1. Usually assumed to be in principle unbounded

1. Usually assumed to be in principle unbounded
2. Going to argue that it is instead possible to define a formalis...vilations of syntactic assumptions that have nothing to do with scrambling 3. Indirect connectdion to processing - formalism can be a bridge between theoretical syntax and language processing Long Scrambling in German is usually assumed to be in principle unbounded, with the unacceptability of complex cases related to problems of processing, not the competence grammar. In this talk I am going to argue that it is instead possible to define a formalism so that these complex cases can instead be viewed as a violation of syntactic assumptions that have nothing to do with scrambling. The connection to language processing is therefore a bit indirect, since the main argument is that a formalism with a certain derivational structure can be a bridge between theoretical syntax and language processing, in a way that other formalisms cannot Tree Composition and Generalized Transformations Seth Kulick University of Pennsylvania TiLT, 7/6/01 7/6/01

Introduction to Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) Simplifying/Fixing TAG
Outline Introduction to Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) Simplifying/Fixing TAG Conceptual and Empirical Problems A fresh look at the problem - what compositional operations are necessary to combine two TAG trees? Consequences of reducing TAG to substitution and one-level adjoining: Empirical problems are solved Argument for eliminating shortest move type stipulations is strengthened. 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

Tree Adjoining Grammar
X Y INITIAL TREE AUXILIARY TREE DERIVED TREE BOTH ELEMENTARY TREES 7/6/01

Subject-to-Subject Raising in TAG
John seems [ to like pizza] IP I’ DP I’ I VP I VP V I’ Johni ti to V’ seems 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree V DP like pizza 7/6/01

Subject-to-Subject Raising in TAG
IP DP I’ I VP seems V Johni I’ I VP 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree to ti like pizza 7/6/01

Overview of Tree Adjoining Grammar (Kroch & Joshi, 1985, Frank 2001)
The atomic objects of the grammar are small pieces of phrase structure, called “elementary trees”, combined together using adjoining. Fundamental TAG Hypothesis: Every syntactic dependency is expressed locally within a single elementary tree. The substantive theory of syntax must be stated over the domain of the elementary trees. Cannot create dependencies between elementary trees by transformations. Movement is limited to within the elementary trees. Inter-clausal movement follows from the adjoining operation. 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

What do you think that John likes
Wh-Movement in TAG CP DPj I’ C’ I VP think V IP DP you C do C’ C IP What DP I’ that I VP Johni ti V’ 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this V tj likes What do you think that John likes 7/6/01

TAG and Locality Violations - 1
An attractive feature of TAG is that some aspects of a “shortest move” constraint follow from the definition of the formalism and minimal, independently needed, requirements on the structure of elementary trees. For example, super-raising cases cannot be derived: (Frank, 2001) Johni seems it appears ti to like pizza 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

TAG and Locality Violations - 2
When TAG is revised as proposed in this talk, such implicit coverage of shortest move violations is expanded to cases of locality violations for Long Scrambling and Clitic Climbing. Also, the effects of the “Phase Impenetrability Condition” also follow without needing to be stated explicitly. Not having a “principle” of Shortest Move or the PIC is a Good Thing. 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

Two Problems for TAG (1) Conceptual Problem
Not only have adjoining, but also tree substitution. There is an overlap in their coverage. X Y X Y Y 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this Adjoining Tree Substitution 7/6/01

Two Problems for TAG (2) Empirical Problem
What they all have in common: An elementary tree is not just adjoined into another tree, but must be distributed along that tree. Subject Raising and I-C movement: (1) does John seem to like pizza ? Long Distance Scrambling in German (2)...daß das Fahrrad niemand wagte [ zu reparieren] ...that the bike no one dared [ to repair] ...that no one dared to repair the bike Romance Clitic Climbing (3) Juan la quiere comprar Juan it wants to buy 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

A Fresh Look at the Problem - 1
What operations are necessary to combine two TAG trees? Minimal requirement: The result must be another tree. This is a different problem from combining two “phases”, since all movement takes place within the trees independently of being combined! 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

A Fresh Look at the Problem - 2
Combining trees which are independently formed, and in which movement has already taken place: What do you think that John likes? What that John likes do you think 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

What is the Tree Composition Operation?
The answer to this question depends on the detailed structure of the phrase structure trees. We assume trees that are built up out of one-level projections, with features indicating what must be above and below that projection. Given such trees, we propose that instead of TAG adjoining, we use just tree substitution and one-level adjoining, with feature checking as feature unification upon the one-level adjoining. This solves both the conceptual and empirical problems. The case for doing away with stipulations such as shortest move or the PIC is strengthened. 7/6/01

