1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Word list entry: (spiser (V spise Pres)) Stem list entry: (spise (V Transitive (sense eat'))) Template list entries: (V ((sense) (trans relation))) (Pres((syntax.
Advertisements

          What is the functional domain of this node?
 Christel Kemke 2007/08 COMP 4060 Natural Language Processing Feature Structures and Unification.
FUNCTIONS Section 3.1.
Lexical Functional Grammar : Grammar Formalisms Spring Term 2004.
Semantics (Representing Meaning)
Lexical Functional Grammar History: –Joan Bresnan (linguist, MIT and Stanford) –Ron Kaplan (computational psycholinguist, Xerox PARC) –Around 1978.
1 Natural Language Processing Lecture 7 Unification Grammars Reading: James Allen NLU (Chapter 4)
Semantic Analysis Read J & M Chapter 15.. The Principle of Compositionality There’s an infinite number of possible sentences and an infinite number of.
Syntax-Semantics Mapping Rajat Kumar Mohanty CFILT.
Grammar Development Platform Miriam Butt October 2002.
Language and Cognition Colombo, June 2011 Day 2 Introduction to Linguistic Theory, Part 4.
Empty category phenomena in LFG Nigel Vincent University of Manchester.
Introduction to LFG Kersti Börjars & Nigel Vincent {k.borjars, University of Manchester Winter school in LFG July University.
Grammar Engineering: Set-valued Attributes Various Kinds of Constraints Case Restrictions on Arguments Miriam Butt (University of Konstanz) and Martin.
Grammatical Relations and Lexical Functional Grammar Grammar Formalisms Spring Term 2004.
Complement Structures: Equi and Raising HPSG WS 2007/08 Janina Kopp
October 8, : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin (Examples from Kroeger)
LFG Slides based on slides by: Kersti Börjars & Nigel Vincent {k.borjars, University of Manchester Winter school in LFG July
LEXICAL FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR (LFG) Anca-Diana BIBIRI 1 st semester
 Christel Kemke 2007/08 COMP 4060 Natural Language Processing Semantics.
 Christel Kemke 2007/08 COMP 4060 Natural Language Processing Feature Structures and Unification.
NLP and Speech 2004 Feature Structures Feature Structures and Unification.
Artificial Intelligence 2005/06 From Syntax to Semantics.
National Centre for Language Technology Dublin City University NCLT Seminar Series – November 2005 Data-Oriented Natural Language Processing using Lexical-Functional.
1 Kakia Chatsiou Department of Language and Linguistics University of Essex XLE Tutorial & Demo LG517. Introduction to LFG Introduction.
Lect. 11Phrase structure rules Learning objectives: To define phrase structure rules To learn the forms of phrase structure rules To compose new sentences.
Constituency Tests Phrase Structure Rules
Embedded Clauses in TAG
October 2004csa4050: Semantics II1 CSA4050: Advanced Topics in NLP Semantics II The Lambda Calculus Semantic Representation Encoding in Prolog.
Feature structures and unification Attributes and values.
Syntax Lecture 8: Verb Types 1. Introduction We have seen: – The subject starts off close to the verb, but moves to specifier of IP – The verb starts.
1.Syntax: the rules of sentence formation; the component of the mental grammar that represent speakers’ knowledge of the structure of phrase and sentence.
ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE 4 SEPT 09, 2013 – DAY 6 Brain & Language LING NSCI Harry Howard Tulane University.
Linguistics 187/287 Week 2 Engineering and Linguistic Generalizations.
Functions Domain & Range Evaluate with Function Notation.
October 15, 2007 Non-finite clauses and control : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin.
Grammar Engineering: What is it good for? Miriam Butt (University of Konstanz) and Martin Forst (NetBase Solutions) Colombo 2014.
1 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Eleni Miltsakaki AUTH Fall 2005-Lecture 4.
Semantic Construction lecture 2. Semantic Construction Is there a systematic way of constructing semantic representation from a sentence of English? This.
Rules, Movement, Ambiguity
1 Principles & Parameters Approach in Linguistics - IV Bibhuti Bhusan Mahapatra.
Inequalities and their Graphs Objective: To write and graph simple inequalities with one variable.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 16, March 6, 2007.
October 25, : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin.
November 16, 2004 Lexicon (An Interacting Subsystem in UG) Part-II Rajat Kumar Mohanty IIT Bombay.
5-6 Writing Equations from Patterns. Drill # 63 If then find each value: 1.f(0)2.f(1)3. f(-2) 4.g(w)5.g(x + 2)6.3[g(2)]
ACTL 2008 Syntax: Introduction to LFG Peter Austin, Linguistics Department, SOAS with thanks to Kersti Börjars & Nigel Vincent.
◦ Process of describing the structure of phrases and sentences Chapter 8 - Phrases and sentences: grammar1.
Linguistics 187 Week 3 Coordination and Functional Uncertainty.
Lexical-Functional Grammar A Formal System for Grammatical Representation Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982 Erin Fitzgerald NLP Reading Group October 18, 2006.
CAS LX 502 9b. Formal semantics Pronouns and quantifiers.
1 Principles & Parameters Approach in Linguistics II Bibhuti Bhusan Mahapatra.
September 26, : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin.
MENTAL GRAMMAR Language and mind. First half of 20 th cent. – What the main goal of linguistics should be? Behaviorism – Bloomfield: goal of linguistics.
Expanding verb phrases
Week 3. Clauses and Trees English Syntax. Trees and constituency A sentence has a hierarchical structure Constituents can have constituents of their own.
SYNTAX.
King Faisal University جامعة الملك فيصل Deanship of E-Learning and Distance Education عمادة التعلم الإلكتروني والتعليم عن بعد [ ] 1 King Faisal University.
Embedded Clauses in TAG
Lecture – VIII Monojit Choudhury RS, CSE, IIT Kharagpur
Lexical Functional Grammar
Semantics (Representing Meaning)
To solve absolute value equations and inequalities in one variable
Natural Language Processing
Solve a system of linear equation in two variables
1.5 Linear Inequalities.
Solving systems using substitution
Principles and Parameters (I)
Indices Practice questions
Presentation transcript:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed him [ VP' to be kind]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed him [ VP' to be kind]] 4.[ S John tends [ VP' to shout]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed him [ VP' to be kind]] 4.[ S John tends [ VP' to shout]] 6.[ S John [ VP' was killed]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed him [ VP' to be kind]] 4.[ S John tends [ VP' to shout]] 6.[ S John [ VP' was killed]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar: How does LFG capture

