One of the primary observations about syntax is that there is some sort of recursive process that allows an item to be displaced from its canonical position.

One of the primary observations about syntax is that there is some sort of recursive process that allows an item to be displaced from its canonical position. It is also the case that there are constraints on such recursion – limits on how far an item can be displaced – locality violations. And, there are different types of nonlocal displacement that have different constraints. A long line of research has approached these questions – what’s the recursive operation, what accounts for the constraints, etc. by stipulating constraints on the role of recursion, limiting how far and what things can move. I am going to talk about an alternative line of research, in which the building blocks of the grammar are larger than in other approaches, and all dependencies are localized within these small building blocks. This has the effect of factoring out recursion from the statement of the grammar. From the perspective of this approach, I am going to argue for the following two positions: A study of the mathematical properties of a system tells us something about the role of recursion in a system, and can relate to more typically linguistic concerns about locality The differences in locality constraints on different types of non-local movement can all be reduced to differences in the derivation of these small chunks of phrase structure that are the building blocks of a grammar under this approach 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 Localizing Dependencies by Factoring out Recursion: Computational and Linguistic Perspectives Seth Kulick University of Pennsylvania UCLA, 2/15/02 2/15/02

The Research Goal - Factoring out Recursion
Outline The Research Goal - Factoring out Recursion The Problem – Reduced Constructions. An approach based on what a “defective complement” means in the context of TAG A different approach based on dominance relations Further consequences of the first approach Some Future Directions Look at two approaches which will show how these formal and linguistic properties play off each other 2/15/02

Tree Adjoining Grammar
X X Y Y Y Y Y INITIAL TREE AUXILIARY TREE how did I put this in the abstract? DERIVED TREE ELEMENTARY TREES 2/15/02

Subject-to-Subject Raising in TAG - 1
John seems [ to like pizza] Johni IP DP I’ I V’ VP ti V like pizza seems to 1. NP semantically associated with verb part of same tree Assumption: Elementary tree is the extended projection of a verb (Frank, 2002) 2/15/02

IP DP I’ I VP seems V Johni I’ I VP to ti like pizza 2/15/02

John seems [ to be certain [ to like pizza] ] I’ I VP seems V I’ I AP be certain V to 2/15/02

John seems [ to be certain [ to like pizza] ] I’ I VP seems V AP be certain to Johni IP DP I’ I V’ VP ti V like pizza to no intermediate traces 2/15/02

Some Properties of TAG (Kroch & Joshi, 1985, Frank 2002)
Building blocks of the grammar - small pieces of phrase structure, called “elementary trees”, combined together in a context-free derivation. The substantive theory of syntax must be stated over the domain of the elementary trees. Fundamental TAG Hypothesis: Every syntactic dependency is expressed locally within a single elementary tree. Cannot create dependencies between elementary trees by transformations. Movement is limited to within the elementary trees. Inter-clausal dependencies follow from adjoining operation. 2/15/02

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’ V tj likes What do you think that John likes 2/15/02

Some Linguistic Consequences
The substantive theory of syntax must be stated over the domain of the elementary trees. (Minimalist mechanisms, categorial grammar, optimality theory, HPSG, etc.) Example of what can’t be expressed: “X0 movement may not skip the next landing site” while “this constraint is not relevant” for NPs undergoing long scrambling” (Sabel, 1995) TAG explanations of locality violations – the formal system does part of the work TAG enforcement of locality used for psycholinguistics and language acquisition work. Crack about therapeutic 2/15/02

Some Formal/Computational Consequences
“Mildly context-sensitive” grammar formalism (Joshi 1985) Greater than context-free, less than context-sensitive Constant Growth property - strings of the language can’t grow “too fast” Polynomial parsing (the recovery of the syntactic structure underlying a sentence) Can generate cross-serial dependencies – a1a2a3b1b2b3 – needed for languages such as Dutch Can “count” only to four - {anbncndn | n >=0} but not five {anbncndnen| n >=0} or higher 2/15/02

