Syntactic Theory When displaced did it leave a trace? Clayton Greenberg Department of Language Science and Technology, Saarland University 8 December 2016 C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 1 / 26
Introduction How to read these slides Green: important terms Blue: definitions Blue ≈ : approximate definitions Purple: examples Italic naturally unpronounced elements Strike-out elements that were deleted C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 2 / 26
Introduction Displacement is... • “displacement is the capability of language to communicate about things that are not immediately present (spatially or temporally); i.e., things that are either not here or are not here now.” (Wikipedia) “displacement is the capability of language to communicate about things that are not immediately present (spatially or temporally); i.e., things that are either not here or are not here now.” (Wikipedia) Very nice, but this is not the displacement I was looking for. • “alternations in word order”. Examples: particle verb alternation, adverb preposing, clefting, extraposition“alternations in word order”. Examples: verb-particle alternation, adverb preposing, clefting, extraposition • This is almost the displacement I was looking for, but not quite. • Displacement is the phenomenon in which a constituent is uttered in a position other than where it is logically interpreted. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 3 / 26
Reasons to displace Reasons to displace • To get Case • To “check” a feature, such as +Q • To satisfy a dependent morpheme • (Optionally) to focus a particular participant or event C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 4 / 26
Reasons to displace The template tree TP T ′ NP T VP V ′ NP V CP C ′ NP C TP T ′ NP T VP V ′ NP V CP C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 5 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for Case Passivization TP T ′ NP D N T VP the crook was V ′ NP PRO V NP D N arrested the crook C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 6 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for Case Seems TP “seems” has a special T ′ NP argument structure: D N T VP the dog -pres V CP only one θ -role in seems C TP V-Comp position 0 / T ′ NP D N T VP So, no need for a the dog to spec-VP position V ′ NP D N V NP the dog want bacon C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 7 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for feature Head Movement from T to C (English) CP TP T ′ NP C TP I T VP will T ′ NP don’t V ′ NP I V CP he T VP know C TP will V VP whether T ′ NP he T VP be V ′ NP will V VP he be V ′ V NP NP he V NP D N reading reading D N the book the book C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 8 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for feature Head Movement from T to C (Russian) TP CP T ′ NP Ja T VP C TP ne V ′ NP budet-li T ′ NP Ja V CP on znagu T VP C TP budet-li T ′ NP budet V VP on T VP V ′ -prog NP budet V VP V NP on V ′ -prog NP V NP on citat’ ˇ knigu citat’ ˇ knigu C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 9 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for feature wh-movement with pied-piping CP C ′ NP N ′ D C TP Which N PP 0 / P NP student T ′ NP of syntax T A N ′ D is late Which N PP P NP student of syntax C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 10 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for feature Logical forms • Spell-Out: where phonetic form (PF) and logical form (LF) diverge • PFs have no trees and LFs have no pronunciation (economy of representation). • “Duplicates” must be deleted at PF (after Spell-Out) so they are not pronounced multiple times. • A question at LF: quantifier, domain, predicate. For which x, x a student of syntax, x was late • The original wh-phrase is a variable, bound by the copy at spec-CP . • Chinese has wh-phrases in situ : the higher copy is deleted at PF C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 11 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for focus Displace for focus: verb-particle alternation • ≈ Perhaps a string operation that occurs at PF (after Spell-Out) • I threw up my lunch. • I threw my lunch up. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 12 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for focus Displace for focus: adverb preposing FocusP Focus TP P NP T ′ NP with D N D N the telescope T VP the man -past V ′ NP D N V ′ PP the man V NP P NP D N saw with D N the woman the telescope C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 13 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for focus Displace for focus: clefting • It-cleft: It is Jaime for whom we are looking. • Wh-cleft/Pseudo-cleft: What he wanted to buy was a Fiat. • Reversed wh-cleft/Inverted pseudo-cleft: A Fiat is what he wanted to buy. • All-cleft: All he wanted to buy was a Fiat. • Inferential cleft: It is not that he loves her. It’s just that he has a way with her that is different. • There-cleft: And then there’s a new house he wanted to build. • If-because cleft: If he wants to be an actor it’s because he wants to be famous. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 14 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for focus Displace for focus: it-clefting • NP: It was a cookie that she ate. • PP: It was on foot that he went there. • AdvP: It was greedily and speedily that Homer Simpson drank his beer. • Inf clause: It is to address a far-reaching problem that Oxfam is launching this campaign. • Gerund: It could be going home early or slacking off work that the boss reacted to. • Adv clause: It was because she was so lonely all the time that she decided to move out. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 15 / 26
Reasons to displace Displace for focus Displace for focus: extraposition Someone who we don’t know left a message. Someone left a message who we don’t know. Susan said something that nobody expected more than once. Susan said something more than once that nobody expected. Some guy with red hair was there. Some guy was there with red hair. How frustrated with their kids are they? How frustrated are they with their kids? *What that was so entertaining actually happened? What actually happened that was so entertaining? *What that upset everyone do you think they did? What do you think they did that upset everyone? C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 16 / 26
Evidence for traces Wanna contraction CP CP C ′ NP C ′ NP who C TP who C TP does T ′ NP does T ′ NP Vicky T VP Vicky T VP does V ′ NP does V ′ Vicky NP V CP want C ′ Vicky NP V CP who C TP want C ′ NP / 0 T ′ NP who C TP PRO T VP T ′ / 0 NP to V ′ NP who T VP V PP PRO to NP V P NP vote who win for who C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 17 / 26
Evidence for traces What blocks contraction? • Intervening overt elements • duplicate constituents that were reMerged, i.e. traces! • Not the silent complementizer • Not PRO C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 18 / 26
Evidence for traces Subjacency TP NP T ′ it T VP -pres V CP seems C TP / 0 T ′ NP it T VP to V VP have V ′ V been V CP reported C TP that T ′ NP Charles T AP is A CP likely C TP 0 / T ′ NP Charles T VP to NP V ′ V NP Charles help us C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 19 / 26
Evidence for traces What are we allowed to reMerge? • subjacency: cannot reMerge an element over more than one bounding node at a time • Bounding nodes vary by language! • In English, the bounding nodes are NP and TP . • In many other languages, CP is a bounding node. C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 20 / 26
A case study in structure sharing The whole sentence ROOT root seems xcomp nsubj reported xsubj aux aux auxpass ccomp It to have been likely mark xcomp cop that nsubj help is xsubj aux dobj Charles to us C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 21 / 26
A case study in structure sharing The full alternative ROOT root seems xcomp nsubj reported xsubj aux aux auxpass xcomp Charles to have been likely aux cop xcomp to be help aux dobj to us C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 22 / 26
A case study in structure sharing Drop a verb, try again ROOT root seems xcomp nsubj likely xsubj aux cop xcomp Charles to be help aux dobj to us C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 23 / 26
A case study in structure sharing Drop a copula, try again ROOT root likely xcomp cop nsubj help seems xsubj aux dobj Charles to us C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 24 / 26
Conclusion Classical parser complexity • Merge-style parsers are considered intractable • Basic PCFG chart parser: O ( n 3 ) • Basic non-projective dependency parser: O ( n 2 ) • Basic projective dependency parser: O ( n ) • How much do we need to scale? How complex is acceptable? C. Greenberg (UdS LST) Traces 8 December 2016 25 / 26
Recommend
More recommend