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed him [ VP' to be kind]] 4.[ S John tends [ VP' to shout]] 6.[ S John [ VP' was killed]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar: How does LFG capture the difference between 1 and 2,

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed him [ VP' to be kind]] 4.[ S John tends [ VP' to shout]] 6.[ S John [ VP' was killed]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar: How does LFG capture the difference between 1 and 2, the non-argument status of the subject of 4,

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed him [ VP' to be kind]] 4.[ S John tends [ VP' to shout]] 6.[ S John [ VP' was killed]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar: How does LFG capture the difference between 1 and 2, the non-argument status of the subject of 4, and the semantic role of the subject of 6?

1.[ S I forced him [ S PRO to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed [ S him to be kind]] 3.[ S NP seems [ S John to shout]] 4.[ S NP tends [ S John to shout]] 5.[ S Bill [ VP killed John]] 6. [ S NP [ VP was killed John]] 1.[ S I forced him [ VP' to be kind]] 2.[ S I believed him [ VP' to be kind]] 4.[ S John tends [ VP' to shout]] 6.[ S John [ VP' was killed]] Phrase structure analyses in Lexical Functional Grammar: Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar: How does LFG capture the difference between 1 and 2, the non-argument status of the subject of 4, and the semantic role of the subject of 6? Answer: Don’t operate on the trees, but annotate them with relevant information about syntactic functions and semantic arguments.

VP VNP S I forced kindbe him VP' TOVP AP to V

VP VNP S I forced kindbe him VP' TOVP AP to VP VNP S I believed kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to V

VP VNP S I forced kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP VNP S I believed kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP V S NP John tends shout VP' TOVP V to

VP VNP S I forced kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP VNP S I believed kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP V S NP John tends shout VP' TOVP V to VP V S NP John was Bill VP VPP NP killed by P

VP VNP S I forced kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP VNP S I believed kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP V S NP John tends shout VP' TOVP V to VP V S NP John was Bill VP VPP NP killed by P INF ’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’ PRET XCOMPOBJ SUBJ

VP VNP S I forced kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP VNP S I believed kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP V S NP John tends shout VP' TOVP V to VP V S NP John was Bill VP VPP NP killed by P INF XCOMPOBJ SUBJ ’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’ PRET XCOMPOBJ SUBJ PRET BELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

VP VNP S I forced kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP VNP S I believed kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP V S NP John tends shout VP' TOVP V to VP V S NP John was Bill VP VPP NP killed by P PRES SUBJ INF XCOMP INF XCOMPOBJ SUBJ ’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’ PRET XCOMPOBJ SUBJ TEND ‹XCOMP› SUBJ’ PRET BELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

VP VNP S I forced kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP VNP S I believed kindbe him VP' TOVP VAP to VP V S NP John tends shout VP' TOVP V to VP V S NP John was Bill VP VPP NP killed by P PRES SUBJ INF OBLag XCOMP INF SUBJ XCOMPOBJ SUBJ ’FORCE ‹SUBJ OBJ XCOMP›’ PRET XCOMPOBJ SUBJ TEND ‹XCOMP› SUBJ’ PRET KILL ‹OBLag SUBJ›’ BELIEVE ‹SUBJ XCOMP› OBJ’