Some Consequences – Practical
Implemented Systems XTAG at Penn – A wide-coverage English parser Also a parser for French, with work as well on Korean and Chinese Integration of statistical and structural techniques for parsing – (Schabes 92, Srinivas 97, etc.) Machine Translation – ( Egedi et al. 94, Han et al. 96) Natural Language Generation Descriptions mapped to a TAG elementary tree (Stone and Doran 97) 2/15/02

How far can this approach be pushed?
The Question - 1 How far can this approach be pushed? TAG has very nice computational properties, but it can be shown that it’s not adequate for some constructions. A family of TAG formalisms, with differing formal and linguistic properties – e.g., elementary structures are tree sets instead of trees, constraints on how such structures can combine are loosened, etc. 2/15/02

The Question - 2 As we look at the various problems for TAG, is there some pattern that emerges that allows us to devise a system that retains the pleasant linguistic and computational properties of TAG while still handling the problematic cases? One response: Who cares about the computational properties? Just worry about the linguistic properties of the resulting system. 2/15/02

Linguistic and Computational Properties The Connection - 1
Answer 1: Nicer computational properties make them more suitable for “real” applications True, but that’s not the focus of this talk Answer 2: If human languages can be expressed within a system with limited formal power, that is an interesting fact that needs to be explained. True (subjective), but that’s not the focus of this talk 2/15/02

Linguistic and Computational Properties The Connection - 2
Answer 3: Computational properties like generative power gives us a way to characterize the type of recursion that a formal system has. What does “type of recursion” mean? The way in which clauses can compose during a derivation In particular, generative power can express how well a system implements certain key linguistic intuitions. This helps lead to systems with desirable linguistic properties, particularly with regard to locality. 2/15/02

Outline The Research Goal - Factoring out Recursion The Problem – Reduced Constructions. An approach based on what a “defective complement” means in the context of TAG A different approach based on dominance relations Further consequences of the first approach Some Future Directions 2/15/02

Reduced Constructions in Romance Clitic Climbing (Spanish)
(1a) Luis insistio en [ comerlas ] Luis insisted on eating them (1b) *Luis las insistio en [ comer ] Object clitic placement is clause-bound… … except for some (“trigger”) verbs (2a) Luis quiere [ comerlas ] Luis wants to eat them (2b) Luis las quiere [ comer ] Mention long reflexive passive Interleaving - A problem for TAG 2/15/02

Reduced Constructions in German Long Scrambling
Scrambling clause bound except for the trigger verbs (1a)...daß niemand [ das Fahrrad zu reparieren] versprochen hat that no one [ the bike to repair] promised has ...that no one has promised to repair the bike (1b)...daß das Fahrrad niemand [ zu reparieren] versprochen hat that the bike no one [ to repair] promised has ...that no one has promised to repair the bike 2/15/02

Reduced Constructions in German A Center-Embedded Clause
(1a)...daß niemand [ das Fahrrad zu reparieren] versprochen that no one [ the bike to repair] promised has hat X daß X X niemand X versprochen hat X das Fahrrad zu reparieren 2/15/02

Reduced Constructions in German Long Scrambling – Why it’s a problem
(1b)...daß das Fahrrad niemand [ zu reparieren] versprochen that the bike no one [ to repair] promised has hat X More than just the insertion of a recursive structure daß X X niemand X das Fahrrad X versprochen hat X zu reparieren 2/15/02

Is A Defective Complement Analysis Possible in TAG?
Defective Complement Analysis – trigger verbs take a complement “smaller” than those taken by other verbs (Strozer 77, Rosen 90, Moore 91, Bleam 94, Wurmbrand 98…) This acounts for the locality constraints of Reduced Constructions since only the trigger verbs take defective complements This cannot be done in TAG, and “defective” cannot even have the same meaning in TAG This is what got me so interested, because all the usual ways of handling reduced constructions in other formalisms (argument composition, defective complements) cannot be done in TAG 2/15/02

