1. Adjunction, intrusion, and intervenience
Diego Gabriel Krivochen
Doug Saddy
University of Reading, CINN

2. Non-monotonic syntax Core Idea: syntactic structure is not uniform
Rather, natural language structural descriptions oscillate up and down the Chomsky Hierarchy…
…and the change in computational dependencies is what defines a cycle
We have called this a ‘mixed computational’ system (Krivochen, 2015, 2016, 2017; Krivochen & Schmerling, 2016, 2017; Bravo et al., 2015; Saddy & Krivochen, 2016…)
Mixed computation is based on the idea that sentence processing follows a requirement of strong adequacy in the assignment of structural representations:
A grammar G is weakly adequate for a string language L if L(G) = L. G is strongly adequate for L if L(G) = L and for each w [a string in L] in L, G assigns an ‘appropriate’ structural description to w (Joshi, 1985: 208)
One of the ways to get non-uniform phrase markers is via Adjunction

3. Structure assignment is a non-algorithmic process (we are not digital computers), rather, we have interactive computation (Wegner, 1997 and much subsequent work)
There can be more than a single structural description compatible with a string
Structure assignment + mixed computation proposes that an adequate model for natural language structure assigns the simplest possible structural description to a sub-string that captures semantic dependencies within that sub-string
And there is not a single ‘correct’ answer a priori:
Chosen structural descriptions can be modified and/or corrected on-line
The addition of new material can coerce interpretations (cf. Bever’s ‘The horse raced…’)

4. Tree Adjoining Grammars 101
A TAG is defined as a grammar G = (I, A), where I is a set of Initial Trees and A is a set of Auxiliary Trees.
Initial Trees: the root node of an IT γ is labeled ‘S’, and its ‘frontier’ is constituted by terminal nodes. Intermediate nodes (transitively dominated by S) are non-terminals:
Auxiliary Tree: the root note of the AT β is labeled ‘X’, and its frontier contains at least a node with the same label as the root. Intermediate nodes are non- terminals:

5. What is ‘adjunction’?
Adjunction ‘… composes an auxiliary tree β with a tree γ. Let γ be a tree with a node labeled X and let β be an auxiliary tree with the root labeled X also.’ (Joshi, 1985: 209)
Joshi (1985: 209)

6. Fillmore’s cycle
Because it’s cool and I like it

7. Putting it all together (kinda)
Let γ and β be two sub-trees such that γ contains a node X that corresponds to the root of β. A singulary transformation TS triggered from γ can affect β iff TS is intrinsically ordered after an embedding generalized transformation that adjoins β to γ at X. (Krivochen, forthcoming: 12-13)
What singulary transformations cannot have access to, we argue, is elements embedded within β; only β as a whole can be affected by a singulary transformation at γ ordered after adjunction of β to γ.
Why? Well, because in order to have a relation R holding for any A, B, …n, we require A, B, …n to be accessible at the point of establishing R. All in the same workspace.
We have three big players lurking here:
1) TAGs
2) A transformational cycle and the notion of rule ordering
3) Constraints on generalized and singulary transformations (a la Ross / Emonds)
Plus, ‘mixed computation’

8. Ok…so?
So, this has consequences for our understanding of locality in terms of both impenetrability and intervenence in computationally mixed phrase markers
On the one hand, adjoined sub-trees are opaque (nothing goes in or out, in the radical view, e.g., Uriagereka, I’m not so sure-)
On the other, given Fillmore’s cycle and an appropriate notion of ordering, operations at the target of adjunction can apply as if the adjoined element was not there!
..so, yes, that.

