Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

7/6/011 Tree Composition and Generalized Transformations Seth Kulick University of Pennsylvania TiLT, 7/6/01.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "7/6/011 Tree Composition and Generalized Transformations Seth Kulick University of Pennsylvania TiLT, 7/6/01."— Presentation transcript:

1 7/6/011 Tree Composition and Generalized Transformations Seth Kulick University of Pennsylvania TiLT, 7/6/01

2 7/6/012 Outline zIntroduction to Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) zSimplifying/Fixing TAG yConceptual and Empirical Problems yA fresh look at the problem - what compositional operations are necessary to combine two TAG trees? zConsequences of reducing TAG to substitution and one-level adjoining: yEmpirical problems are solved yArgument for eliminating shortest move type stipulations is strengthened.

3 7/6/013 Tree Adjoining Grammar X Y Y Y X Y Y INITIAL TREE AUXILIARY TREE DERIVED TREE BOTH ELEMENTARY TREES

4 7/6/014 Subject-to-Subject Raising in TAG John seems [ to like pizza] John i IP DP I’ I V’ VP titi V like DP pizza I’ I VP seems V to

5 7/6/015 Subject-to-Subject Raising in TAG IP DP John i I’ I VP t i like pizza I’ I VP seems V to

6 7/6/016 Overview of Tree Adjoining Grammar (Kroch & Joshi, 1985, Frank 2001) zThe atomic objects of the grammar are small pieces of phrase structure, called “elementary trees”, combined together using adjoining. zFundamental TAG Hypothesis: Every syntactic dependency is expressed locally within a single elementary tree. zThe substantive theory of syntax must be stated over the domain of the elementary trees. zCannot create dependencies between elementary trees by transformations. Movement is limited to within the elementary trees. Inter-clausal movement follows from the adjoining operation.

7 7/6/017 Wh-Movement in TAG I’ C’ I VP think V IP DP you C’ C do CP DP j What IP DP John i C’ C that V’ VP titi V likes t j I’ I What do you think that John likes

8 7/6/018 TAG and Locality Violations - 1 zAn 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. zFor example, super-raising cases cannot be derived: (Frank, 2001) John i seems it appears t i to like pizza

9 7/6/019 TAG and Locality Violations - 2 zWhen 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. zAlso, the effects of the “Phase Impenetrability Condition” also follow without needing to be stated explicitly. zNot having a “principle” of Shortest Move or the PIC is a Good Thing.

10 7/6/0110 Two Problems for TAG (1) Conceptual Problem Not only have adjoining, but also tree substitution. There is an overlap in their coverage. X Y Y Y X Y Y Adjoining Tree Substitution

11 7/6/0111 Two Problems for TAG (2) Empirical Problem zSubject Raising and I-C movement: (1) does John seem to like pizza ? zLong 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 zRomance Clitic Climbing (3) Juan la quiere comprar Juan it wants to buy What they all have in common: An elementary tree is not just adjoined into another tree, but must be distributed along that tree.

12 7/6/0112 A Fresh Look at the Problem - 1 zWhat operations are necessary to combine two TAG trees? zMinimal requirement: The result must be another tree. zThis is a different problem from combining two “phases”, since all movement takes place within the trees independently of being combined!

13 7/6/0113 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

14 7/6/0114 What is the Tree Composition Operation? zThe answer to this question depends on the detailed structure of the phrase structure trees. zWe assume trees that are built up out of one- level projections, with features indicating what must be above and below that projection. zGiven 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. zThis solves both the conceptual and empirical problems. The case for doing away with stipulations such as shortest move or the PIC is strengthened.

