Transcript Extraposition - uni

Extraposition from NP
Heike Walker
Georg-August University of Göttingen
CoGETI Workshop Heidelberg
24-25 November 2006
Overview
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Definition and Data
Syntactic Analyses
HPSG Analyses
Discourse Constraints
Conclusion
2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Definition and Data
Syntactic Analyses
HPSG Analyses
Discourse Constraints
Conclusion
3
Definition
Extraposition: a process by which an element
is moved to the right of, or subsequent to, its
canonical position.
Extraposition from NP: a process by which
an element is extraposed from an NP.
4
Categorial restrictions
PP-Extraposition
(1)
(2)
A man appeared with green eyes.
I don‘t see much argument myself any longer against
differential rents. (Keller 1995)
Relative Clause Extraposition
(3)
A book appeared which was written by Chomsky. (Baltin 2001)
Sentential complements
(4)
Mary mentioned the claim yesterday that John is intelligent.
(Kiss 2002)
5
The Position of Attachment of
the Extraposed Phrase
-
Syntactic tests (ellipsis, topicalization and
pseudoclefting of VP) reveal a subject-object
asymmetry of attachment sites
-
Phrase extraposed from object attached to VP
-
Phrase extraposed from subject attached to
VP or IP (Culicover&Rochemont 1990)
6
Upward boundedness
(5)
*It was believed [S that John saw a picture _i in the
newspaper by everyone] [of his brother]i.
(6)
Whoi did Mary say [S that John saw a picture of _i
in the newspaper]?
(Culicover&Rochemont 1990,
24)
Ross (1967): Right Roof Constraint
An element cannot move rightward out of the clause
in which it originates.

Rightward movement more restricted than leftward
7
movement
Insensitive to island constraints
(7)
A man came into the room [with blond hair].
(8)
*[With what color hair]i did a man _i come
into the room?
(Culicover&Rochemont 1990, 24)

Rightward movement less restricted than
leftward movement
8
Extraposition and Topicalization
An extraposed relative clause cannot be related to a
topicalized phrase.
-
Antecedent contained in a topicalized VP:
(9)
-
a. John said he would meet a man at the party who was from
Philadelphia, and meet a man at the party who was from
Philadelphia he did.
b. *John said he would meet a man at the party who was
from Philadelphia, and meet a man at the party he did who
was from Philadelphia.
(Culicover&Rochemont 1990, 28)
Antecedent itself topicalized:
(10)
a. Micro brews that are located around the Bay Area, I like.
b. *Micro brews, I like that are located around the Bay Area.
(Kiss 2003)
9
Frozenness to further extraction
No dislocation out of an extraposed phrase:
(11)
a. Whoi did you see a picture of _i in the newspaper?
b. *Whoi did you see a picture in the newspaper of _i?
But extraposition from wh-moved objects possible:
(12)
(13)
[Which book _j ]i did she write _i last year [that takes
only two hours to read]j?
[Which woman _j ]i did he meet _i yesterday [from the
south of France]j?
(Keller 1995)
10
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Definition and Data
Syntactic Analyses
HPSG Analyses
Discourse Constraints
Conclusion
11
Extraposition as a rightward
movement process
-
-
-
-
Extraposed phrase base-generated within
the NP
Movement to a position adjoined to IP or
VP
Extraposed phrase related to a gap within
the antecedent NP
How is this adjunction licensed?
12
Baltin (1981): Generalized Subjacency
In the configuration A...[a...[b...B...]...]...A',
i. A' cannot be related to B where a and b
are maximal projections of any major
categories;
ii. A cannot be related to B where a and b
are drawn from the following list of
phrasal categories: (a) PP; (b) NP; (c) S
or S' or both, depending on the specific
language.