The Structure of an Elementary Tree - 1
Top and Bottom Features to indicate what the projection is, and what its complement must be. VP [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] What the projection is DP VP What the projection requires for a complement [A4:VP] [A5:VP] Johni I VP [A6:V’] [A7:V’] ti VP 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree to V like DP (Similar to TAG feature system in VijayShanker1987) pizza 7/6/01

The Structure of an Elementary Tree - 2
Top and Bottom Features to indicate what the projection is, and what its complement must be. VP [B1:I’] What the projection is [B2:VP] [B3:VP] I VP What the projection requires for a complement V [B4:I’] VP 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree seems 7/6/01

What is the Tree Composition Operation? – 2
one-level adjoining Tree substitution An elementary or a derived tree An elementary tree 7/6/01

One-Level Adjoining - 1 VP [B1] VP [A1] [B2 U A1] [B2 U A1] [A2] C VP
DP [A1] [A2] [B1] [B2 U A1] [B2 U A1] C VP [A2 U B3] [A2 U B3] DP VP VP [B1] that John [B2] [B3] C VP I John VP [B4] I that VP 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree Features unify upon the one-level adjoining VP Node Label doesn’t do anything 7/6/01

One-Level Adjoining - 2 A subcase: at the root VP [A1] [A1] VP [A2] DP
[A2 U B3] [A2 U B3] seems V John John VP seems V [B3] 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree [B4] 7/6/01

Subject-to-Subject Raising - 1
John seems [ to like pizza] VP [A1:IP] I’ I VP seems V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] [B4:I’] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] DP VP [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I VP Johni to [A6:V’] [A7:V’] ti VP 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree V DP like pizza 7/6/01

John seems [ to like pizza] VP [A1:IP] I’ I VP seems V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] [B4:I’] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] DP VP I ti V like DP [A4:VP] [A5:VP] Johni to [A6:V’] [A7:V’] 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree pizza 7/6/01

VP DP Johni [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [B1:I’] VP I seems V [B2:VP] [B3:VP] [B4:VP] [A3:VP] VP [A4:VP] [A5:VP] 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree I VP to ti like pizza 7/6/01

Iterated Raising - 1 John seems [ to appear [ to like pizza] ] VP
[C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] VP to [B4:I’] I V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] appear VP [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] DP VP 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I VP Johni to ti like pizza 7/6/01

[C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] VP to [B4:I’] I V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] appear VP [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] DP VP 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I VP Johni to ti like pizza 7/6/01

Iterated Raising - 3 John seems [ to appear [ to like pizza] ] VP I
[C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] VP [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [B1:I’] DP VP [B2:VP] [B3:VP] I VP Johni [B4:I’] [A3:I’] VP V to [A4:VP] [A5:VP] 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree VP appear I to ti like pizza 7/6/01

Iterated Raising - 4 John seems [ to appear [ to like pizza] ] VP I
[C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] VP [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [B1:I’] DP VP [B2:VP] [B3:VP] I VP Johni [B4:I’] [A3:I’] VP V to [A4:VP] [A5:VP] 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree VP appear I to ti like pizza 7/6/01

[A1:IP] [A2:I’] [C1:I’] DP VP [C2:VP] [C3:VP] I VP Johni [C4:I’] [B1:I’] VP [B4:I’] [A3:I’] I V [B2:VP] [B3:VP] appear ti to like pizza V 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree seems to 7/6/01

SuperRaising - 1 *John seems [ it appears [ to like pizza] ] VP I
[C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:IP] VP [B1:IP] [B2:I’] [B3:I’] DP VP [B4:VP] [B5:VP] I VP it [B6:I’] VP VP [A1:IP] V [A2:I’] [A3:I’] DP VP appears 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I VP Johni to ti like pizza 7/6/01

SuperRaising – 2 *John seems [ it appears [ to like pizza] ] VP I
[C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:IP] VP [B1:IP] [B2:I’] [B3:I’] DP VP [B4:VP] [B5:VP] I VP it [B6:I’] VP VP [A1:IP] V [A2:I’] [A3:I’] DP VP appears 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I VP Johni to ti like pizza 7/6/01

SuperRaising - 3 *John seems [ it appears [ to like pizza] ] VP
[A1:IP] [A2:I’] [B1:IP] VP DP [B2:I’] [B3:I’] DP VP [B4:VP] [B5:VP] Johni I VP it [B6:I’] [A3:I’] VP V 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I VP appears to ti like pizza 7/6/01

SuperRaising - 4 *John seems [ it appears [ to like pizza] ] VP
[B1:IP] [B2:I’] [A1:IP] DP VP [A2:I’] [B3:I’] VP it DP [B4:VP] [B5:VP] I VP Johni [B6:I’] [A3:I’] VP V 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I VP appears to ti like pizza 7/6/01