9. Care to exemplify?
Sure thing!
Gapping, Stripping, pronominalization (apud McCawley, 1982: 96):
1) John talked, of course, about politics, and Mary did too / so did Mary. (= Mary talked about politics too; ≠ * Mary talked too; ≠ * Mary talked, of course, about politics too)
2) John sold Mary, who had offered him $600 an ounce, a pound of gold, but Arthur refused to. (= refused to sell Mary a pound of gold; ≠ refused to sell Mary, who had offered him $600 an ounce, a pound of gold; ≠ refused to sell Mary)
That is: the relevant rule applies as if the parenthetical wasn’t there

10. Intrusion effects and NPIs
The interaction between mixed computation and rule ordering can talk to experimental evidence:
E.g.: intrusion effects with ‘inaccessible’ licensors
3) a. Kein Mann, [der einen Bart hatte,] war jemals glücklich
b. *Ein Mann, [der einen Bart hatte,] war jemals glücklich
c. *Ein Mann, [der keinen Bart hatte,] war jemals glücklich
Saddy found intrusion effects in (b) and (c) (data and analysis taken from Saddy et al. 2005, 2008):
Condition Accuracy (% correct) Speed (msecs)
(3a) Accessible licensor
(3b) No licensor
(3c) Inaccessible licensor
1. In (3c) accuracy was worse than in other conditions:
(3c) vs. (3a): F1(1,23) = 5.11, p < .05; F2(1,23) = 8.89, p < .01.
(3c) vs. (3b): F1(1,23) = 6.11, p < .05; F2(1,23) = 10.80, p < .01.
2. In (3c) responses were slower than in other conditions:
(3c) vs. (3a): F1(1,23) = 10.25, p < .01; F2(1,23) = 8.35, p < .05.
(3c) vs. (3b): F1(1,23) = 26.68, p < .001; F2 (1,23) = 11.95, p < .01.

11. Can we disambiguate the choice of structure?
If there is an intrusion effect, the relative clause cannot be adjoined, rather, it must be in the same derivational space
This suggests that the relative clause in these cases can be assigned (i) a monotonic phrase marker, or (ii) a non-monotonic phrase marker. These structural descriptions are in competition
Can we disambiguate the choice of structure?
Yes. The impossibility of RCE disambiguates the structural description
RC ‘in situ’ can receive two analyses (Emonds, 1979):
Monotonic PM (e.g., S’ complement to N - maintain the {X, YP} rhythm)
Adjunction
However, RCE can only be achieved via adjunction (McCawley, Emonds, a.o.)
3c’) *Ein Mann war jemals glücklich, [der keinen Bart hatte]
There cannot be a copy of the RC ‘in situ’, because the licensor in the RC is completely inaccessible (cf. 3c)

12. Some more data Raising structures:
4) a. No policeman seemed to all of the reporters to have any chance of solving the case
b. The police seemed to none of the reporters to have any chance of solving the case (cf. (3c))
c. *The police seemed to have any chance of solving the case to none of the reporters (cf. 3c’))
A puzzling asymmetry:
5) [Top *To none of the reporters [S the police seemed to have any chance of solving the case]]
But:
6) [Foc To none of the reporters did [S the police seem to have any chance of solving the case]]
What this suggests, prima facie, is that Top involves adjunction (and thus two parallel derivations), whereas Foc involves a single derivational space. NEG in the focalized constituent generates an intrusion effect when frontalization targets Foc, but not Top.
Note that only in Top do we have a separate tone unit, BTW. Maybe this is significant?

13. WARNING: WILD SPECULATION FOLLOWS
Towards an account
Monotonic derivations allows for probing within active structure
Non-monotonic objects cannot be probed into by operations at the target of adjunction, because the target and the trigger of the operation are not in the same derivational space
Cf. Subject-Object extraction asymmetries
Also, the cyclic ordering constraint we saw above
We can relate aspects of syntactic computation with aspects of processing…
…including memory.
The idea that the structural descriptions are in competition ‘explains’ the fact that intrusion effects are not discrete, but a matter of gradience.
Strictly function-based computation applied to cognitive processes is not empirically adequate for the cases we’ve seen here (and others)
WARNING: WILD SPECULATION FOLLOWS
Competition can be modelled as in Gradient Symbolic Computation, if you will (Smolensky et al., 2014), or any other integrated parallel model of computation.
For local CF domains, ATNs could do (a la Kaplan and early LFG). Maybe.

