Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 1–65 | Cite as

Satisfying Constraints on Extraction andAdjunction

  • Gosse Bouma
  • Robert Malouf
  • Ivan A. Sag
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we present a unified feature-based theory of complement, adjunct, and subject extraction, in which there is no need either for valence reducing lexical rules or for phonologically null traces. Our analysis rests on the assumption that the mapping between argument structure and valence is defined by realization constraints which are satisfied by all lexical heads. Arguments can be realized as local dependents, in which case they are selected via the head's valence features. Alternatively, arguments may be realized in a long-distance dependency construction, in which case they are selected via the head's slash features. Furthermore, we argue that English post-verbal adjuncts, as well as complements, are syntactic dependentsselected by the verb, thus providing a uniform analysis of complement andadjunct extraction. Finally, we show that our analysis provides analternative treatment of subject extraction and we offer a new account of thethat-trace effect.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abeille, Anne and Daniele Godard. 1997. ‘The Syntax of French Negative Adverbs’, in D. Forget, P. Hirschbuhler, F. Martineau, and M.-L. Rivero (eds.), Negation and Polarity, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  2. Abeille, Anne, Daniele Godard, and Ivan A. Sag. 1998. ‘Two Kind of Composition in French Complex Predicates’, in E. Hinrichs, T. Nakazawa, and A. Kathol (eds.), Complex Predicates in Nondenvational Syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. l–2.Google Scholar
  3. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1998. ‘Floating Quantifiers: Handle with Care’, Glot International 3, 3–10.Google Scholar
  4. Bohas, Georges, 1990. The Arabic Linguistic Tradition, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  5. Borsley, Robert D. 1989a. ‘An HPSG Approach to Welsh’, Journal of Linguistics 25, 333–354.Google Scholar
  6. Borsley, Robert D. 1989b. ‘Phrase Structure Grammar and the Barriers Conception of Clause Structure’, Linguistics 27, 843–863.Google Scholar
  7. Borsley, Robert D. 1994. ‘In Defense of Coordinate Structures’, Linguistic Analysis 24, 218–246.Google Scholar
  8. Bouma, Gosse, Robert Malouf, and Ivan A. Sag. 1998. ‘Adjunct Scope and Complex Predicates’, Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS). Halle.Google Scholar
  9. Bresnan, Joan. 1977. ‘Variables in the Theory of Transformations’, in A. Akmajian, P. Culicover, and T. Wasow (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. 157–196.Google Scholar
  10. Bresnan, Joan. 2000. Lexical Functional Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Calcagno, Mike, Thomas Hukari, and Robert D. Levine. 1999. ‘Parasitic Gaps in English: Non-Nominal, Non-Pronominal, and Case-Consistent’, Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University and University of Victoria.Google Scholar
  12. Chae, Hee-Rahk. 1992. Lexically Triggered Unbounded Discontinuities in English, Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  13. Chung, Sandra. 1982. ‘Unbounded Dependencies in Chamorro Granamar’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 39–77.Google Scholar
  14. Chung, Sandra. 1994. ‘Wh-agreement and “Referentiality” in Chamorro’, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 1–44.Google Scholar
  15. Chung, Sandra. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A—bar Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Clements, George N. 1984. ‘Binding Domains in Kikuyu’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14, 37–56.Google Scholar
  18. Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Copestake, Ann, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag. 1999. ‘Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction’, Stanford University and Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  20. Culicover, Peter. 1993. ‘Evidence against ECP Accounts of the That-t Effect’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 557–561.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, Anthony. 1996. Lexical Semantics and Linking in the Hierarchical Lexicon, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  22. Diesing, Molly. 1990. ‘Verb Movement and the Subject Position in Yiddish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 41–79.Google Scholar
  23. Dowty, David R. and Belinda Brodie. 1984. ‘The Semantics of “Floated” Quantifiers in a Transformationless Grammar’, in R. Hendrick (ed.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 3, Stanford, pp. 75–90.Google Scholar
  24. Dukes, Michael. 1992. ‘On the Status of Chamorro Wh-agreement’, in J. Mead (ed.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 11, Stanford, pp. 177–190.Google Scholar
  25. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. ‘Subject Gaps: An Asymmetry between Questions and Relatives in Norweigan’, in C. Jones and P. Sells (eds.), Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  26. Flickinger, Daniel and John Nerbonne. 1992. ‘Inheritance and Complementation: A Case Study of Easy Adjectives and Related Nouns’, Computational Linguistics 18, 269–309.Google Scholar
  27. Fodor, Janet. 1978. ‘Parsing Strategies and Constraints on Transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 427-473.Google Scholar
  28. Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. ‘Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 155–184.Google Scholar
  30. Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag. 1984. ‘Foot Features and Parasitic Gaps’, in W. Geest and Y. Putseys (eds.), Sentential Complementation, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
  31. Gazdar. Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Georgopolous, Carol. 1985. ‘Variables in Palauan Syntax’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 59–94.Google Scholar
  33. Gibson, Edward and Gregory Hickok. 1993. ‘Sentence Processing with Empty Categories’, Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 147–161.Google Scholar
  34. Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan A. Sag. to appear. English Interrogative Constructions, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  35. Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives, and Restructuting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