13
Problems with Generalized Subjacency:
-
Stipulation of the set of bounding nodes for
leftward movement
-
Fails to block successive cyclic movement of
the extraposed phrase in a fashion exactly
parallel to wh-movement (Culicover&Rochemont
1990, 27)
-
Violation of the principle in (14):
(14)
I saw it [PP in [NP a magazine _i ]] yesterday
[which was lying on the table]i. (Baltin 2001)
14
Guéron (1980) and Guéron&May (1984)
-
Extraposition as process of Move α, subject
to bounding conditions (e.g. Subjacency)
-
Head-complement relation must be
satisfied at the level of logical form (LF):
The complement of X is a constituent
governed by X. (Guéron 1980, 642)
-
Explanation of subject-object asymmetry
15
Arguments against movement account:
-
Unmotivated distinction between rightward
and leftward movement
-
Coordinate structures:
(15)
A mani came in and a womanj went out whoi+j
know each other very well. (Culicover&Rochemont 1990,
45)
(16)
John saw a mani and Mary saw a womanj whoi+j
were wanted by the police. (Kiss 2002, 20n.)
16
Base generation
-
Extraposed phrase base-generated in its extraposed
position
-
How is this position licensed?
-
Culicover&Rochemont (1990): extraposed
complements related to their antecedents by a relation
of coindexing subject to the restrictions imposed by
the Complement Principle:
β is a potential complement of α (α,β=Xmax), only if α and
β are in a government relation.
-
Problem: semantic relation between the extraposed
element and its antecedent
17
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Definition and Data
Syntactic Analyses
HPSG Analyses
Discourse Constraints
Conclusion
18
Keller (1995)
-
Extraposition as a nonlocal dependency
-
Nonlocal feature EXTRA to establish
connection between an extraposed element and
its antecedent
-
Lexical rule removes complement from the
SUBCAT list and introduces it into the EXTRA
set:
19
Keller (1995)
20
-
Extraposed phrase is bound on top of a phrase that
introduces intervening material between the extraposed
constituent and its antecedent
-
Feature PERIPHERY (PER), located under LOCAL
-
A phrase that is extraposed from is marked [PER left] if
there is no material that could intervene between the
extraposed constituent and its antecedent.
-
Otherwise it is [PER right] and EXTRA elements can be
bound on top of it.
-
In case [PER left], the EXTRA element percolates up to
find a phrase with right periphery
-
For English, all lexical entries marked [PER left]
21
-
To implement the binding of extraposed
elements, an additional immediate dominance
schema is introduced
-
Subtype of head-struc called head-extra-struc
bearing the feature EXTRA-DTRS (with a nonempty list of sign as its value)
22
Head-Extra Schema
Keller (1995)
23
-
Head daughter [PER right] since the binding of
extraposed phrases is only possible at the right
periphery of a phrase
-
Mother node [PER extra] to disallow adjuncts on top
of a head-extra structure (adjuncts specified as
[MOD|LOC|PER non-extra])
(17) *An entirely new band rings today, [several of whom
are members of the congregation] at Great
Torrington.
-
[INHER|EXTRA { }] requires all members of
EXTRA to be bound at the same level; extraposed
elements originating from the same phrase are
sisters; ordered by LPCs
24
(18) I don‘t see much argument myself any longer against
differential rents.
(Keller 1995)
25
Kiss (2002, 2003)
-
Relative Clause Extraposition
-
A non-movement account
-
Extraposition treated as an anaphoric process by
means of percolation of anchors to which the
relative clause is bound
-
Basic idea expressed by the principle of
Generalized Modification:
The index of a modifying phrase has to be
identified with a suitable index contained in the
phrase to which the modifier is adjoined.
26
-
Anchors are introduced by every NP (and VP) and
projected through the set-valued non-local feature
ANCHORS (contains INDEX and HANDLE
features)
-
Projection governed by the Anchors Projection
Principle:
The anchors set of a headed phrase consists of the
union of the anchors set of the daughters less those
anchors that are specified as TO-BIND|ANCHORS
on the head daughter.
27
-
The relative clause requires that the ANCHORS set of
its syntactic sister contains a member that is tokenidentical to the ANCHORS feature of the relative
clause
-
Upward boundedness is modelled by imposing
restrictions on the Head-Filler Schema and the HeadSpecifier Schema to the effect that all anchors of the
daughters are specified as TO-BIND|ANCHORS.
