Modifying (the grammar of) adjuncts : an introduction

One aspect of the progress being made is that the focus of attention has widened. Adverbials, though still the heart of the matter, now form part of a much larger set of constituent types subsumed under the general syntactic label of adjunct; while modifier has become the semantic counterpart on the same level of generality. So one of the readings of Modifying Adjuncts stands for the focus on this intersection. Moreover, recent years have seen a number of studies which attest an increasing interest in adjunct issues. There is an impressive number of monographs, e.g. Alexiadou (1997), Laenzlinger (1998), Cinque (1999), Pittner (1999), Ernst (2002), which, by presenting in-depth analyses of the syntax of adjuncts, have sharpened the debate on syntactic theorizing. Serious attempts to gain a broader view on adjuncts are witnessed by several collections, see Alexiadou and Svenonius (2000), Austin, Engelberg and Rauh (in progress); of particular importance are the contributions to vol. 12.1 of the Italian Journal of Linguistics (2000), a special issue on adverbs, the Introductions to which by Corver and Delfitto (2000) and Delfitto (2000) may be seen as the best state-of-the-art article on adverbs and adverbial modification currently on the market. To try and test a fresh view on adjuncts was the leitmotif of the Oslo Conference “Approaching the Grammar of Adjuncts” (Sept 22–25, 1999), which provided the initial forum for the papers contained in this volume and initiated a period of discussion and continuing interaction among the contributors, from which the versions published here have greatly profited. The aim of the Oslo conference, and hence the focus of the present volume, was to encourage syntacticians and semanticists to open their minds to a more integrative approach to adjuncts, thereby paying attention to, and attempting to account for, the various interfaces that the grammar of adjuncts crucially embodies. From this perspective, the present volume is to be conceived of as an interim balance of current trends in modifying the views on adjuncts. In introducing the papers, we will refrain from rephrasing the abstracts, but will instead offer a guided tour through the major problem areas they are tackling. Assessed by thematic convergence and mutual reference, the contributions form four groups, which led us to arrange them into subparts of the book. Our commenting on these is intended (i) to provide a first glance at the contents, (ii) to reveal some of the reasons why adjuncts indeed are, and certainly will remain, a challenging issue, and thereby (iii) to show some facets of what we consider novel and promising approaches

LTAG semantics with semantic unification

This paper sets up a framework for LTAG (Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar) semantics that brings together ideas from different recent approaches addressing some shortcomings of TAG semantics based on the derivation tree. Within this framework, several sample analyses are proposed, and it is shown that the framework allows to analyze data that have been claimed to be problematic for derivation tree based LTAG semantics approaches

Introduction

This chapter will motivate why it is useful to consider the topic of derivations and filtering in more detail. We will argue against the popular belief that the minimalist program and optimality theory are incompatible theories in that the former places the explanatory burden on the generative device (the computational system) whereas the latter places it on the fi ltering device (the OT evaluator). Although this belief may be correct in as far as it describes existing tendencies, we will argue that minimalist and optimality theoretic approaches normally adopt more or less the same global architecture of grammar: both assume that a generator defines a set S of potentially well-formed expressions that can be generated on the basis of a given input and that there is an evaluator that selects the expressions from S that are actually grammatical in a given language L. For this reason, we believe that it has a high priority to investigate the role of the two components in more detail in the hope that this will provide a better understanding of the differences and similarities between the two approaches. We will conclude this introduction with a brief review of the studies collected in this book.

The failure to use gender information in parsing: A comment on van Berkum, Brown, and Hagoort (1999)

We critically review the empirical evidence published by van Berkum, Brown and Hagoort (1999a, 1999b) against syntax-first models of sentence parsing. According to van Berkum et al., discourse factors and word gender information are used instantaneously to guide the parser. First, we note that the density of the experimental trials (relative to fillers) and the slow presentation rate of the van Berkum et al. design seem likely to have elicited the use of tactics involving rapid re-analysis of the material. Second, we present new data from a questionnaire study showing that the grammatical gender information of a relative pronoun in Dutch is often completely ignored, even during the wrap-up at the end of the sentence

Intuitive querying of e-Health data repositories

At the centre of the Clinical e-Science Framework (CLEF) project is a repository of well organised, detailed clinical histories, encoded as data that will be available for use in clinical care and in-silico medical experiments. An integral part of the CLEF workbench is a tool to allow biomedical researchers and clinicians to query – in an intuitive way – the repository of patient data. This paper describes the CLEF query editing interface, which makes use of natural language generation techniques in order to alleviate some of the problems generally faced by natural language and graphical query interfaces. The query interface also incorporates an answer renderer that dynamically generates responses in both natural language text and graphics