A Defective Complement Analysis?
lo Luis quiere (Luis it wants) Luis quiere (Luis wants) ver (to see) verlo (to see it) This is exactly what cannot be done in TAG – Movement can only be specified on an elementary tree elementary trees can't be bigger And can’t just make larger elementary trees 2/15/02

soler – a trigger verb that is also a raising verb:
What does “defective” mean in TAG? – 1 Defective complements in TAG cannot be “defective” soler – a trigger verb that is also a raising verb: (1a) Luis suele comerlas (Aissen & Perlmutter) Luis tends to buy them (2b) Luis las suele comer Luis tends to buy them Under the TAG analysis of raising, Luis, las, and comer are all part of the same elementary tree, with Luis already in [Spec, IP] So if Luis is already above comer in the comer tree, in what way can suele take a “defective” complement? Check spelling of suele 2/15/02

What does “defective” mean in TAG? - 2
Querer – a trigger verb that is also a bridge verb: (1a) Juan quiere mostrartelos Juan wants to show them to you (2b) Que te quiere mostrar Juan What wants to show-to-you Juan What does Juan want to show to you? Under the TAG analysis of wh-movement, Que, mostrar, and te are all part of the same elementary tree, with Que already in [Spec, CP] So if Que is already above mostrar in the mostrar tree, in what way can quiere take a “defective” complement 2/15/02

versuchen – a trigger verb that is also a bridge verb: (1a) Dieses Buch hat den Kindern niemand [ zu geben] versucht this book has the children no one [ to give ] tried no one has tried to give this book to the children Under the TAG analysis of wh-movement, Dieses Buch, den Kindern, and zu geben are all part of the same elementary tree, with Dieses Buch already in [Spec, CP] So if Dieses Buch is already in [Spec, CP] in the geben tree, in what way can versucht take a “defective” complement 2/15/02

Expanding the Scope of the Problem - 1
Subject Raising and I-C movement: (1a) John seems to like pizza (1b) Whatj does John seem to like tj ? Adjoining cannot handle this sort of interleaving Subject Raising and experiencer extraction: (1c) To whom does John seem to like pizza ? When the seem and like trees are combined, [Spec, CP] can come from either tree. 2/15/02

Expanding the Scope of the Problem - 2
Claim: These subject raising cases are another manifestation of the same structural problem as with the clitic climbing and long scrambling This leads to an intuition of how tree composition should work that will also handle the reduced constructions 2/15/02

Subject-to-Subject Raising in TAG
John seems [ to like pizza] I’ I VP seems V IP DP I’ I VP Johni ti to V’ V DP like pizza 2/15/02

A Revised View of Raising - 1
Whatj does John seem [ to like tj?] Johni DP I’ I VP V like tj IP CP whatj C’ to CP C' C IP I’ does I VP V I’ seem 2/15/02

Whati does John seems [ to like ti?] Johni DP I’ I VP V like tj IP CP whatj C’ to CP C' C I’ I VP seem V IP does 2/15/02

CP A Revised View of Raising - 3 C' whatj Johni DP IP C does I’ I VP I’ V VP I seem to V DP tj like 2/15/02

CP I’ CP raising verb clause result insertion 2/15/02

What a “Defective Complement” means in TAG
In the TAG context, a defective complement has nothing to do with how high a complement projects. The analog of a defective complement analysis is that the recursive structure from the higher clause is inserted lower than in other cases All inter-clausal dependencies are the same, aside from details: Subject raising – recursion at I’ Wh-movement – recursion at C’ Reduced Constructions – recursion between I’ and C’ 2/15/02

Long Scrambling Revisited - 1
Dieses Buch hat den Kindern niemand [ zu geben] versucht this book has the children no one [ to give ] tried no one has tried to give this book to the children CP CP C C' hat IP niemand I’ IP versucht Dieses Buch C’ IP Den Kindern IP PRO zu geben Structurally the same as What does John seem to like, except for extra IP segment 2/15/02

Long Scrambling Revisited – 2
Dieses Buch hat den Kindern niemand [ zu geben] versucht this book has the children no one [ to give ] tried no one has tried to give this book to the children IP Den Kindern PRO zu geben CP Dieses Buch C C' hat niemand I’ IP versucht 2/15/02

