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

2. 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:

3. 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:

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]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

5. 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:

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]] Phrase structure analyses in traditional transformational grammar:

7. 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:

8. 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:

9. 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:

10. 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:

11. 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

12. 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,

13. 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,

14. 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?

15. 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.

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

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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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’

22. 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’

23. 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’

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

25. 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

26. 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 ›’

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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)

38. 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)

39. How to incorporate f-structure information into a grammar

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

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

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

43. 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

44. 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) 

45. 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)    

46. 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

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. 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

60. (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

61. (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

62. (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

63. (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

64. (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

65. (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

66. (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

67. (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

68. (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

69. (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

70. (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

71. (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

72. (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

73. (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

74. (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

75. (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

76. (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

77. (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

78. (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

79. (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

80. (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

81. (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

82. 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) 

83. 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) 

84. 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) 

85. 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) 

86. 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) 

87. 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) 

88. 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) 

89. 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) 

90. 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) 

91. 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.

92. 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

93. 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

94. 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:

95. 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: 

96. 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:

97. 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:

98. 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.