The topic-prominence parameter

This article aims to recast the properties of topic-prominent languages and their differences from subject-prominent languages as documented in the functionalist literature into the framework of the Principle-and-Parameter approach. It provides a configurational definition of the topic construction called Topic Phrase (TP), with the topic marker as its head. The availablity of TP enables topic prominent languages to develop various topic structures with properties such as morphological marking; cross-categorial realization of topics and comments; and mutiple application of topicalization. The article elaborates the notion of topic prominence. A topic prominent language is characterized as one that tends to activate the TP and to make full use of the configuration. Typically, it has a larger number and variety of highly grammaticalized topic markers in the Lexicon and permits a variety of syntactic categories to occur in the specifier position and the complement position of TP

Notions and subnotions in information structure

Three dimensions can be distinguished in a cross-linguistic account of information structure. First, there is the definition of the focus constituent, the part of the linguistic expression which is subject to some focus meaning. Second and third, there are the focus meanings and the array of structural devices that encode them. In a given language, the expression of focus is facilitated as well as constrained by the grammar within which the focus devices operate. The prevalence of focus ambiguity, the structural inability to make focus distinctions, will thus vary across languages, and within a language, across focus meanings

A preliminary bibliography on focus

[I]n its present form, the bibliography contains approximately 1100 entries. Bibliographical work is never complete, and the present one is still modest in a number of respects. It is not annotated, and it still contains a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies. It has nevertheless reached a stage which justifies considering the possibility of making it available to the public. The first step towards this is its pre-publication in the form of this working paper. […] The bibliography is less complete for earlier years. For works before 1970, the bibliographies of Firbas and Golkova 1975 and Tyl 1970 may be consulted, which have not been included here

Evaluating automatically acquired f-structures against PropBank

An automatic method for annotating the Penn-II Treebank (Marcus et al., 1994) with high-level Lexical Functional Grammar (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982; Bresnan, 2001; Dalrymple, 2001) f-structure representations is presented by Burke et al. (2004b). The annotation algorithm is the basis for the automatic acquisition of wide-coverage and robust probabilistic approximations of LFG grammars (Cahill et al., 2004) and for the induction of subcategorisation frames (O’Donovan et al., 2004; O’Donovan et al., 2005). Annotation quality is, therefore, extremely important and to date has been measured against the DCU 105 and the PARC 700 Dependency Bank (King et al., 2003). The annotation algorithm achieves f-scores of 96.73% for complete f-structures and 94.28% for preds-only f-structures against the DCU 105 and 87.07% against the PARC 700 using the feature set of Kaplan et al. (2004). Burke et al. (2004a) provides detailed analysis of these results. This paper presents an evaluation of the annotation algorithm against PropBank (Kingsbury and Palmer, 2002). PropBank identifies the semantic arguments of each predicate in the Penn-II treebank and annotates their semantic roles. As PropBank was developed independently of any grammar formalism it provides a platform for making more meaningful comparisons between parsing technologies than was previously possible. PropBank also allows a much larger scale evaluation than the smaller DCU 105 and PARC 700 gold standards. In order to perform the evaluation, first, we automatically converted the PropBank annotations into a dependency format. Second, we developed conversion software to produce PropBank-style semantic annotations in dependency format from the f-structures automatically acquired by the annotation algorithm from Penn-II. The evaluation was performed using the evaluation software of Crouch et al. (2002) and Riezler et al. (2002). Using the Penn-II Wall Street Journal Section 24 as the development set, currently we achieve an f-score of 76.58% against PropBank for the Section 23 test set

The Composite Nature of Interlanguage as a Developing System

This paper explores the nature of interlanguage (IL) as a developing system with a focus on the abstract lexical structure underlying IL construction. The developing system of IL is assumed to be ‘composite’ in that in second language acquisition (SLA) several linguistic systems are in contact, each of which may contribute different amounts to the developing system. The lexical structure is assumed to be ‘abstract’ in that the mental lexicon contains abstract elements called ‘lemmas’, which contain information about individual lexemes, and lemmas in the bilingual mental lexicon are language-specific and are in contact in IL production. Based on the research findings, it concludes that language transfer in IL production should be understood as lemma transfer of the learner's first language (L1) lexical structure at three abstract levels: lexical-conceptual structure, predicate-argument structure, and morphological realization patterns, and IL construction is driven by an incompletely acquired abstract lexical structure of a target language (TL) item

Stative sentences in Japanese and the role of the nominative marker "ga" : a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Japanese at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

The Japanese nominative particle ga is normally associated with the marking of subjects. However, there are several constructions involving stative predicates, where it has been claimed, notably by those working within a generative framework, that a ga-marked NP can be an object and that such sentences are transitive. Such an analysis has particularly arisen in the case of sentences with more than one ga-marked NP, exhibiting so-called double ga marking. The following study makes two claims. Firstly, that one of the functions of ga in such sentences is to provide a discourse frame akin to the topic marking function of the postpositional particle wa. Secondly it argues that stative sentences associated with double ga-marking are in fact intransitive and that the ga-marked NP's that have been claimed to be objects are in fact subjects