Long Scrambling Revisited - 3
IP CP Restructuring verb clause CP CP IP IP insertion IP IP IP Higher projections unified, skipping extra IP segment result 2/15/02

Revised Tree Adjoining Grammar
X X X Y Y Y Y Y INITIAL TREE AUXILIARY TREE RESULT TREE BOTH ELEMENTARY TREES 2/15/02

Hierarchy of Defectiveness
CP English raising C’ English bridge English non-bridge Romance trigger (can be distinguished from Raising with more detailed phrase structure) IP German trigger (can also have extra IP segments, not shown here) Hierarchy, as verbs get weaker White space is the recursive subtree, shaded gets merged with corresponding projections in complement clause 2/15/02

What about Locality Constraints?
What about the locality constraints on the different types of non-local movement? They fall out from the context-free structure of a TAG derivation: Each derivational step is insensitive to the previous derivational history Although one elementary can adjoin into another, forming a “derived auxiliary tree”… …Each step in the derivation can refer only to two elementary trees, not to a “derived tree”. 2/15/02

Trees as Monotonic Dominance Links - 1
A major effort toward resolving some of these issues is the system of Description Tree Grammars (Rambow,Vijay-Shanker,Weir, 2001). Closely related is work by (Frank, Kulick, Vijay-Shanker, 2001) The idea is that instead of using trees as the elementary objects of the grammar, use “descriptions of trees” (Marcus et. al 83). Trees consist of immediate and non-immediate dominance links. These have to be maintained throughout the course of the derivation. For other reasons, the “direction” of the derivation is reversed from TAG. 2/15/02

Trees as Monotonic Dominance links - 2
does IP C’ John I’ IP What C’ CP What C’ CP does IP C’ John I’ IP I’ I’ to like seem I’ I’ seem I’ to like 2/15/02

CP C’ What C’ CP C’ What C’ does IP John I’ IP does IP I’ John I’ IP I’ to be I’ certain I’ seem I’ seem I’ to like I’ to be I’ certain to like 2/15/02

This “solves” the problem of interleaving… …but it has locality problems. Nothing prevents something from “floating” too far This is true for all different types of inter-clausal movement – for example, super-raising… 2/15/02

Super-raising – no sense of locality *John seems it is certain to like pizza John I’ IP seems IP I’ it is I’ certain seems IP I’ John I’ IP it is I’ certain IP I’ to like pizza to like pizza 2/15/02

B b C A a B B b B B b C c C c C c 2/15/02

B b a A B b A a B B b C C c Can accumulate phrase structure in a way that does not happen in nat lang C c C c 2/15/02

B b C c e 2/15/02

What’s missing – any sense of one recursive piece plus the sharing of an extended projection Instead, an arbitrary number of parts all making their own “equal” contribution to the derivation This has consequences for formal power (counting languages, cross-serial dependencies) as well as for locality conditions – and for the same reasons. 2/15/02

They fall out from the context-free structure of a TAG derivation:
Where We Left Off… What about the locality constraints on the different types of non-local movement? They fall out from the context-free structure of a TAG derivation: Each derivational step is insensitive to the previous derivational history Although one elementary can adjoin into another, forming a “derived auxiliary tree”… …Each step in the derivation can refer only to two elementary trees, not to a “derived tree”. 2/15/02

Unbounded Movement by Repeated Adjoining
CP raising verb clauses insertion result CP CP I’ I’ insertion 1 I’ CP I’ I’ I’ 2/15/02

Whatj does John seem [ to be certain [ to like tj?] ] CP C C' does I’ I VP seem V IP Johni DP like tj whatj C’ to be certain 2/15/02

Whatj does John seem [ to be certain [ to like tj?] ] CP whatj C’ CP C' C IP IP I’ I VP seem V be certain to DP does I’ VP I Johni to V DP like tj 2/15/02

Whatj does John seem [ to be certain [ to like tj?] ] CP whatj C’ CP C' C IP IP I’ I VP seem V be certain to DP does I’ VP need arrows I Johni to V DP like tj 2/15/02

