Sentential complement structures Within the framework of GB, it is - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sentential complement structures Within the framework of GB, it is assumed that the following verbs subcategorize for a single sentential complement : Grammar Formalisms (1) a. Kim said [that Sandy left]. (finitive) b. Dana preferred [for Pat to get the job]. (to-infinitive) Linguistic Phenomena c. Leslie wanted [Chris to go]. d. Lee believed [Dominique to have made a mistake]. e. Ren´ e tried [PRO to win]. Laura Kallmeyer, Timm Lichte, Wolfgang Maier f. Terry preferred [PRO to go to Florida]. Universit¨ at T¨ ubingen g. Tracy proved [the theorem false]. (small clauses) h. Bo considered [Lou a friend]. i. Gerry expects [those children off the ship] 07.05.2007 In XTAG, a distinction is drawn between sentential complements with (1) finite verbs , sentential complements with (2) to-infinitives , and (3) small clauses . Linguistic Phenomena 1 Linguistic Phenomena 3 Outline “Ist’s eins? Sind’s zwei?” (Goethe, 1819) Question: What complements does the verb consider take? Sentential complement structures 1 Extraction and unbounded dependency 2 (2) a. We consider [Kim to be an acceptable candidate]. Relative clauses 3 b. We consider [Kim an acceptable candidate]. c. We consider [Kim quite acceptable]. d. We consider [Kim among the most acceptable candidates]. e. *We consider [Kim as an acceptable candidate]. Main reference: Carl Pollard, Ivan A. Sag (1994): Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Similar verbs: prove, expect, rate, count, want The XTAG Research Group (2001): A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining One sentential complement (small clause) , where to be 1 Grammar for English can be omitted A noun and a predicative phrase 2 Linguistic Phenomena 2 Linguistic Phenomena 4

Small clauses - Pro and contra (1) Small clauses - XTAG-Analysis (1) S S S Pro: NP ↓ VP NP ↓ VP NP ↓ VP Homomorphism between argument structure and complement structure (in GB: “Projection Principle”; in TAG: Elementary V NP V AP V PP Tree Minimality) Uniformity of the subcategorized constituents: N ⋄ A ⋄ P ⋄ NP ↓ ǫ ǫ ǫ Instead of NP, AP, PP, IP/S, ... as possible categories of the XTAG uses a uniform analysis of copula, raising verbs and consider complements, there is only one complement category. verbs. Linguistic Phenomena 5 Linguistic Phenomena 7 Small clauses - Pro and contra (2) Small clauses - XTAG-Analysis (2) (5) We consider Kim acceptable. Contra: Passivization (object-to-subject shift) S S ˆ mode ind ˜ ˆ ˜ ˆ ˜ 2 3 1 assign-case (3) We considered [Kim quite acceptable]. nil comp 4 5 nom NP ↓ VP mode Kim was considered [ quite acceptable]. NP ↓ VP S* h i 1 Idiosyncratic restrictions on the predicative phrase case 2 acc 3 assign-case V nil comp V AP 4 5 nom/prep mode (4) a. I consider/*expect [this Island a good vacation spot]. ˆ ˜ NP A NP consider ǫ b. I consider/*expect [this man stupid]. I expect [that man to be stupid]. Kim acceptable We c. We rate/*consider [Kim as quite acceptable] Exceptional Case Marking (ECM): ⇒ The verb should be indifferent to the categorial status of The case of the subject of the sentential complement is assigned the small clause predicate! from the superordinate subcategorizing verb. For ECM, XTAG uses the feature assign-case . Linguistic Phenomena 6 Linguistic Phenomena 8