The Left Periphery Consequence
Only material above the subtree that substitutes in can reach a higher clause. Since composition of two independently formed trees results in another tree, material from the red tree first attaches to the blue tree. Together with unification of features upon one-level adjoining, this gives the effect of shortest move and its descendents, such as the PIC 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

The Left Periphery and Raising
Iterated Raising I’ I’ I’ IP I’ IP I’ I’ Superaising 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this I’ I’ I’ Lowest clause middle clause highest clause 7/6/01

Barriers for Long Scrambling – Same Structural Case as SuperRaising
(a) Peter hat versprochen, [daß sein Sohn [ das Fahrrad zu reparieren] versuchen wird ] Peter has promised, [that his son [the bike to repair ] try will ] ‘Peter has promised that his son will try to repair the bike’ (b) Peter hat versprochen, [daß das Fahrrad sein Sohn [ t zu reparieren] versuchen wird ] Peter has promised, [that the bike his son [t to repair ] try will ] (c) *Peter hat das Fahrrad versprochen, [daß sein Sohn [ t zu reparieren] versuchen wird ] Peter has the bike promised, [that his son [t to repair ] try will ] 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. 7/6/01

Long Distance Scrambling – 1
(1b)...daß das Fahrrad niemand wagte [t zu reparieren] ...that the bike no one dared [ t to repair] ...that no one dared to repair the bike VP [B1:C’] VP [B2:IP] [B3:IP] [A1:IP] C VP [A2:IP] [A3:IP] DP VP daß [B4:IP] [B5:IP] DP VP das Fahrrad (the bike) PRO I niemand (no one) [B6:IP] 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree VP VP zu reparieren (to repair) I wagte(dared) 7/6/01

(1b)...daß das Fahrrad niemand wagte [t zu reparieren] ...that the bike no one dared [ t to repair] ...that no one dared to repair the bike VP [B1:C’] VP [B2:IP] [B3:IP] [A1:IP] C VP [A2:IP] [A3:IP] DP VP daß [B4:IP] [B5:IP] DP VP das Fahrrad (the bike) PRO I niemand (no one) [B6:IP] 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree VP VP zu reparieren (to repair) I wagte(dared) 7/6/01

VP [B1:C’] [B2:IP] [A1:IP] C VP [A2:IP] [B3:IP] daß DP VP das Fahrrad (the bike) [B4:IP] [B5:IP] DP VP VP I zu reparieren (to repair) [B6:IP] [A3:IP] niemand (no one) VP 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree PRO I wagte (dared) 7/6/01

The Left Periphery and Scrambling Violations
In order for the NP to scramble past the CP (not possible), it would have to get above the CP in the middle tree, since first the red and blue trees have to combine. But this causes an immediate selectional unification clash – Exactly the same structural situation as super-raising, although the details are different CP IP CP IP IP IP NP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this Scrambled NP IP CP Lowest clause middle clause highest clause 7/6/01

Unification clash when these trees combine – derivation fails, and NP cannot move past the intermediate CP to the highest clause IP NP Bad! IP/CP CP IP IP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this IP CP 7/6/01

CP Long Scrambling CP Scrambling Locality Violation IP CP IP IP IP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this IP CP Lowest clause middle clause highest clause 7/6/01

Long Scrambling – Locality Violation - 1
VP [B1:CP] VP [C1:CP] [B2:C’] [B3:IP] VP [C2:C’] [C3:C’] Peter VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] VP daß [C4:IP] [C5:IP] hat VP [B6:I’] [B7:I’] sein Sohn VP [C6:CP] VP VP VP [A1:IP] VP [B8:IP] I [A2:IP] [A3:IP] DP VP versprochen versuchen wird 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. PRO I das Fahrrad zu reparieren 7/6/01

VP [B1:CP] VP [C1:CP] [B2:C’] [B3:IP] VP [C2:C’] [C3:C’] Peter VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] VP daß [C4:IP] [C5:IP] hat VP [B6:I’] [B7:I’] sein Sohn VP [C6:CP] VP PRO DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] VP VP VP [B8:IP] I versprochen versuchen wird 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. 7/6/01

VP DP das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] VP [C1:CP] [C2:C’] [C3:C’] VP [B1:CP] Peter VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] VP hat VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] VP [C6:CP] daß VP VP [B6:I’] [B7:I’] sein Sohn VP versprochen 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. VP PRO I zu reparieren [B8:IP] [A3:IP] I versuchen wird 7/6/01

Long Scrambling – No Locality Violation - 1
VP [B1:CP] VP [C1:CP] [B2:C’] [B3:IP] VP [C2:C’] [C3:C’] Peter VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] VP daß [C4:IP] [C5:IP] hat VP [B6:I’] [B7:I’] sein Sohn VP [C6:CP] VP PRO DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] VP VP VP [B8:IP] I versprochen versuchen wird 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. 7/6/01