15 7/6/0115 The Structure of an Elementary Tree - 1 John i What the projection requires for a complement VP DP VP I titi V like DP pizza [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] [A4:VP] [A5:VP] [A6:V’] [A7:V’] What the projection is Top and Bottom Features to indicate what the projection is, and what its complement must be. to (Similar to TAG feature system in VijayShanker1987)

16 7/6/0116 The Structure of an Elementary Tree - 2 What the projection requires for a complement What the projection is Top and Bottom Features to indicate what the projection is, and what its complement must be. VP I seems V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] [B4:I’]

17 7/6/0117 What is the Tree Composition Operation? – 2 one-level adjoining Tree substitution An elementary or a derived tree An elementary tree

18 7/6/0118 One-Level Adjoining - 1 that VP C [B2] [B3] VP I John VP DP [A1] [A2] that [B1] [B4] [B1] VP C DP [B2 U A1] [A2 U B3] VP I John Features unify upon the one-level adjoining VP Node Label doesn’t do anything

19 7/6/0119 One-Level Adjoining - 2 [B3] [B4] VP seems V John VP DP [A1] [A2] John A subcase: at the root VP DP [A1] [A2 U B3] VP seems V

20 7/6/0120 Subject-to-Subject Raising - 1 John seems [ to like pizza] VP DP John i VP I t i V like DP pizza [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] [A4:VP] [A5:VP] [A6:V’] [A7:V’] I’ I VP seems V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] [B4:I’] to

21 7/6/0121 Subject-to-Subject Raising - 2 John seems [ to like pizza] VP DP John i VP I titi V like DP pizza [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] [A4:VP] [A5:VP] [A6:V’] [A7:V’] I’ I VP seems V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] [B4:I’] to

22 7/6/0122 Subject-to-Subject Raising - 3 VP DP John i [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [B1:I’] VP I t i like pizza [A4:VP] [A5:VP] VP I seems V [B2:VP] [B3:VP] [B4:VP] [A3:VP] to

23 7/6/0123 Iterated Raising - 1 John seems [ to appear [ to like pizza] ] VP I seems VP V [C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] DP VP John i VP I t i like pizza [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] [A4:VP] [A5:VP] VP to [B4:I’] VP I V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] appear to

24 7/6/0124 Iterated Raising - 2 John seems [ to appear [ to like pizza] ] VP I seems VP V [C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] DP VP John i VP I t i like pizza [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] [A4:VP] [A5:VP] VP to [B4:I’] VP I V [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] appear to

25 7/6/0125 Iterated Raising - 3 John seems [ to appear [ to like pizza] ] VP I seems VP V [C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] John i VP DP [A1:IP] VP to [B4:I’] [A3:I’] VP I V [A2:I’] [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] appear VP t i like pizza [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I to

26 7/6/0126 Iterated Raising - 4 John seems [ to appear [ to like pizza] ] VP I seems VP V [C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] John i VP DP [A1:IP] VP to [B4:I’] [A3:I’] VP I V [A2:I’] [B1:I’] [B2:VP] [B3:VP] appear VP t i like pizza [A4:VP] [A5:VP] I to

27 7/6/0127 Iterated Raising - 5 John seems [ to appear [ to like pizza] ] VP I seems VP V [A2:I’] [C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:I’] [B1:I’] John i VP DP [A1:IP] to VP [B4:I’] [A3:I’] VP I V [B2:VP] [B3:VP] appear t i to like pizza

28 7/6/0128 SuperRaising - 1 *John seems [ it appears [ to like pizza] ] VP I seems VP V [C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:IP] DP VP John i VP I t i like pizza [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] [A4:VP] [A5:VP] to VP [B6:I’] VP V [B4:VP] [B5:VP] appears I [B2:I’] [B3:I’] it DP [B1:IP] VP

29 7/6/0129 SuperRaising – 2 *John seems [ it appears [ to like pizza] ] VP I seems VP V [C1:I’] [C2:VP] [C3:VP] [C4:IP] DP VP John i VP I t i like pizza [A1:IP] [A2:I’] [A3:I’] [A4:VP] [A5:VP] to VP [B6:I’] VP V [B4:VP] [B5:VP] appears I [B2:I’] [B3:I’] it DP [B1:IP] VP

30 7/6/0130 SuperRaising - 3 *John seems [ it appears [ to like pizza] ] I to VP DP John i [A1:IP] VP t i like pizza [A4:VP] [A5:VP] [B6:I’] [A3:I’] VP V [B4:VP] [B5:VP] appears I [B2:I’] [B3:I’] it DP [A2:I’] [B1:IP] VP

