Presentation on theme: "Complement Structures: Equi and Raising HPSG WS 2007/08 Janina Kopp 20.12.2007."— Presentation transcript:
Complement Structures: Equi and Raising HPSG WS 2007/08 Janina Kopp 20.12.2007
Outline About Equi and Raising Constructions About Equi and Raising in HPSG Expletive pronoun constructions (Raising Expletives)
What are Equi and Raising Constructions? Consider the following two sentence pairs: They tend to run They try to run John believes Mary to own Fido John persuades Mary to own Fido On the first sight, the underlying structure looks just the same, however, there is a crucial difference.
Motivation and Distinction Tests We will now see what evidence there is for assuming two different underlying structures These differences can be used to distinguish such constructions
Comparison They try to run try: subject control verb or equi verb they is agent argument of both try and run They tend to run tend: raising verb they is agent argument only of run, not of tend John persuaded Mary to own Fido persuade: object control verb Mary is direct object of persuaded, but semantically both patient of persuaded and agent of to own Fido John believed Mary to own Fido believe: object raising verb Mary is the direct object of believed and subject of to own Fido
Test 1: passivization Think about how the meaning of these sentences changes: (1a) John believed Mary to own Fido (1b) John believed Fido to be owned by Mary (2a) John persuaded Mary to own Fido (2b) John persuaded Fido to be owned by Mary in (1), both sentences have the same meaning in (2a), Mary is the persuadee, while in (2b) it is Fido
Test 2: insertion of verbal adjuncts John persuaded Mary firmly to own Fido *John believed Mary firmly/honestly to own Fido
Test 3: paraphrasing (1) John persuaded Mary to own Fido (1’) John persuaded Mary that she should own Fido (2) John believed Mary to own Fido (2’) John believed that Mary owned Fido persuade: three-place-predicate: Subject John, Primary Object Mary, Secondary Object [that she should own Fido] believe: two-place-predicate: Subject John, Object [that Mary owned Fido]
Test 4: complement omission John persuaded/told/convinced Mary to own Fido, but I don’t think he has persuaded/told/ convinced Sandy yet. *John believed/expected/reported Mary to own Fido, but I don’t think he has believed/expected/ reported Sandy. They try/refuse/hope to run, but I don’t think that you try/refuse/hope. *They tend/continue/happen to run, but I don’t think that you tend/continue/happen.
Test 5: there as a complement There with subject raising verbs: There tends to be disorder after a revolution. There seems to be some misunderstanding. There kept being problems with the analysis. There with object raising verbs: Kim believed there to be some misunderstanding. Compare with corresponding equi constructions: *There tries to be disorder after a revolution. *There hopes to be some misunderstanding. *Kim persuaded there to be some misunderstanding.
Realization in HPSG a. They try to run.b. They tend to run.
More on semantic roles Equi controllers are assigned semantic roles: (101) a. The doctor tried to examine Sandy. TRYER: doctor b. Sandy tried to be examined by the doctor. TRYER: Sandy (102) a. Kim persuaded the doctor to examine Sandy. PERSUADEE: the doctor b. Kim persuaded Sandy to be examined by the doctor. PERSUADEE: Sandy
More on semantic roles However: (103) a. Kim believed the doctor to have examined Sandy b. Kim believed Sandy to have been examined by the doctor The raising controller does not have a semantic role in “believe”. We only have a SOA-ARG which associates the doctor with the EXAMINER role and Sandy with the EXAMINEE role.
Expletive it or there Only raising constructions allow expletive it or there as a complement: There tends to be disorder after a revolution. Kim believed there to be some misunderstanding. *There tries to be disorder after a revolution. *Kim persuaded there to be some misunderstanding. It tends to be warm in September Lee believes it to bother Kim that Sandy snores. *It tries to be warm in September *Lee persuades it to bother Kim that Sandy snores. An equi controller has to be of sort ref.
More examples on expletive it Kim persuades it to run it is of sort ref Kim persuades it to rain it is of sort it ungrammatical Kim believes it to run it is of sort ref Kim believes it to rain it is of sort it
Shared information The unexpressed subject of the VP complement is identified with equi controller’s index in equi verbs raising controller’s SYNSEM value in raising verbs Examples of Icelandic: raising controllers in Icelandic share CASE values with the unexpressed subjects of unsaturated complements.
Raising Principle Let E be a lexical entry whose SUBCAT list L contains an element X not specified as expletive. Then X is lexically assigned no semantic role in the content of E if and only if L also contains a (nonsubject) Y[SUBCAT ]. this is only a constraint on lexical entries follows from the generalization that unassigned arguments must be raising controllers unassigned arguments can only be on the SUBCAT list if there is a corresponding unsaturated phrase
More on complement omission persuaded They told Jan to leave, convinced persuaded but I don’t think they have told Sandy yet. convinced seems *Taylor tends to be obnoxious, seems but I don’t think that Gerry tends.
More on complement omission p. 141: “Removing the unsaturated complement from a raising verb’s SUBCAT list would leave a semantically unassigned SUBCAT element that was not raised.” there is no “TENDER” (subject raising) or “BELIEVEE” (object raising) NP substitution: (122) Leslie tried something. (123) *Whitney tends something. tends assigns no semantic role to its subject, Whitney, so there must be an unsaturated complement on the SUBCAT list. Something, though, is already saturated.
Auxiliary element to to is treated as a verb in HPSG, and more explicitly, as a raising verb
Summary Equi/Raising raising verbs fail to assign a semantic role to one of their dependents the entire SYNSEM value of the SUBCAT list element of the VP complement is structure shared with the raising controller allows it and there as a complement equi verbs only the INDEX of the VP complement’s subject is structure shared with the equi controller controllers are assigned semantic roles
Expletive pronoun constructions We already saw that the sort there or it is inappropriate for NP dependents that are assigned a semantic role: *There died. *We like there very much. *It died. *We talked to it. (it not being a ppro) environments subcategorizing for there: subject of copula (be, is), with add. postcopula environments subcategorizing for it (no ref allowed!): weather verbs (rain, snow) temporal expressions (late, five o’clock) extraposed clauses (It bothers me that Sandy snores) can also occur in the object position (“I take it that you pay”)
Expletive pronoun constructions be – an example (143) CONTENT is token identical to the CONTENT of the XP[+PRD] The unexpressed subject of the XP[+PRD] complement is structure shared with the postcopular NP complement CONTENT is not determined by subject, but by the postcopular NP and the XP element CONTENT is complete even before adding Subject NP there to the structure NUM value of the NP there is dependent on the postcopular NP
Extraposition Lexical Rule verbs/adjectives combining with an extraposed clause: It bothers Kim that Sandy snores. That Sandy snores bothers Kim. The idea is to assume an underlying, basic lexical entry and a rule that transforms its SUBCAT list. The Extraposition Lexical Rule removes an S[comp] from a SUBCAT list, replacing it by NP it and appends the S[comp] to the end of the SUBCAT list. SUBCAT (explain, mention) SUBCAT SUBCAT (regret, resent) SUBCAT
Extraposition Lexical Rule However, there are still exceptions that need to be listed separately: It seems that Sandy is snoring. *That Sandy is snoring seems.