Due: Thursday, November 17, 2005
1. Based on the in-class discussion and the Pollard and Sag book (p. 105-108), provide
the lexical entries for got and considered.
2. Pollard and Sag use three distinct INDEX features to handle agreement, PER, NUM, and
a. Instead of using features, rework the type hierarchy so that agreement proceeds
simply by ensuring that two objects have the same type for INDEX. In other words, you’ll
have types like 3-sg-masc. Note that you’ll probably be using a multiple inheritance
hierarchy, which means that a type can have two (or more) mother types.
b. Is there a reason to prefer having three agreement features instead of more types?
In other words, what can you do with features that you can’t do with types?
3. Consider the following data involving different valences of the verb RENTED.
(1) a. *Kim rented. (Kim the landlord)
b. Kim rented. (Kim the tenant)
c. Kim rented Apt. 3B. (Kim the landlord)
d. Kim rented Apt. 3B. (Kim the tenant)
e. Kim rented to Sandy.
f. Kim rented from Sandy.
g. * Kim rented from Chris to Sandy.
h. Kim rented Sandy Apt. 3B.
i. *Kim rented Sandy. (Sandy the tenant)
j. Kim rented Apt. 3B to Sandy.
k. Kim rented Apt. 3B from Sandy.
How many distinct lexical entries for RENTED are needed to handle these data? (Feel
free to incorporate new data as necessary.) List the entries in the abbreviated form,
giving values only for VALENCE (SUBJ, COMPS, and SPR) and CONTENT. (For
prepositional phrases, abbreviations such as PP[from] will suffice).
For present purposes, assume that:
(1) PP complements are more oblique (i.e., further to the right on the COMPS list) than
primary and secondary NP objects, and
(2) the order of various PP complements in the COMPS list with respect to each other is
not significant in terms of the surface order of their phonological realizations.
Use abbreviations where convenient (including parentheses in VALENCE feature lists
4. There is a construction involving the predicate (UN-)LIKE illustrated in (2):
(2) a. Kim is unlike anyone else in the world to go bowling with.
b. Kim is like a little Hitler to work for.
Write a lexical entry for this LIKE. Be sure the gap gets bound and coindexed with the
subject. The CONTENT should involve a three-place relation between two individuals
(expressed by the subject and object) and a "dimension of comparison" (a psoa expressed
by the infinitivee).
5. Recall (P&S94:169, fn. 9) that in many languages, including English, there is a "nested
dependency effect" (or equivalently, a "crossed dependency prohibition") exemplified by
such contrasts as those in (3) and (4):
(3) a. Which bus is Worthington easiest to get to __ on __?
b.*Which suburbs is the Number 2 Crosswoods easiest to get to __ on __?
(4) a. Problems like this, Sandy is impossible to talk to __ about __.
b.*People like Sandy, even a problem this simple is impossible to talk to __ about
Try to express the explanation expressed in that footnote as a suitable revision of the
6. Based on the results of the preceding problem, explain the contrast between (3b) and
(5) What is Sandy like __ to work for __?
In other words, why is (5) all right even though it appears to violate the crossed
dependency prohibition? For starters, you will need the lexical entry for the LIKE in (2b).
7. We mentioned in class that examples like (6) are not ruled out by the version of the
HPSG binding theory which makes reference to dominance.
(6) *Johni hei claimed left.
Describe why it is that this sentence is incorrectly predicted to be grammatical by the
HPSG binding theory which uses dominance in its definition of o-command.