31 7/6/0131 SuperRaising - 4 *John seems [ it appears [ to like pizza] ] it DP [B1:IP] VP I to VP t i like pizza [A4:VP] [A5:VP] [B6:I’] [A3:I’] VP V [B4:VP] [B5:VP] appears I [A2:I’] [B3:I’] VP DP John i [B2:I’] [A1:IP]

32 7/6/0132 The Left Periphery Consequence zOnly material above the subtree that substitutes in can reach a higher clause. zSince composition of two independently formed trees results in another tree, material from the red tree first attaches to the blue tree. zTogether with unification of features upon one-level adjoining, this gives the effect of shortest move and its descendents, such as the PIC

33 7/6/0133 The Left Periphery and Raising IP I’ IP I’ IP I’ Iterated Raising Superaising Lowest clause middle clause highest clause

34 7/6/0134 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 ]

35 7/6/0135 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 PRO VP DP I zu reparieren (to repair) das Fahrrad (the bike) [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] daß VP niemand (no one) CVP DP VP I wagte(dared) [B1:C’] [B2:IP] [B3:IP] [B4:IP] [B5:IP] [B6:IP]

36 7/6/0136 Long Distance Scrambling – 2 (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 PRO VP DP I zu reparieren (to repair) das Fahrrad (the bike) [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] daß VP niemand (no one) CVP DP VP I wagte(dared) [B1:C’] [B2:IP] [B3:IP] [B4:IP] [B5:IP] [B6:IP]

37 7/6/0137 Long Distance Scrambling – 3 PRO VP I zu reparieren (to repair) [B6:IP] [A3:IP] VP DP das Fahrrad (the bike) [B2:IP] [A1:IP] VP niemand (no one) DP VP I wagte (dared) [A2:IP] [B3:IP] [B4:IP] [B5:IP] VP daß C [B1:C’] VP

38 7/6/0138 The Left Periphery and Scrambling Violations IP CP IP CP IP CP NP Scrambled NP 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 Lowest clause middle clause highest clause

39 7/6/0139 The Left Periphery and Scrambling Violations IP NP IP CP IP IP/CP IP Unification clash when these trees combine – derivation fails, and NP cannot move past the intermediate CP to the highest clause Bad!

40 7/6/0140 The Left Periphery and Scrambling Violations Long Scrambling IP CP IP CP IP CP IP CP IP CP Scrambling Locality Violation Lowest clause middle clause highest clause

41 7/6/0141 Long Scrambling – Locality Violation - 1 VP PRO VP DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] versuchen wird [B8:IP] VP I [B6:I’] [B7:I’] VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] sein Sohn VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] daß VP hat VP versprochen [C1:CP] [C2:C’] [C3:C’] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:CP] Peter VP [B1:CP]

42 7/6/0142 Long Scrambling – Locality Violation - 2 VP PRO VP DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] versuchen wird [B8:IP] VP I [B6:I’] [B7:I’] VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] sein Sohn VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] daß VP hat VP versprochen [C1:CP] [C2:C’] [C3:C’] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:CP] Peter VP [B1:CP]

43 7/6/0143 Long Scrambling – Locality Violation - 3 VP PRO I zu reparieren VP hat VP versprochen [C2:C’] [C3:C’] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:CP] Peter VP DP das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] versuchen wird [B8:IP] [A3:IP] VP I [B6:I’] [B7:I’] VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] sein Sohn VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] daß [C1:CP] VP [B1:CP]

44 7/6/0144 Long Scrambling – Locality Violation - 4 VP PRO I zu reparieren VP hat VP versprochen [C2:C’] [C3:C’] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:CP] Peter VP DP das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] versuchen wird [B8:IP] [A3:IP] VP I [B6:I’] [B7:I’] VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] sein Sohn VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] daß [C1:CP] VP [B1:CP]

