Deriving the Predicate-Argument Structure for a Free Word Order Language

Derivingthe Predicate-ArgumentStructurefor a Free Word Order Language* Cem Bozsahin Department of Computer Engineering Middle East Technical University 06531 Ankara, Turkey bozsahin@ceng.metu, edu. tr Abstract In relatively free word order languages, grammat- ical functions are intricately related to case mark- ing. Assuming an ordered representation of the predicate-argument structure, this work proposes a Combinatory Categorial Grammar formulation of relating surface case cues to categories and types for conectly placing the arguments in the predicate- argument structure. This is achieved by treat- mg case markers as type shifters. Unlike other CG formulations, type shifting does not prolifer- ate or cause spurious ambiguity. Categories of all argument-encoding grammatical functions fol- low from the same principle of category assignment. Normal order evaluation of the combinatory form reveals the predicate-argument structure. The appli- cation of the method to Turkish is shown. 1 Introduction Recent theorizing in linguistics brought forth a level of representation called the Predicate-Argument Structure (PAS). PAS acts as the interface be- tween lexical semantics and d-structure in GB (Grimshaw, 1990), functional structure in LFG (Alsina, 1996), and complement structure in HPSG (Wechsler, 1995). PAS is the sole level of rep- resentation in Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG) (Steedman, 1996). All formulations as- sume a prominence-based structured representation for PAS, although they differ in the terms used for defining prominence. For instance, Grimshaw (1990) defines the thematic hierarchy as: Agent > Experiencer > Goal / Location / Source > Theme " Thanks to Mark Steedman for discussion and material, and to the anonymous reviewer of an extended version whose com- ments led to signilicant revisions. ]'his research is supported by TUBITAK (EEEAG-90) and NATO Science Division (TU- LANGUAGE). whereas LFG accounts make use of the following (Bresnan and Kanerva, 1989): Agent > Beneficiary > Goal / Experiencer > Inst > Patient/Theme > Locative. As an illustration, the predicate-argument struc- tures of the agentive verb murder and the psycho- logical verbfi~ar are (Grimshaw, 1990, p.8): murder (x (y)) Agent Theme fear (x (y)) Exp Theme To abstract away from language-particular case systems and mapping of thematic roles to grammati- cal functions, I assume the Applicative Hierarchy of Shaumyan (1987) for the definition of prominence: Primary Term > Secondary Term > Tertiary 2brm > Oblique Tenn. Primacy of a term over another is defined by the for- met having a wider range of syntactic features than the latter. In an accusative language, subjects are less marked (hence primary) than objects; all verbs take subjects but only transitive verbs take objects. Terms (=arguments) can be denoted by the genotype indices on NPs, such as NP1, NP,2 for primary and secondary terms. 1 An NP2 would be a direct object (NP,cc) in an accusative language, or an ergative- marked NP (NPerg) in an ergative language. This level of description also simplifies the formulation of grammatical function changing; the primary term of a passivized predicate (PASS p) is the secondary term of the active p. I follow Shaumyan and Steed- man (1996) also in the ordered representation of the …

Content truncated to 500 words