CP whatj C’ C IP does DP I’ I VP Johni V I’ I’ seem I VP tj I’ I VP V like DP to to V be certain 2/15/02

Super-Raising - 1 *John seems [ it is certain [ to like pizza ] ] CP
VP V like DP pizza to Johni IP CP C' C' IP IP I’ DP I’ I VP I VP it V I’ V is IP certain seems 2/15/02

Super-Raising - 2 *John seems [ it is certain [ to like pizza ] ] CP
VP certain V is it DP IP seems IP DP I’ VP I Johni to V DP like pizza 2/15/02

Super-Raising - 3 *John seems [ it is certain [ to like pizza ] ] These nodes originate from two different elementary trees and so this I’ recursive subtree violates the context-free structure of a derivation CP I’ I VP V like DP pizza to Johni IP CP C' C' I’ I VP certain V is it DP IP seems 2/15/02

Locality Constraints on Unbounded Movement
IP CP I’ Last step of the derivation fails because the higher I’ node can no longer be accessed seems CP John IP IP I’ it is certain seems IP I’ it is certain CP can’t be done I’ I’ to like pizza John to like pizza 2/15/02

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 ] 2/15/02

Locality of Long Scrambling – 1
Peter hat versprochen, [daß das Fahrrad sein Sohn [ zu reparieren] versuchen wird ] CP C' versuchen wird I’ I IP sein Sohn C’ daß CP IP CP C’ hat versprochen Peter IP DP das Fahrrad (the bike) I zu reparieren (to repair) 2/15/02

Locality of Long Scrambling – 2
Peter hat versprochen, [daß das Fahrrad sein Sohn [ zu reparieren] versuchen wird ] IP DP das Fahrrad (the bike) I zu reparieren (to repair) CP C' IP CP C’ hat versprochen Peter versuchen wird I’ I sein Sohn daß highst CP in blue 2/15/02

Locality of Long Scrambling - 3
Peter hat versprochen, [daß das Fahrrad sein Sohn [ zu reparieren] versuchen wird ] IP DP das Fahrrad (the bike) I zu reparieren (to repair) CP C' IP CP C’ hat versprochen Peter versuchen wird I’ I sein Sohn daß These nodes originate from two different elementary trees and so this IP recursive subtree violates the context-free structure of a derivation 2/15/02

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 Assumption: trigger verbs can take either I’ or CP complements 2/15/02

Luis las quiere [ comer ] (Luis wants to eat them) comer V DP tj VP I [lasi] [] IP IP V I’ VP quiere I DP Luis [] [] I’ Each node has two features associated with it, since nodes can be split apart (Vijay-Shanker, 87) 2/15/02

V DP tj VP I [] [] comer I’ IP quiere Luis [lasi] [] 2/15/02

Locality of Clitic Climbing - 1
Juan cree [que Luis la quiere [ comprar ] ] CP C' comprar V VP I [lai] [] IP I’ I’ I VP V quiere Luis IP C que CP C' CP C' C IP I’ Juan I VP tj V cree CP 2/15/02

Juan cree [que Luis la quiere [ comprar ] ] CP C' comprar V VP I [lai] [] IP I’ I’ I VP V quiere Luis IP C que CP C' cree Juan tj 2/15/02

Juan cree [que Luis la quiere [ comprar ] ] These nodes originate from two different elementary trees and so this I’ recursive subtree violates the context-free structure of a derivation CP C' comprar V VP I [lai] [] IP I’ I’ I VP V quiere Luis IP C que CP C' cree Juan tj 2/15/02

Localizing Parameters - 1
Example of what can’t be expressed: “X0 movement may not skip the next landing site” while “this constraint is not relevant” for NPs undergoing long scrambling” (Sabel, 1995) 2/15/02