Small clauses - XTAG-Analysis (3) Control verbs seems adjoins to VP ECM for nominative case Control verbs establish the coreference between their subject/object and the unexpressed subject (PRO) of their sentential complement. (6) Kim seems acceptable. (PRO control) S (7) a. John tried [PRO to leave]. (subject control) VP VP ˆ mode ind ˜ ˆ ˜ ˆ ˜ NP ↓ b. John persuaded him [PRO to leave]. (object control) 2 3 1 " # assign-case 1 case 2 6 agr 7 VP* 2 agr 6 7 nil comp 4 5 2 nom 3 c. *There tries [PRO to be disorder after a revolution]. assign-case nom mode 3sg V agr 6 7 6 nil 7 comp 4 5 V AP nom mode ˆ ˜ ⇒ Control verbs assign semantic role to the controller! seems NP A ǫ Kim acceptable Linguistic Phenomena 9 Linguistic Phenomena 11 To-infinitives: Controlling and Raising its subject Control verbs - XTAG-Analysis control feature for coindexation PRO tree Verbs that subcategorize for to-infinitives show differing properties Object control does not involve ECM with respect to their semantic and syntactic influence on the subject of the to-infinitives. S S ˆ ˜ ˆ mode ind ˜ » – 1 ctrl Control verbs / Equi verbs ( try, persuade ) to-inf mode NP ↓ VP Raising verbs ( seem, expect ) NP ↓ VP h i 1 ctrl S* NP ↓ » – 1 ctrl V V h i 1 to-inf ctrl mode ˆ ˜ NP to leave persuaded PRO Linguistic Phenomena 10 Linguistic Phenomena 12

Raising verbs Raising verbs - XTAG-Analysis (2) Raising verbs determine case and agreement properties of the subject of the (non-finite) sentential complement. Semantically, however, the Example for object raising: “raised” constituent is no immediate part of the argument structure of (10) We expect him to leave. the raising verb. S ˆ mode ind ˜ S (8) a. [John] seems [to leave]. (subject raising) ˆ ˜ ˆ ˜ b. John expects [her to leave]. (object raising) » – 1 assign-case NP ↓ VP to-inf mode c. [There] seems [to be disorder after a revolution]. d. John expected [it to rain]. S* NP ↓ 2 3 acc assign-case " # 1 VP V case nil comp 4 5 2 ⇒ assign no semantic role to the raised constituent (raising of expletive to-inf agr mode ˆ ˜ V it/there ) NP expect to leave (9) John seems unhappy. We *John tries unhappy. ⇒ allow for small clauses Linguistic Phenomena 13 Linguistic Phenomena 15 Raising verbs - XTAG-Analysis (1) Raise or control - The big GB-picture !!! Handle with care, I am not an expert on this !!! no PRO Forschungsobjekt: to-infinitives The “raised” constituent is still part of the to-infinitive! Background assumption: argument → complement (Projection Principle) Findings: the subject of to-infinitives (1) can have several cases or (2) is not realized ECM via assign-case feature phonologically. Hypothesis: (1) to-infinitives cannot assign case to its subject; (2) incomplete to-infinitives have a phonologically empty PRO in subject position. Example for subject raising: S What does the case marking, then? VP ˆ ˜ VP ˆ mode ind ˜ ˆ ˜ NP ↓ nothing something " # 1 2 1 3 case assign-case (but not the to-infinitive) VP* 2 2 agr 4 agr 5 ˆ ˜ to-inf mode V 2 nom 3 assign-case PRO ECM 3sg agr 4 5 V to-inf no need for case subject is raised to another verb mode seems semantic content is controlled by coreference that has a free case marking slot to leave CONTROLLING RAISING Linguistic Phenomena 14 Linguistic Phenomena 16

Raise or control? Extraction and unbounded dependency Summary: control verbs raising verbs PRO no PRO (incomplete to-infinitives) (complete to-infinitives) no ECM ECM assign semantic role assign no semantic role Topicalization/Extraction (to the controlled constituent) (to the raised constituent) Wh-extraction no small clauses small clauses XTAG: adjoin to S XTAG: adjoin to S or VP Classfication game: (11) a. They asked Jan to leave. (object control) b. Bo turns out to be obnoxious. (subject raising) c. Sandy is willing to go to the movies. (subject control) d. Terry was expected to win the prize. (subject raising) e. Kim believed a unicorn to be approaching. (object control) Linguistic Phenomena 17 Linguistic Phenomena 19 Raise or control? Topicalization - Basics Summary: control verbs raising verbs Topicalization/Extraction: PRO no PRO (incomplete to-infinitives) (complete to-infinitives) Placing a post-verbal constituent into a sentence-initial position. no ECM ECM assign semantic role assign no semantic role (13) a. Sandy loves Kim. (base configuration) (to the controlled constituent) (to the raised constituent) no small clauses small clauses b. Kim, Sandy loves . (NP-topicalization) XTAG: adjoin to S XTAG: adjoin to S or VP c. On Kim, Sandy depends . (PP-topicalization) Classfication game: (12) a. It is important for Bill to dance. b. Christy left the party early to go to the airport. c. Peter kept standing in the doorway. Linguistic Phenomena 18 Linguistic Phenomena 20