Presented ad Depling 2011, Barcelona, September 5-7, 2011, UPF

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,
e
as it introduces the two key concepts of dependency and valency.
Nonetheless, unlike valency, there is no agreement among scholars and
specialists 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,
e
as it introduces the two key concepts of dependency and valency.
Nonetheless, unlike valency, there is no agreement among scholars and
specialists 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 2
In Alfred parle (‘Alfred speaks’), the verb parle is the governor
(r´gissant), the noun Alfred being the dependent (´l´ment
e ee
subordonn´).
e
Their relation “indicated by nothing” (1, A, ch. 1, 4) is their
connection (connexion). Connections are recursive (stemma 2).
3 of 14

5. Tesni`rian Structural Syntax triple
e
For instance, in Alfred parle (Alfred speaks, stemma 1):
1. governor (parle)
4 of 14

6. Tesni`rian Structural Syntax triple
e
For instance, in Alfred parle (Alfred speaks, stemma 1):
1. governor (parle)
2. dependent (Alfred)
4 of 14

7. Tesni`rian Structural Syntax triple
e
For 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
e
For 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
e
For 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
e
connector in the triple, especially when it is collocational (syntactic)
instead than morphological.
4 of 14

10. From unary to binary trees
Stemma 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 trees
Stemma 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 trees
Stemma 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 trees
Stemma 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 trees
Stemma 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 trees
In 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 23
In adtrees, indicators are interpretations of incidence structural and
incidence semantique (a kind of “dependency”) in terms of
information 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 44
Tesni`re borrowed from Esperanto final suffixes the letters of the four
e
universal grammar characters (same characters already in Whorf
1945).
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 O
This 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 preserved
10 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 CxAdTrees
10 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
e
10 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 CxAdGrams
10 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
e
10 of 14

24. ...based on a up-to-date formal model
adtrees and construction together form a (mathematical) category
11 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 M
11 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 adtrees
11 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 CxAdGrams
Our book published by Cambridge Scholars (C-S-P). Available now.

32. How to delve into CxAdGrams
Our 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 Life
13 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