1932

Abstract

Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) is a model for the analysis of language in which different types of linguistic information are represented in separate dimensions, each with its own formalism. These dimensions are linked by mapping principles. In this article, I describe the architecture of the model and illustrate some dimensions of information and the mapping between them in more detail. I also provide an outline of the analysis of long-distance dependencies and control to illustrate the advantages of this type of model. I briefly mention some further areas where LFG has proven to be a useful tool for analysis and provide references for the reader to follow up.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-062419-125014
2020-01-14
2024-04-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/6/1/annurev-linguistics-062419-125014.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-062419-125014&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Andrews A. 1990. Case structures and control in modern Icelandic. Modern Icelandic Syntax J Maling, A Zaenen, 165–85 San Diego, CA: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asudeh A. 2006. Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG. Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald M. Kaplan M Butt, M Dalrymple, TH King 363–87 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asudeh A. 2012. The Logic of Pronominal Resumption Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  4. Asudeh A, Dalrymple M, Toivonen I 2013. Constructions with lexical integrity. J. Lang. Model. 1:1–54
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Asudeh A, Toivonen I. 2009. Lexical-Functional Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis B Heine, H Narrog 373–406 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bögel T, Butt M, Kaplan RM, King TH, Maxwell JT III 2009. Prosodic phonology in LFG: a new proposal. Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference M Butt, TH King 146–66 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Börjars K, Chisarik E, Payne J 1999. On the justification for functional categories in LFG. Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference M Butt, TH King. Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Börjars K, Harries P, Vincent N 2016. Growing syntax: the development of a DP in North Germanic. Language 92:e1–37
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Börjars K, Nordlinger R, Sadler L 2019. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  10. Börjars K, Vincent N. 2017. Lexical-Functional Grammar. The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax A Ledgeway, I Roberts 642–63 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bresnan J. 1978. A realistic transformational grammar. Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality M Halle, J Bresnan, GA Miller 1–59 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bresnan J 1982a. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  13. Bresnan J. 1982b. Control and complementation. Linguist. Inq. 13:343–92
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bresnan J. 1998. Morphology competes with syntax: explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax P Barbosa, D Fox, P Hagstrom, M McGinnis, D Pesetsky 59–92 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bresnan J, Asudeh A, Toivonen I, Wechsler S 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd ed..
  16. Bresnan J, Kanerva JM. 1989. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: a case study in the factorization of grammar. Linguist. Inq. 20:1–50
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Butt M, Dyvik H, King TH, Masuichi H, Rohrer C 2002. The Parallel Grammar Project. Proceedings of COLING-2002 Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation1–7 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Butt M, King TH. 1998. Interfacing phonology with LFG. Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference M Butt, TH King Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Butt M, King TH, Niño ME, Segond F 1999. A Grammar Writer's Cookbook Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  20. Butt M, Niño ME, Segond F 1996. Multilingual processing of auxiliaries in LFG. Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference D Gibbon 111–22 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Camilleri M, Sadler L. 2017. Posture verbs and aspect: a view from Vernacular Arabic. Proceedings of the LFG17 Conference M Butt, TH King 167–87 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Crouch R, Dalrymple M, Kaplan RM, King TH, Maxwell J, Newman P 2011. XLE Documentation Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Res. Cent https://ling.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/pages/xle/doc/xle_toc.html
  23. Dalrymple M 1999. Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  24. Dalrymple M. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar San Diego, CA/London: Academic
  25. Dalrymple M. 2015. Morphology in the LFG architecture. Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference M Butt, TH King 43–62 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dalrymple M, Kaplan RM, King TH 2015. Economy of Expression as a principle of syntax. J. Lang. Model. 3:377–412
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dalrymple M, Nikolaeva I. 2011. Objects and Information Structure Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  28. Frank A, Zaenen A. 2002. Tense in LFG: syntax and morphology. How We Say WHEN It Happens: Contributions to the Theory of Temporal Reference in Natural Language H Kamp, U Reyle 17–52 Tbingen, Ger: Niemeyer
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Haug D. 2013. Partial control and anaphoric control in LFG. Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference M Butt, TH King 274–94 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jackendoff R. 1977. X-Bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  31. Jøhndal M. 2012. Non-finiteness in Latin PhD Thesis, Univ. Cambridge Cambridge, UK:
  32. Kaplan RM, Bresnan J. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. See Bresnan 1982a 173–281
  33. Kaplan RM, Zaenen A. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure M Baltin, A Kroch 17–42 Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kibort A. 2014. Mapping out a construction inventory with (Lexical) Mapping Theory. Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference M Butt, TH King 262–82 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kibort A, Maling J. 2015. Modelling the syntactic ambiguity of the active versus passive impersonal in LFG. Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference M Butt, TH King 145–65 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. King TH. 1997. Focus domains and information-structure. Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference M Butt, TH King Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. King TH, Dalrymple M. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. J. Linguist. 40:69–104
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kroeger P. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  39. Mycock L. 2007. Constituent question formation and focus: a new typological perspective. Trans. Philol. Soc. 105:192–251
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nichols J. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62:56–119
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Nordlinger R. 1998. Constructive Case: Evidence from Australian Languages Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  42. Nordlinger R, Sadler L. 2004. Tense beyond the verb: encoding clausal tense/aspect/mood on nominal dependents. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 22:597–641
    [Google Scholar]
  43. O'Connor R. 2006. Information structure in Lexical-Functional Grammar: the discourse-prosody correspondence PhD Thesis, Univ. Manchester Manchester, UK:
  44. Sadler L. 2016. Agreement in Archi: an LFG perspective. Archi: Complexities of Agreement in Cross-Theoretical Perspective O Bond, GC Corbett, M Chumakina, D Brown 150–83 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sadler L, Spencer A. 2004. Projecting Morphology Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  46. Simpson J. 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax: A Lexicalist Approach Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer Acad.
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-062419-125014
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-062419-125014
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error