The functional information in the annotations is represented in a separate functional structure (f-structure), in the form of an attribute-value graph:

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations f1 (TENSE) = pret

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations f1 (TENSE) = pret f1 (SUBJ) = f2

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations f1 (TENSE) = pret f1 (SUBJ) = f2 f2 (CASE) = nom

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations f1 (TENSE) = pret f1 (SUBJ) = f2 f2 (CASE) = nom f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations f1 (TENSE) = pret f1 (SUBJ) = f2 f2 (CASE) = nom f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom f2

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations f1 (TENSE) = pret f1 (SUBJ) = f2 f2 (CASE) = nom f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom f2 Alternative notation: (f1 TENSE) = pret (f1 SUBJ) = f2 (f2 CASE) = nom (f1 SUBJ CASE) = nom

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations f1 (TENSE) = pret f1 (SUBJ) = f2 f2 (CASE) = nom f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom f2 Alternative notation: (f1 TENSE) = pret (f1 SUBJ) = f2 (f2 CASE) = nom (f1 SUBJ CASE) = nom (f1 OBJ) = (f1 XCOMP SUBJ)

SUBJ PRED’I’ CASEnom TENSEpret OBJ PRED’HE’ CASEobl NUMsg XCOMP SUBJ PRED’LEAVE‹ SUBJ › ’ PRED’FORCE‹ SUBJ OBJ XCOMP ›’ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f6 Describing parts of the structure by means of equations f1 (TENSE) = pret f1 (SUBJ) = f2 f2 (CASE) = nom f1 (SUBJ)(CASE) = nom f2 Alternative notation: (f1 TENSE) = pret (f1 SUBJ) = f2 (f2 CASE) = nom (f1 SUBJ CASE) = nom (f1 OBJ) = (f1 XCOMP SUBJ)

How to incorporate f-structure information into a grammar

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP')

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP')  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)    

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)       

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)    

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     Index the c-structure nodes

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave     ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave     ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave    ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave    ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave  ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave  ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave  ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4(f3 OBJ)  Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave  ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4(f3 OBJ)  f5 Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4(f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4(f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP:3 V:4NP:5 S:1 NP:2 I forced him VP':6 to leave (f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4(f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 Instantiate the metavariables: Replace them with f-structure variables based on the node indices.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        (f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4(f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 The tree has done its job: Forget it.

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        (f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 Collect the instantiated equations into an f-description

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 Solve the equations in any order to constuct an f-structure

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 F-structure for I forced him to leave Solve the equations in any order to constuct an f-structure

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 F-structure for I forced him to leave

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f3

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f3

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f3 f4

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f3 f4

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f5 f3 f4

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ XCOMP F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ XCOMP F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ XCOMP PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ XCOMP PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ XCOMP PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ XCOMP PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ OBJ XCOMP PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

(f4 PRED) = 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' (f4 TENSE) = pret (f4 OBJ) = (f4 XCOMP SUBJ) (f1 SUBJ)  f2 f1  f3 f3  f4 (f3 OBJ)  f5 (f3 XCOMP)  f6 SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' F-structure for I forced him to leave f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 Notice: The f-structure has fewer levels than the c-structure because of the nodes annotated with

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP) 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  The relation is called a projection relation.

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' The nodes in the tree and the elements of the f-structure now stand in a many-to-one relation: f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  The relation is called a projection relation. A set of nodes which project the same f-structure are said to constitute a functional domain. A functional domain

Let us now move from I forced him to leave to I believed him to leave SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') forced:( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP VNP S I forced him VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = 'FORCE‹( SUBJ)( OBJ)( XCOMP)›' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)     All we need to change is the lexical entry:

S->NPVP VP->V(NP)(VP') believed:( PRED) = ’BELIEVE‹( SUBJ) ( XCOMP)›( OBJ)' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)  ( SUBJ)   ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)        VP VNP S I believedhim VP' to leave  ( SUBJ)      ( OBJ)   ( XCOMP)  ( PRED) = ’BELIEVE‹( SUBJ) ( XCOMP)›( OBJ)' ( TENSE) = pret ( OBJ) = ( XCOMP SUBJ)    All we need to change is the lexical entry: 

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED 'FORCE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 OBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›' f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 This leads to the following change in the f-structure:

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED ’BELIEVE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›(f4 OBJ)' f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 This leads to the following change in the f-structure:

SUBJ TENSEpret OBJ XCOMP SUBJ PRED ’BELIEVE‹(f4 SUBJ)(f4 XCOMP)›(f4 OBJ)' f1 f2 f6 f3 f4 f5 This leads to the following change in the f-structure: The only change is in the mapping between syntactic functions and argument positions, as expressed in the value of PRED. The syntax as such is unchanged.