28
Kiss (2003)
29
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Definition and Data
Syntactic Analyses
HPSG Analyses
Discourse Constraints
Conclusion
30
-
Certain sentences not acceptable in isolation
-
Acceptability improved in an appropriate discourse
context:
(19)
a. A man arrived who wasn‘t wearing any clothes.
b. ??A man screamed who wasn‘t wearing any
clothes.
(20)
Suddenly there was the sound of lions growling.
Several women screamed. Then a man screamed
who was standing at the very edge of the crowd.
(Culicover&Rochemont 1990, 29 n.14)
31
Verbs of appearance
-
Guéron (1980): constraints on the level of LF interact
with pragmatic factors (rules of semantic interpretation
and discourse) to filter syntactic outputs
-
„Ss which are unacceptable in isolation become
acceptable in a context in which the verb is pragmatically
emptied of all semantic content beyond that of
‚appearence in the world of the discourse‘.“
(Guéron 1980, 653-4)
(21)
(22)
a. A man appeared from India.
b. *A man died from India.
Several visitors from foreign countries died in the terrible
accident. A woman died from Peru and a man died from
India.
32
Question Under Discussion (QUD)
Maynell (2003): Extraposition of restrictive relative
clauses from definite NP subjects
(23)
a. A cocktail waitress entered the dining room
who was wearing a blond wig.
b. ??The cocktail waitress entered the dining room
who was wearing a blond wig.
33
-
(23b) usually viewed as ungrammatical or
unacceptable; ruled out by syntactic
constraints (cf. Guéron 1980, Guéron&May 1984)
-
Maynell claims that the structure must be
allowable by any syntactic theory; its
acceptance depends on the relationship of
the information conveyed by the extraposed
phrase to the discourse context
34
-
Definite NP can introduce new referents into
the discourse as long as these can be
accommodated and added to the common
ground of a discourse (part of the QUD)
-
Predicate must be non-informative with
respect to the QUD
-
Extraposed relative clause must match the
information status of its definite NP head
-
Extraposed relative clause must provide new
information with respect to the immediate
QUD
35
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Definition and Data
Syntactic Analyses
HPSG Analyses
Discourse Constraints
Conclusion
36
Conclusion
-
-
-
Syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors
involved
My aim: to give an integrated approach to
Extraposition
Open questions
37
References
Baltin, Mark R. (1981): Strict Bounding. In Carl Lee Baker, John J.
McCarthy, eds., The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT, 257-295.
Baltin, Mark R. (Draft of 2001): Extraposition, the Right Roof Constraint,
Result Clauses, Relative Clause Extraposition, and PP Extraposition.
(http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/lingu/people/faculty/
baltin/papers/extrapos.pdf).
Culicover, Peter W., Michael S. Rochemont (1990): Extraposition and the
Complement Principle. In Linguistic Inquiry 21:1, 23-47.
Guéron, Jacqueline (1980): On the Syntax and Semantics of PP
Extraposition. In Linguistic Inquiry 11:4, 637-678.
Guéron, Jacqueline, Robert May (1984): Extraposition and Logical Form.
In Linguistic Inquiry 15:1, 1-31.
38
Keller, Frank (1995): Towards an Account of Extraposition in HPSG. In
Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics. Student Session. Dublin, 301-306.
(http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/keller/papers/eacl95.pdf).
Kiss Tibor (2002): Semantic Constraints on Relative Clause Extraposition.
Forthcoming in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
(http://www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~kiss/publications.html).
Kiss, Tibor (2003): Phrasal typology and the interaction of topicalization,
wh-movement, and extraposition. In Jong-Bok Kim, Stephen Wechsler,
eds., Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase
Structure Grammar, Stanford: CSLI, 109-128.
Maynell, Laurie A. (Draft of 2003): Discourse Constraints on Extraposition
from Definite NP Subjects in English.
(http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~maynell/papers/RelClause.Ex.pdf).
Ross, John Robert (1967): Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral
Dissertation. Reproduced by The Linguistics Club of Indiana
University, Fall 1968. (Reprinted [1986]: Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.).
39