Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Unifying Adjunct Islands and Freezing Effects in Minimalist Grammars Tim Hunter Department of Linguistics University of Maryland TAG+10 1 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Goal of This Talk Goal Present a unified account of two well-known conditions on extraction domains: the adjunct island effect and freezing effects. 2 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Goal of This Talk Goal Present a unified account of two well-known conditions on extraction domains: the adjunct island effect and freezing effects. Descriptively speaking, extraction is generally problematic out of adjoined/modifier constituents: (1) a. Who do you think [that John saw ]? b. * Who do you sleep [because John saw ]? constituents that have moved (“freezing”): (2) a. Who did you send [a big heavy picture of ] to John? b. * Who did you send to John [a big heavy picture of ]? (Cattell, 1976; Huang, 1982; Wexler and Culicover, 1981) 2 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Background and Contextualisation Islands are a major issue in “mainstream generative grammar” (Ross, 1969; Chomsky, 1973, 1986) TAGs have been used to argue that island constraints follow from independently-motivated properties of grammar (Kroch, 1987, 1989; Frank, 1992) MGs have been used to study the effects (on generative capacity) of stipulating island constraints (Gärtner and Michaelis, 2005, 2007) 3 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Background and Contextualisation Islands are a major issue in “mainstream generative grammar” (Ross, 1969; Chomsky, 1973, 1986) TAGs have been used to argue that island constraints follow from independently-motivated properties of grammar (Kroch, 1987, 1989; Frank, 1992) MGs have been used to study the effects (on generative capacity) of stipulating island constraints (Gärtner and Michaelis, 2005, 2007) My proposal is in the spirit of the TAG work, aiming to derive empirically desirable effects from existing ideas: movement as re-merge (Epstein et al., 1998; Kitahara, 1997) adjuncts as “loosely attached” (Chametzky, 1996; Hornstein and Nunes, 2008) (motivated by neo-Davidsonian semantics (Parsons, 1990; Pietroski, 2005) ) 3 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Background and Contextualisation Islands are a major issue in “mainstream generative grammar” (Ross, 1969; Chomsky, 1973, 1986) TAGs have been used to argue that island constraints follow from independently-motivated properties of grammar (Kroch, 1987, 1989; Frank, 1992) MGs have been used to study the effects (on generative capacity) of stipulating island constraints (Gärtner and Michaelis, 2005, 2007) My proposal is in the spirit of the TAG work, aiming to derive empirically desirable effects from existing ideas: movement as re-merge (Epstein et al., 1998; Kitahara, 1997) adjuncts as “loosely attached” (Chametzky, 1996; Hornstein and Nunes, 2008) (motivated by neo-Davidsonian semantics (Parsons, 1990; Pietroski, 2005) ) The Plan develop a formalism incorporating these two ideas (building on Stabler 2006) show that in the resulting system it naturally emerges that adjoined constituents and moved constituents share a certain status 3 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Outline Overview of Stabler 2006’s variant of MGs 1 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction 2 Empirical Payoff: Adjunct Islands and Freezing Effects Unified 3 Conclusion 4 4 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Outline Overview of Stabler 2006’s variant of MGs 1 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction 2 Empirical Payoff: Adjunct Islands and Freezing Effects Unified 3 Conclusion 4 5 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion “Destructive” and “Non-destructive” Displacement The traditional conception of movement destroys certain previously-established structure: see :: +d+d-V merge ‘who’ to discharge object requirement − → see who :: +d-V merge ‘we’ to discharge subject requirement − → we see who :: -V · · · did we see who :: +wh move ‘who’ to discharge question requirement − → who did we see who 6 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion “Destructive” and “Non-destructive” Displacement The traditional conception of movement destroys certain previously-established structure: did we see who :: +wh move ‘who’ to discharge question requirement − → who did we see who 7 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion “Destructive” and “Non-destructive” Displacement The traditional conception of movement destroys certain previously-established structure: did we see who :: +wh move ‘who’ to discharge question requirement − → who did we see who Stabler (2006) formulates a “non-destructive” alternative: � see , {}� insert ‘who’ − → � see , { who }� discharge object requirement − → � see , { who }� insert ‘we’ − → � see , { who , we }� discharge subject requirement − → � we see , { who }� · · · � did we see , { who }� discharge question requirement − → � who did we see , {}� 7 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Some Definitions A unit is a string along with a sequence of requirements and a sequence of properties U = Σ ∗ × + F × - F where F = { d , V , wh , . . . } eg. the :: +n-d , the dog :: -d , which dog :: -d-wh 8 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Some Definitions A unit is a string along with a sequence of requirements and a sequence of properties U = Σ ∗ × + F × - F where F = { d , V , wh , . . . } eg. the :: +n-d , the dog :: -d , which dog :: -d-wh An expression is a certain kind of collection of units E = U × 2 U (this will be revised) eg. � the dog :: -d , {}� , � a picture of :: -d , { who :: -wh }� 8 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Some Definitions A unit is a string along with a sequence of requirements and a sequence of properties U = Σ ∗ × + F × - F where F = { d , V , wh , . . . } eg. the :: +n-d , the dog :: -d , which dog :: -d-wh An expression is a certain kind of collection of units E = U × 2 U (this will be revised) eg. � the dog :: -d , {}� , � a picture of :: -d , { who :: -wh }� Derivations proceed via two (partial) functions on expressions: ins : E × E → E mrg : E → E 8 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Some Definitions Binary ins : E × E → E Inserts units into the set component of an expression ins � � u 0 , { u 1 , u 2 , . . . }� , � v 0 , { v 1 , v 2 , . . . }� � = � u 0 , { u 1 , u 2 , . . . , v 0 , v 1 , v 2 , . . . }� Example: ins � � see :: +d+d-V , {}� , � a picture of :: -d , { who :: -wh }� � = � see :: +d+d-V , { a picture of :: -d , who :: -wh }� 9 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion Some Definitions Binary ins : E × E → E Inserts units into the set component of an expression ins � � u 0 , { u 1 , u 2 , . . . }� , � v 0 , { v 1 , v 2 , . . . }� � = � u 0 , { u 1 , u 2 , . . . , v 0 , v 1 , v 2 , . . . }� Example: ins � � see :: +d+d-V , {}� , � a picture of :: -d , { who :: -wh }� � = � see :: +d+d-V , { a picture of :: -d , who :: -wh }� Unary mrg : E → E When applied to � u , { u 1 , u 2 , . . . }� checks a requirement ( + f ) of u against a property ( - f ) of a unique relevant u i concatenates strings only if u i has no remaining properties Examples: mrg � � see :: +d+d-V , { John :: -d }� � = � see John :: +d-V , {}� mrg � � see :: +d+d-V , { who :: -d-wh }� � = � see :: +d-V , { who :: -wh }� 9 / 26
Overview of Stabler 2006 Adding an Implementation of Adjunction Empirical Payoff Conclusion A Derivation, More Formally e 1 = � see :: +d+d-V , {}� e 2 = ins ( e 1 , � who :: -d-wh , {}� ) = � see :: +d+d-V , { who :: -d-wh }� e 3 = mrg ( e 2 ) = � see :: +d-V , { who :: -wh }� e 4 = ins ( e 3 , � we :: -d , {}� ) = � see :: +d-V , { who :: -wh , we :: -d }� e 5 = mrg ( e 4 ) = � we see :: -V , { who :: -wh }� · · · = � did we see :: +wh-c , { who :: -wh }� e 6 e 7 = mrg ( e 6 ) = � who did we see :: -c , {}� 10 / 26
Recommend
More recommend