(a) daß keiner wagte, [dem Fritz zu erlauben [ den Wagen zu reparieren]] that nobody dared [Fritz to allow [the car to repair ]] ‘that nobody dared to allow Fritz to repair the car b) daß den Wagen keiner wagte, [dem Fritz zu erlauben [ zu reparieren] ] that the car nobody dared [Fritz to allow [ to repair ] ] (a) Mari quiere permitirte verlo Mari wants to permit you to see it (b) *Mari lo quiere permitirte ver 2/15/02

Differences in inter-clausal movement reduce to differences in where items move in an elementary tree and where higher clauses adjoin in. Clitics always must go to I’, and so must get picked up on the way as the lowest clitic climbs NPs do not have to scramble above the point where adjoining takes place and so don’t necessarily get picked up along the way 2/15/02

Outline The Research Goal - Factoring out Recursion The Problem – Reduced Constructions. An approach based on what a “defective complement” means in the context of TAG A different approach based on dominance relations Further consequences of the first approach Some future directions 2/15/02

Some Future Directions
All sorts of challenges to work out Other aspects of reduced constructions – long reflexive passive, Italian long passive, etc. Remnant movement Extraction from NP, pied-piping, movement of genitive clitics Can the system be simplified? Works well, but the operation is complicated – insertion of recursive part plus unification of the extended projections – it’s a bit nasty. Two possibilities 2/15/02

Turn it around! Instead of derivation in “traditional” TAG order
First Possibility- 1 Turn it around! Instead of derivation in “traditional” TAG order CP C C' does I’ I VP seem V IP Johni DP like tj whatj C’ to be certain 2/15/02

First Possibility - 2 Derive from the bottom up – should be okay, but needs to be worked out to make sure that formal (e.g., cross-serial dependencies) and linguistic properties are preserved. CP whatj C’ CP C' I’ I VP be certain V IP to CP C' C IP IP does I’ DP I’ I VP I VP Johni to V DP V I’ seem like tj 2/15/02

What adjoining does is allow the projection of a verb to be extended!
Another Alternative Elementary structures consist of a (possibly incomplete) extended projection together with “floating items” that can attach when the projection is complete. There is no relation between the “floating” components. Instead, each one has the relation that it attaches to the extended projection of the head of the tree What adjoining does is allow the projection of a verb to be extended! 2/15/02

An incomplete projection
Elementary Structure V like DP tj I V’ VP ti [like] [like] to I’ DP[like] C’ whatj Johni An incomplete projection 2/15/02

Extending a Projection via Adjoining - 1
like DP tj I V’ VP ti [like] [like] to I’ C [seem] C’ V seem I’ [seem] [seem] VP tk [] doesk I 2/15/02

like DP tj I V’ VP ti [like] [like] to I’ seem [seem/like] [seem/like] tk C’ [seem/like] C doesk DP[like] C’ whatj I’ Johni 2/15/02

Reduced Constructions in Romance Reflexive Passive (Spanish)
(1) Las propiedades se vendieron ayer The pieces of property were sold yesterday Reflexive Passive – object in subject position Reflexive Passive is a clause-bound operation… (2a) Los turistas insistieron en [ visitar las piramides ] The tourists insisted on visiting the pyramids (2b) *Las piramides se insistieron en [ visitar ] … except for some (“trigger”) verbs (3) Los mapas ya se empezaron [ a preparar ] The maps already began [ to prepare ] PRO has already begun to prepare the maps 2/15/02

TAG and the Long Reflexive Passive - 1
The localization of movement to elementary trees forces movement for grammatical transformations to be within elementary trees Bob IP DP I’ I VP V lost his guitar to DPi ti was 2/15/02

(3) Los mapas ya se empezaron [ a preparar ] The maps already began [ to prepare ] PRO has already begun to prepare the maps PRO empezaron a preparar los mapas PRO empezaron a preparar los mapas Los mapas empezaron a preparar Clitic Climbing and Long Scrambling simply place an item in the higher clause. “Long” transformations like the reflexive passive are different. 2/15/02