VP [B1:CP] VP [C1:CP] [B2:C’] [B3:IP] VP [C2:C’] [C3:C’] Peter VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] VP daß [C4:IP] [C5:IP] hat VP [B6:I’] [B7:I’] sein Sohn VP [C6:CP] VP PRO DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] VP VP VP [B8:IP] I versprochen versuchen wird 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. This derivation is possible, with the NP now being stuck in the middle clause 7/6/01

VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] daß [B1:CP] VP hat versprochen [C1:CP] [C2:C’] [C3:C’] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:CP] Peter [B4:IP] [A1:IP] VP [A2:IP] [B5:IP] DP VP [B6:I’] [B7:I’] das Fahrrad sein Sohn VP 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. [B8:IP] [A3:IP] I VP PRO zu reparieren versuchen wird I 7/6/01

Barriers for Clitic Climbing – Same Structural Case as SuperRaising
(a) Juan cree [que Luis quiere [ comprarla ] ] Juan believes [that Luis wants [ to buy it ] ] (b) Juan cree [que Luis la quiere [ comprar ] ] (c) *Juan la cree [que Luis quiere [ comprar ] ] 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. Also cannot climb out of complements to non-restructuring verbs 7/6/01

The Left Periphery and Clitic Climbing
In order for the clitic to climb out of the complement to a nonrestructuring verb, it would need to first adjoin at the CP in the tree for the next higher clause. Since this is not possible, it can never appear in the next higher clause. Once again, the same structural situation. CP ClP CP TP TP TP Cl 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this Clitic TP CP Lowest clause middle clause highest clause 7/6/01

Unification clash when these trees combine – derivation fails, and NP cannot move past the intermediate CP to the highest clause ClP Cl Bad! TP/CP CP TP TP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this TP CP 7/6/01

ClP TP CP CP Clitic Climbing Locality Violation TP CP TP TP TP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this Cl IP CP Lowest clause middle clause highest clause 7/6/01

Nice properties of TAG, but also some problems
Conclusion Nice properties of TAG, but also some problems One possible solution - not complete - there are still some remaining issues. Would like to get rid of need for I’/IP distinction Also alternative but related ways to reformulate TAG - e.g., as a collection of monotonic c-command relations (Frank, Kulick, Vijay-Shanker 2000) Whatever the exact reformulation of TAG, the basic idea is that for a wide variety of interclausal movement constraints, the details may be different, but they reduce to the same structural case, eliminating the need for a shortest move type of constraint 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this 7/6/01

The Left Periphery and Scrambling - 1
Constraints on Locality of Long Scrambling work the same way – only the details of where a scrambled NP attaches to are different. IP CP NP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this Lowest clause middle clause highest clause Assume Scrambled NPs attach to IP – the NP can scramble up to IP in a higher clause, but not past CP 7/6/01

The Left Periphery and Scrambling – 2
CP NP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this Lowest clause middle clause highest clause 7/6/01

NP CP IP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this IP 7/6/01

CP IP IP IP NP IP 1. Previous work - competence grammar/syntax has nothing to say about this 2. If a formalism constrains the derivations in a certain way, then syntax can say something about this IP 7/6/01

Iterated Long Scrambling – 1
(2b)...daß das Fahrrad niemand wagte [ zu versuchen [ t zu reparieren]] that the bike no one dared [ to try [ t to repair]] VP IP zu versuchen I [B1:IP] [B2:IP] VP [C1:C’] [C2:IP] [C3:IP] daß C VP VP PRO DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] DP VP 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. [C6:IP] niemand VP VP wagte 7/6/01

(2b)...daß das Fahrrad niemand wagte [ zu versuchen [ t zu reparieren]] that the bike no one dared [ to try [ t to repair]] VP [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [B1:IP] VP [C1:C’] DP VP [C2:IP] [C3:IP] [B2:IP] [A3:IP] C VP VP IP das Fahrrad daß [C4:IP] [C5:IP] DP PRO I VP I 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. [C6:IP] zu reparieren zu versuchen niemand VP VP wagte 7/6/01

VP daß C [C1:C’] [C2:IP] [A1:IP] VP [A2:IP] [C3:IP] DP VP [C4:IP] [C5:IP] DP das Fahrrad VP [C6:IP] [B1:IP] VP niemand VP [B2:IP] [A3:IP] 1. Not a problem to derive the unbounded scrambling of a single NP. VP IP wagte PRO I I zu reparieren zu versuchen 7/6/01

1. Usually assumed to be in principle unbounded

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1. Usually assumed to be in principle unbounded"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

1. Usually assumed to be in principle unbounded

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1. Usually assumed to be in principle unbounded"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback