[Prev][Next][Index]

# Meeting, Feb 26th

• To: srini@linc.cis.upenn.edu, beth@linc.cis.upenn.edu, cdoran@linc.cis.upenn.edu, mpalmer@linc.cis.upenn.edu, joshi@linc.cis.upenn.edu, anoop@linc.cis.upenn.edu, skulick@linc.cis.upenn.edu, mickeyc@linc.cis.upenn.edu, bhatt@linc.cis.upenn.edu, josephr@linc.cis.upenn.edu, siegel@BABEL.ling.upenn.edu, kipper@gradient.cis.upenn.edu, vshanker@linc.cis.upenn.edu, schuler@gradient.cis.upenn.edu, izvorski@BABEL.ling.upenn.edu, spc@gradient.cis.upenn.edu, park@linc.cis.upenn.edu, prolo@gradient.cis.upenn.edu, fxia@gradient.cis.upenn.edu, ak261@is6.nyu.edu, merlo@linc.cis.upenn.edu, jmacdoug@central.cis.upenn.edu, cote@linc.cis.upenn.edu, tsmorton@gradient.cis.upenn.edu, phopely@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Philip D Hopely), cparkes@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Cornelia Parkes), tbleam@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Tonia Bleam), karttunen@linc.cis.upenn.edu
• Subject: Meeting, Feb 26th
• From: Christy Doran <cdoran@linc.cis.upenn.edu>
• Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:07:16 -0500 (EST)

When: 10:30 am, Feb 26th
Where: IRCS 402
What: Seth will give a practice talk for the  Complex Predicates
workshop. It's a 45 minute talk.

In this talk I discuss complex predicate constructions, focusing on
Romance, in the framework of Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG)
and argue that the resulting analysis has several desirable
properties.  TAG is a formalism in which structural representations
are built out of pieces of phrase structure, called {\it elementary
trees}, which are taken as atomic by the formal system.  Inter-clausal
movement is captured by using the {\it adjunction} operation to insert
one tree within another, thus allowing components of a tree to be
stretched'' apart.  It is an attractive aspect of TAG that
well-known constraints on locality, such as subjacency, are derivative
from the properties of adjunction, and do not need to be stated as
stipulations.  As a result, the substantive theory of syntax can be
limited to conditions on the well-formedness of elementary trees.

The constrained nature of TAG rules out an analysis of restructuring''
effects in Romance, such as clitic climbing, in terms of movement from one
clause to another.  Instead, we must have an account in which the restructuring
verbs are defective'', and so are small enough that they can adjoin into a
clause where a non-defective verb could not.  For example, we derive an
Italian sentence such as (\ref{A}) by having a tree for {\it vuole} adjoin
into a tree for {\it Mario lo leggere}, thus stretching {\it Mario lo} away
from {\it leggere}, with no actual movement'' of the clitic.  In contrast
to movement accounts of restructuring, which often rely on the complement
missing some functional projections (e.g., \cite{Martins}),  the
complement in the TAG analysis has a full projection in
its own elementary tree, and it is instead the higher verb which is defective.
\begin{enumerate}
\item {Mario lo vuole leggere \\
Mario wants to read it \label{A}}
\end{enumerate}

Essentially, for these restructuring'' cases, the biclausal/monoclausal
conflict is resolved by allowing the restructuring verbs to adjoin into
another verb's elementary tree. This type of adjunction, while formally
possible, is usually prohibited because it violates the constraint on a TAG
derivation that syntactic composition must be monotonic in its effect on
semantic interpretation. But it is exactly in the case of these restructuring
verbs that such adjunction is allowed, because of their well-known properties
of being semantically weak (\cite{Napoli} and others).  The distinction
in TAG between the record of the derivational history (used for semantic
interpretation) and the corresponding
derived phrase structure tree  allows for an interesting approach to the
syntax/semantics non-isomorphism.

The TAG analysis has certain desirable results.  Two examples are: (1) It
predicts, with no stipulations necessary,  that restructuring will be
impossible with object-control verbs, since the subject of the final sentence
is simply the subject of the elementary tree projected from the lower verb.
I propose that that all apparent cases of object-control restructuring verbs,
such as the {\it permitir} class in Spanish, should be treated as
causatives, based
both on the semantic properties of these verbs, and the fact that they
classify with uncontroversial causatives and against restructuring verbs in
crucial ways, such as the placement of the reflexive clitic {\it se}
\cite{Suner}.  (2) The various facts showing that the main predicate in these
constructions is the embedded verb, such as the interpretation of plural null
pronominals in Catalan \cite{Picallo}, follow directly from this analysis.

This type of analysis in TAG, however, is not possible for causative
constructions.  Instead, a variant of TAG, {\it multi-component} TAG, is
used for these cases.  I suggest that this allows a way to differentiate
between the cases of restructuring'' in which the subject of the embedded
clause is or is not coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause.
I also discuss the locality properties of clitic movement with embedded
causatives, a crucial issue for TAG.

I will discuss some issues that are potentially problematic for this
analysis (e.g., Italian auxiliary selection), and also how the TAG analysis
compares and contrasts with certain aspects of analyses in other frameworks,
such as argument composition in HPSG \cite{PM}.