Se originates in the complement verb’s clause – forces the range of the trigger verbs that allow the long reflexive passive (LRP) to be more limited than those that allow clitic climbing Prediction: Only verbs that can be analyzed as raising verbs allow the LRP This appears to be correct, although the data is murky. There are object-control verbs in Spanish that allow clitic climbing but not LRP Similar questions are raised about other aspects of reduced constructions – Long Tough Movement, Italian Long Passive. 2/15/02

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 make up slide 2/15/02

A More Complex Case (a) daß keiner wagte, [dem Fritz zu erlauben [ den Wagen zu reparieren]] that nobody dared [Fritz to allow [the car to repair ]] ‘that nobody dared to allow Fritz to repair the car b) daß dem Fritz den Wagen keiner wagte, [ zu erlauben [ zu reparieren] ] that Fritz the car nobody dared [ to allow [ to repair ] ] 2/15/02

A More Complex Case – 2 (1b) daß dem Fritz den Wagen keiner wagte, [ zu erlauben [ zu reparieren] ] I’ DP den Wagen [repair] I’ DP dem Fritz [allow] C' [dare] [dare] [dare] C I’ daß [dare] [dare] DP I’ [ ] I’ zu erlauben (to allow) VP [allow] [allow] [ ] keiner (nobody) [repair] [repair] VP I’ I’ VP I I wagte(dared) zu reparieren (to repair) 2/15/02

A More Complex Case – 3 (1b) daß dem Fritz den Wagen keiner wagte, [ zu erlauben [ zu reparieren] ] C' [dare] [dare] [dare] C I’ I’ I zu reparieren (to repair) VP [ ] [repair] zu erlauben (to allow) [allow/repair] [allow] daß [dare] [dare] DP I’ [ ] keiner (nobody) VP I’ I wagte(dared) 2/15/02

[dare/allow/repair] [dare/allow/repair]
A More Complex Case – 4 C' daß keiner (nobody) C I’ DP VP I wagte(dared) [dare/allow/repair] [dare/allow/repair] [dare/allow/repair] [dare/allow/repair] [dare] zu reparieren (to repair) [ ] [repair] zu erlauben (to allow) [allow/repair] [allow] I’ DP dem Fritz [allow] I’ DP den Wagen [repair] 2/15/02

A problem – need another node to insert the two NPs
A More Complex Case – 5 A problem – need another node to insert the two NPs Solution - say that NPs can attach to AgrSP, TP, etc. Correlates number of NPs from embedded clause to structure of an elementary tree - ties together syntax and processing (look at CUNY abstract) 2/15/02

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. 2/15/02

Some Linguistic Consequences - 1
Cannot create dependencies between elementary trees by transformations. Movement is limited to within the elementary trees. Inter-clausal movement follows from the adjoining operation. Subject-to-subject raising and wh-movement are both handled by adjoining. Their different properties follow from the differing locus of adjoining. 2/15/02

The allegedly defective complement must sometimes project up to IP or CP. In what way is it defective? This issue does not arise for other formalisms since the subject-raising or wh-movement takes place after the trigger verb takes the defective complement. Since for TAG all movement is localized to the elementary trees for a clause, the movement takes place within the “defective” complement. 2/15/02

To whomj does John seem tj [ to like pizza ?] Johni DP I’ I VP V like pizza IP C’ to CP CP to whomj C C' does I’ I VP seem V IP tj 2/15/02

Extending a Projection via the Insertion of a Recursive Structure
Y DERIVED TREE [ ] [v2] [v1/v2] [v1] [v1/v2] X[v1] Y [v1] [v1] Y[v2] Y[ ] 2/15/02

[seem/like] C’ C doesk DP[like] whatj I’ Johni I VP ti like [like] [like] to V seem [seem/like] [seem/like] tk 2/15/02

One of the primary observations about syntax is that there is some sort of recursive process that allows an item to be displaced from its canonical position.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "One of the primary observations about syntax is that there is some sort of recursive process that allows an item to be displaced from its canonical position."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

One of the primary observations about syntax is that there is some sort of recursive process that allows an item to be displaced from its canonical position.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "One of the primary observations about syntax is that there is some sort of recursive process that allows an item to be displaced from its canonical position."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback