Minor claims Tag questions are adjuncts which modify a preceding - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Minor claims • Tag questions are adjuncts which modify a preceding declarative clause. • Tag question verbs are [ inv -] Tag questions and Richard: extraclausal access to finite subjects • Tag auxiliaries are linked to their associated main clause auxiliaries by the requirement of cont | key type identity. • Least oblique valents of yes/no question-clausal heads are comps elements, with the subj list empty in such clauses. Course on “Locality of grammatical relations” Bob Levine and Detmar Meurers (Ohio State University) Summer School on Constraint-Based Grammar Trondheim, Norway August 2001 3 Two English constructions Tag data • Tag questions: You were waiting for me, weren’t you? (1) Sarah slept, didn’t she/*Sara/*they/*I • Richard: Robin sounds like she’s not doing too well � aren’t � (2) a. I’m still invited, I? *amn’t Major claims: � � aren’t b. I’m still invited, I invited to that party? *amn’t • Subjects of tags and Richard-sentences correlate with index properties of external constituents. (3) a. We needn’t agree to this, need we? • An independently motivated head feature agr will automatically encode the relevant b. Need we agree to this? information in a way that makes it accessible extraclausally. c. *We need agree to this. • The potential nonidentity of agr and index accounts for both the tag subject correlation and the distribution of there dummy subjects in Richard sentences. • The class of auxiliaries in tag questions is exactly the class of inverted auxliaries 2 4

• This identity raises very serious questions about the basis for the claim that tag 8 9 you’re > > > > auxiliaries are [ inv − ] > *he’s > > > 8 look 9 > > > > > *Melinda Sue’s > < = < = (6) You sound ; like in trouble. . *the twins’re : seem > > > > > *they’re > > > > > > > 8 9 > *we’re > she : ; > > > > > *her > > > > > > > > > *herself 8 9 < = there’s (4) a. Sara is sleeping, isn’t ? > > > > *mine? > *it’s *he’s > > > > > 8 9 > > looks > > > > > *there > > > *Melinda Sue’s > > < = < = > > (7) There sounds ; like gonna be a problem. > > > *it > : ; *the twins’re seems : > > > > > *they’re > � it � > > > > b. It’s raining, isn’t ? > > > *we’re > *there : ; � there � c. There’s a lion in the closet, isn’t ? • Conclusion: We find strict covariation between the index values of the matrix subject *it and the complement clause. • Tag subjects must match main clause subjects in index values. 5 7 Richard data Relevance to the locality issue Problem: In a framework in which information about valents is systematically suppressed by The alignment of relevant between main and embedded clause subjects in Richard saturation, how can information about properties of the subject of the tag or the sentences is much tighter than B&F argue for, making their inclusion together as common complement clause be aligned with the subject of the main clause or Richard matrix manifestations of extraclausal information linkage seem a natural research strategy. The clause, respectively? discrepancy in judgments is explained shortly. Proposal: The head feature agr proposed within HPSG in Kathol (2000) can be incorporated into the analysis of both constructions to allow a limited apparent nonlocality of extraclausal information sharing. 8 9 he’s > > Comment: The B&F proposal, though it does rely on the soundness of AK’s arguments and > > 8 9 > > looks *Melinda Sue’s > > > > < = < = incorporates the specific mechanism he proposes, does significantly modify his agr (5) Rocco sounds ; like *the twins’re in trouble. feature and should be regarded as a somewhat distinct notion. seems *they’re : > > > > > > > > *we’re > > : ; 6 8

The lexical description of tag auxiliaries share specifications for agr , allowing for the possibility that tags and main clauses will display different agreement patterns. 2 3 3 3 2 2 verb 3 2 • B&F require the type of agr ’s value to be the same as that of index ’s value, so that inv − 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 subtype information (e.g., ref vs. it vs. there ) can be reflected in the agr value to 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 aux 1 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 account for dummy subjects in tags. 7 7 7 6 6 6 agr 6 2 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 tense 3 7 6 6 6 7 7 • Nouns either identify their agr and index values or they do not, but the index of the 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 verb 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 tag subject and the agreement value of the main clause verb are identified. 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 tense 3 7 7 6 head 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 6 4 5 7 7 7 6 7 head 6 6 6 7 7 7 – When agr = index , then 2 = 5 , and the agreement morphology on the tag 6 agr 5 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 cat 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 " # 7 6 6 7 7 auxiliary matches that on the main verb ( Robin has lost her keys again, hasn’t 6 subj �� 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 val 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 cat 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 comps �� 7 7 7 6 6 mod loc 7 6 6 6 7 7 she? ). 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 m � ain � c � lause � 7 7 6 + 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 – When agr � = index , then 2 neq 5 , and the agreement morphology on the tag 7 6 6 6 7 7 (8) 6 7 7 7 loc 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 2 key 6 3 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 auxiliary differs from that on the main verb (Everyone gets invited back, don’t they?, 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 " # 7 6 6 7 7 6 cont prop rel 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 4 msg 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 where they has a description in which its agr value specifies third person plural 6 6 6 soa 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 values, but its index is third person singular. 6 6 6 2 3 7 7 7 subj �� 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 2 pro synsem 3 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 * + 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 val 6 " # 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 comps 4 6 cat | agr 2 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 loc 4 5 4 5 6 6 4 5 7 7 cont | index 5 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 2 3 7 7 key 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 " # 6 6 6 7 7 7 ne/eh rel 7 7 6 6 cont 6 msg 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 soa 7 6 7 7 7 6 6 4 4 4 5 5 5 liszt elist 9 11 Main aspects of the analysis in (8) Two examples • Tags are clause-level adjuncts identifying their targets of modification via mod . (9) S • The feature agr is a head feature, hence visible at the top of the main clause. • Within each clause, verbs and subjects structure-share their agr values; specifically, the S S lexical description for a finite verb in English will contain the subdescription (Kathol, � agr � � agr 1 � 1 1999, pp. 236–237) V NP NP VP 2 3 head | morsyn | agr 1 � agr � 2 " # 3 1 person 3 � � agr 1 * " " # + # 4 agr 6 per 7 1 index 1 3 V NP num plu 6 7 6 7 val | subj agr 2 1 6 7 num 4 5 6 7 weren’t � � index agr 1 1 6 7 they 6 " # 7 pianists per 3 6 7 cont | index 4 5 the twins were num 4 reflecting a coincidence between the V’s agr and the subjects´ s index values. Flickinger and Bender adapt this description to a subjectless analysis of inversion. • Crucially, however, the tags and the main clauses they modify do not systematically 10 12