e e ¡ e d´licieuse e ¡e ¡→e D A ¡ I e q ¡ e ¡ e ¡e chante ¡←e ¡ O e I eq ¡ e ¡ votre ¡e ¡←e A ¡ O e ¡ e ¡ e jeune cousine A OThis adtree renders both stemmas 43 (r´el) and 44 (virtuel) in one. e
19. CxAdGrams are a derivative work of Tesni`re’s... e the original concept of valency is preserved10 of 14
20. CxAdGrams are a derivative work of Tesni`re’s... e the original concept of valency is preserved the Structural Syntax triple gives the form to CxAdTrees10 of 14
21. CxAdGrams are a derivative work of Tesni`re’s... e the original concept of valency is preserved the Structural Syntax triple gives the form to CxAdTrees dependency is “only” a form of connection, as put by Tesni`re e10 of 14
22. CxAdGrams are a derivative work of Tesni`re’s... e the original concept of valency is preserved the Structural Syntax triple gives the form to CxAdTrees dependency is “only” a form of connection, as put by Tesni`re e the four grammar characters are general in CxAdGrams10 of 14
23. CxAdGrams are a derivative work of Tesni`re’s... e the original concept of valency is preserved the Structural Syntax triple gives the form to CxAdTrees dependency is “only” a form of connection, as put by Tesni`re e the four grammar characters are general in CxAdGrams information prominence is adapted from Langacker’s tr/lm dichotomy, (at least) sketched by Tesni`re himself e10 of 14
24. ...based on a up-to-date formal model adtrees and construction together form a (mathematical) category11 of 14
25. ...based on a up-to-date formal model adtrees and construction together form a (mathematical) category the possible ﬁnite sequences of morphemes of a language are a monoid M11 of 14
26. ...based on a up-to-date formal model adtrees and construction together form a (mathematical) category the possible ﬁnite sequences of morphemes of a language are a monoid M the presheaf over M mapping in the monoid gives the lexicalizations of adtrees11 of 14
27. ...based on a up-to-date formal model adtrees and construction together form a (mathematical) category the possible ﬁnite sequences of morphemes of a language are a monoid M the presheaf over M mapping in the monoid gives the lexicalizations of adtrees the presheaves space is a Grothendieck topos, so language structure can be analysed through the power of the up-to-date mathematical methods of topos theory, which makes sense as:11 of 14
28. ...based on a up-to-date formal model adtrees and construction together form a (mathematical) category the possible ﬁnite sequences of morphemes of a language are a monoid M the presheaf over M mapping in the monoid gives the lexicalizations of adtrees the presheaves space is a Grothendieck topos, so language structure can be analysed through the power of the up-to-date mathematical methods of topos theory, which makes sense as: it is the most general and formal mathematical theory we have;11 of 14
29. ...based on a up-to-date formal model adtrees and construction together form a (mathematical) category the possible ﬁnite sequences of morphemes of a language are a monoid M the presheaf over M mapping in the monoid gives the lexicalizations of adtrees the presheaves space is a Grothendieck topos, so language structure can be analysed through the power of the up-to-date mathematical methods of topos theory, which makes sense as: it is the most general and formal mathematical theory we have; (linguistic) information can be hidden and recalled entirely in a very precise way, without being lost, with every piece clearly described;11 of 14
30. ...based on a up-to-date formal model adtrees and construction together form a (mathematical) category the possible ﬁnite sequences of morphemes of a language are a monoid M the presheaf over M mapping in the monoid gives the lexicalizations of adtrees the presheaves space is a Grothendieck topos, so language structure can be analysed through the power of the up-to-date mathematical methods of topos theory, which makes sense as: it is the most general and formal mathematical theory we have; (linguistic) information can be hidden and recalled entirely in a very precise way, without being lost, with every piece clearly described; it was never done before.11 of 14
31. How to delve into CxAdGramsOur book published by Cambridge Scholars (C-S-P). Available now.
32. How to delve into CxAdGramsOur book published by Cambridge Scholars (C-S-P). Available now. Warning! This Is An Advertisement
33. Conclusion: there is always more in languages...13 of 14
34. Conclusion: there is always more in languages... Figure: from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life13 of 14
35. Conclusion: there is always more in languages... Figure: from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life ...than in grammars!13 of 14
36. ¡Thanks for your attention! ¿Questions? For proposals, ideas & comments: {federico.gobbo,marco.benini}@uninsubria.it Download & share these slides here: http://www.slideshare.net/goberiko/ C CC BY: $ Federico Gobbo & Marco Benini 2011 14 of 14
Be the first to comment