14. Thank you! (Bonus tracks ahead, if there’s time and interest)

15. Opaque domains: some uninflectable constructions in English (examples from Krivochen & Schmerling, 2017)
(7) a. The soup is nice and hot. (8) a. The cement is good and hard. b. *The soup is nicer and hot. b. *The cement is better and hard. c. *The soup is nice and hotter. c. *The cement is good and harder. d. *The soup is nicer and hotter. d. *The cement is better and harder.
Relevant derivational steps:
Initial Tree = [S [NP the soup][VP is [AP [A]]] Auxiliary Tree = [A nice and hot] After Adjunction = [S [NP the soup][VP is [AP [A nice and hot]]]]
If Inflection in the IT is ordered before Adjunction, then it cannot apply to the AT because it’s not there yet.
If Inflection is ordered after Adjunction, then it cannot apply to the AT internally, because the whole thing is opaque.

16. Adjoined objects cannot be interpreted monotonically at the level of semantics (i.e., a Neo-Davidsonian semantics would predict an incorrect reading). Adjunction is not monotonically recursive.
9) The soup is nice and hot and delicious (≠ The soup is nice and it is hot and it is delicious ≠ The soup is nice and [hot and delicious])
10) *John, who goes to MIT, who likes math, will get a job (Emonds, 1979: 222)
Note that it is possible to save this one in a strictly paratactic reading. However, ‘the string John, who goes to MIT is not a constituent coreferential with the pronoun following (that is, the string is not even a constituent) under the MCH [Main Clause Hypothesis]’ (Emonds, Op. Cit.). In a word, non-restrictive RC are non-recursive.
11) *This is the screw that Mary will try and go and loose (Schmerling & Krivochen, 2016, 2017)

17. RNR, parentheticals, and adjunction
12) John asked heri, and then Maryi speculated about, whether shei would win the fellowship (modified from Levine, 1985: 496)
13) *John asked heri, and then shei speculated about, whether Maryi would win the fellowship (id. ant.)
This mechanism can shed light on MIG-sentences and other Bach-Peters paradoxes.

18. Epilogue: The path for Clitic (non) Climbing
14) */?? Los hermanos se la dejan a Ana preparar e algunas veces (example from Emonds, 2007: 200. Judgment ours)
15) a. Los hermanos sei laj dejan, a Anai, preparar ej algunas veces
b. Los hermanos sei laj dejan preparar ej algunas veces, a Anai
c. A Anai, los hermanos sei laj dejan preparar ej algunas veces
d. Los hermanos, a Anai, sei laj dejan preparar ej algunas veces
16) a. Juan puede, en realidad tiene que, hacerlo
b. Juan puede, en realidad lo tiene que, hacer e
c. *Juan lo puede, en realidad tiene que, hacer e
The parenthetical can be ignored in (15), but not in (16). But that is not all…

19. More wild speculation: beware!
17) a. Juan puede, en realidad lo tiene que, hacer
b. *Juan puede hacerlo, en realidad tiene que
c. *Juan lo puede hacer, en realidad tiene que
d. *Juan puede hacer, en realidad lo tiene que
More wild speculation: beware!
A possibility is that if the adjoined object is a ‘self contained’ unit, it does not count as intervenient. Of course, expliciting what ‘self contained’ means is paramount. We will say that
A sub-graph is a self-contained syntactic object iff it does not contain any x that dominates any y such that ρ(x, y) & ρ(z, y) hold for x ≠ z
In (17), the adjoined ‘parenthetical’ contains a node such that ρ(tener que, Cl) holds, as well as ρ(hacer, Cl). The adjoined object is not ‘self contained’ in the sense that it dominates a node that is also dominated by an element in another domain. That is not the case with [a Ana], which is the multidominated node itself. It is thus free to move around.