Characterizing English Preposing in PP constructions

The English Preposing in PP construction (PiPP; e.g., H appy though / as we were ) is extremely rare but displays an intricate set of stable syntactic properties. How do people become proficient with this construction despite such limited evidence? It is tempting to posit innate learning mechanisms, but present-day large language models seem to learn to represent PiPPs as well, even though such models employ only very general learning mechanisms and experience very few instances of the construction during training. This suggests an alternative hypothesis on which knowledge of more frequent constructions helps shape knowledge of PiPPs. I seek to make this idea precise using model-theoretic syntax (MTS). In MTS, a grammar is essentially a set of constraints on forms. In this context, PiPPs can be seen as arising from a mix of construction-specific and general-purpose constraints, all of which seem inferable from general linguistic experience.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Linguistics
Published
2024-10-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226724000227
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Natural Language Processing Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.74
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Characterizing English Preposing in PP constructions

Christopher Potts
5 citations
Journal of Linguistics
Natural Language Processing Techniques
1.74
article

Characterizing English Preposing in PP constructions

Christopher Potts
article en
5 citations

Abstract

The English Preposing in PP construction (PiPP; e.g., H appy though / as we were ) is extremely rare but displays an intricate set of stable syntactic properties. How do people become proficient with this construction despite such limited evidence? It is tempting to posit innate learning mechanisms, but present-day large language models seem to learn to represent PiPPs as well, even though such models employ only very general learning mechanisms and experience very few instances of the construction during training. This suggests an alternative hypothesis on which knowledge of more frequent constructions helps shape knowledge of PiPPs. I seek to make this idea precise using model-theoretic syntax (MTS). In MTS, a grammar is essentially a set of constraints on forms. In this context, PiPPs can be seen as arising from a mix of construction-specific and general-purpose constraints, all of which seem inferable from general linguistic experience.

Journal of Linguistics
Stanford University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Natural Language Processing Techniques
1.74
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.