45 7/6/0145 Long Scrambling – No Locality Violation - 1 VP PRO VP DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] versuchen wird [B8:IP] VP I [B6:I’] [B7:I’] VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] sein Sohn VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] daß VP hat VP versprochen [C1:CP] [C2:C’] [C3:C’] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:CP] Peter VP [B1:CP]

46 7/6/0146 Long Scrambling – No Locality Violation - 2 VP PRO VP DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] versuchen wird [B8:IP] VP I [B6:I’] [B7:I’] VP [B4:IP] [B5:IP] sein Sohn VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] daß VP hat VP versprochen [C1:CP] [C2:C’] [C3:C’] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:CP] Peter VP [B1:CP] This derivation is possible, with the NP now being stuck in the middle clause

47 7/6/0147 Long Scrambling – No Locality Violation - 3 I VP PRO zu reparieren VP DP das Fahrrad [B4:IP] [A1:IP] versuchen wird [B8:IP] [A3:IP] VP I [B6:I’] [B7:I’] [A2:IP] [B5:IP] sein Sohn VP hat VP versprochen [C1:CP] [C2:C’] [C3:C’] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:CP] Peter VP [B2:C’] [B3:IP] daß VP [B1:CP]

48 7/6/0148 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 ] ] Also cannot climb out of complements to non- restructuring verbs

49 7/6/0149 The Left Periphery and Clitic Climbing ClP TP CP TP CP TP CP Cl Clitic 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. Lowest clause middle clause highest clause

50 7/6/0150 The Left Periphery and Clitic Climbing ClP Cl TP CP TP TP/CP TP Unification clash when these trees combine – derivation fails, and NP cannot move past the intermediate CP to the highest clause Bad!

51 7/6/0151 The Left Periphery and Clitic Climbing Clitic Climbing ClP TP CP TP CP TP CP TP CP IP CP TP CP Clitic Climbing Locality Violation Cl Lowest clause middle clause highest clause

52 7/6/0152 Conclusion zNice properties of TAG, but also some problems zOne possible solution - not complete - there are still some remaining issues. yWould like to get rid of need for I’/IP distinction yAlso alternative but related ways to reformulate TAG - e.g., as a collection of monotonic c-command relations (Frank, Kulick, Vijay-Shanker 2000) zWhatever 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

53 7/6/0153 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. Assume Scrambled NPs attach to IP – the NP can scramble up to IP in a higher clause, but not past CP IP CP IP NP Lowest clause middle clause highest clause

54 7/6/0154 The Left Periphery and Scrambling – 2 IP CP IP NP Lowest clause middle clause highest clause

55 7/6/0155 The Left Periphery and Scrambling - 3 IP CP IP NP IP

56 7/6/0156 The Left Periphery and Scrambling - 4 IP CP IP NP IP

57 7/6/0157 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 PRO VP DP I zu reparieren das Fahrrad [A1:IP] [A2:IP] [A3:IP] VP IP VP zu versuchen I [B1:IP] [B2:IP] VP niemand VP DP VP wagte daß C [C1:C’] [C2:IP] [C3:IP] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:IP]

58 7/6/0158 Iterated Long Scrambling – 2 (2b)...daß das Fahrrad niemand wagte [ zu versuchen [ t zu reparieren]]...that the bike no one dared [ to try [ t to repair]] VP DP das Fahrrad [A1:IP] VP PRO I zu reparieren [B2:IP] [A3:IP] VP IP zu versuchen I [A2:IP] [B1:IP] VP niemand VP DP VP wagte daß C [C1:C’] [C2:IP] [C3:IP] [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:IP]

59 7/6/0159 Iterated Long Scrambling – 3 VP DP das Fahrrad [C2:IP] [A1:IP] VP PRO I zu reparieren [B2:IP] [A3:IP] VP IP zu versuchen I [A2:IP] [C3:IP] VP daß C [C1:C’] VP niemand VP DP VP wagte [C4:IP] [C5:IP] [C6:IP] [B1:IP]


Download ppt "7/6/011 Tree Composition and Generalized Transformations Seth Kulick University of Pennsylvania TiLT, 7/6/01."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google