  36. Gorrell, Paul. 1993. ‘Evaluating the Direct Association Hypothesis: A Reply to Pickering and Barry’, Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 129–146.Google Scholar
  37. Haik, Isabelle. 1990. ‘Anaphoric, Pronominal and Referential INFL’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 347–374.Google Scholar
  38. Hinrichs, Erhard and Tsuneko Nakazawa. 1994. ‘Linearizing AUXs in German Verbal Complexes’, in J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 11–38.Google Scholar
  39. Hinrichs, Erhard and Tsuneko Nakazawa. 1996. Applying Lexical Rules under Subsumption’, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Copenhagen, pp. 543–549.Google Scholar
  40. Höhle, Tilman. 1995. ‘The Complement Extraction Lexical Rule and Variable Argument Raising’, Paper presented at HPSGWorkshop, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  41. Hukari, Thomas E. and Robert D. Levine. 1995. ‘Adjunct Extraction’, Journal of Linguistics 31(2), 195–226.Google Scholar
  42. Hukari, Thomas E. and Robert D. Levine. 1996a, ‘Phrase Structure Grammar: The Next Generation’, Journal of Linguistics 32, 465–496.Google Scholar
  43. Hukari, Thomas E. and Robert D. Levine. 1996b. ‘Subject Extraction’, Paper presented at Third International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Marseille.Google Scholar
  44. Kaplan, Ronald M. and Annie Zaenen. 1989. ‘Long-Distance Dependencies, Constituent Structure and Functional Uncertainty’, in M. R. Baltin and A. S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago Press, pp. l7–42.Google Scholar
  45. Kathol, Andreas. 1995. Linearization-Based German Syntax, Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  46. Kayne, Richard. 1980. ‘Extensions of Binding and Case-Marking’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 55–91. Reprinted in Kayne (1984).Google Scholar
  47. Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  48. Kayne, Richard and Jean-Yves Pollock. 1978. ‘Stylistic Inversion, Successive Cyclicity, and Move NP in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 93–133.Google Scholar
  49. Kim, Jong-Bok and Ivan A. Sag. 1995. ‘The Parametric Variation of English and French Negation’, in J. Camacho, L. Choueiti, and M. Watanabe (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 14, pp. 303–317.Google Scholar
  50. Kluender, Robert. 1998. ‘On the Distinction between Strong and Weak Islands: A Processing Perspective’, in P. Culicover and L. McNally (eds.), The Limits of Syntax, Vol. 29 of Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar
  51. Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1994. Lexical Underspecification and the Syntax/Semantics Interface, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  52. Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999. Lexical Relations, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  53. Kroeber, Paul. 1997. ‘Relativization in Thompson River Salish’, Anthropological Linguistics 39, 376–422.Google Scholar
  54. Krueger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  55. Maling, Joan. 1989. ‘Adverbials and Structural Case in Korean’, in S. Kuno, I.-H. Lee, J. Whitman, S.-Y. Bak, Y.-S. Kang, and Y.-J. Kim (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, Vol. III, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 297–308.Google Scholar
  56. Maling, Joan. 1993. ‘Of Nominative and Accusative: the Hierarchical Assignment of Grammatical Case in Finnish’, in A. Holmberg and U. Nikanne (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, Mouton de Gruyter, Dordrecht, pp. 51-76.Google Scholar
  57. Maling, Joan and Annie Zaenen. 1978. ‘The Non-Universality of a Surface Filter’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 475–497.Google Scholar
  58. Malouf, Robert. 1999. ‘West Greenlandic Noun Incorporation in a Monoluerarchical Theory of Grammar’, in G. Webelhuth, A. Kathol, and J.-P. Koenig (eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar
  59. Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  60. Manning, Christopher and Ivan A. Sag. 1998. ‘Argument Structure, Valence, and Binding’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21, 107–144.Google Scholar
  61. Manning, Christopher, Ivan A. Sag, and Masayo Iida. 1999. ‘The Lexical Integrity of Japanese Causatives’, in R. D. Levine and G. Green (eds.), Readings in HPSG, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 39–79.Google Scholar
  62. McCluskey, James. 1979. Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  63. McCluskey, James. 1989. ‘Resumptive Pronouns, ¯A-binding, and Levels of Representations in Irish’, in R. Hendrick (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 23: The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages, Academic Press, New York, pp. 199–248.Google Scholar
  64. McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1982. ‘Adverbs and Logical Form’, Language 58, 144–l84.Google Scholar
  65. Melčuk, Igor. 1979. Studies in Dependency Syntax, Karoma Publishers, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  66. Miller, Philip. 1992. Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  67. Miller, Philip and Ivan A. Sag: 1997. ‘French Clitic Movement without Clitics or Movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 573-439.Google Scholar
  68. Morrill, Glyn. 1994. Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  69. Müller, Stefan. 1996. ‘Complement Extraction Lexical Rules and Argument Attraction’, in D. Gibbon (ed.), Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology, Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, Bielefeld, October 1996, Berlin, New York, pp. 223-236.Google Scholar
  70. Muon, Alan. 1992. ‘A Null Operator Analysis of Parasitic Gaps’, The Linguistic Review 19, 1–26.Google Scholar
  71. Pickering, Martin and Guy Barry. 1991. ‘Sentence Processing without Empty Categories’, Language and Cognitive Processes 6(3), 229–264.Google Scholar
  72. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  73. Postal, Paul M. 1994. ‘Parasitic and Pseudoparasitic Gaps’, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 63–117.Google Scholar
  74. Postal, Paul M. 1998. Three Investigations of Extraction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  75. Postal, Paul M. to appear. ‘Islands’, in M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  76. Przepiòrkowski, Adam. 1999a. Case Assignment and the Complement/Adjunct Dichotomy: A Non-Configurational Constraint-Based Approach, Ph.D. thesis, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  77. Przepiórkowski, Adam: 1999b. ‘On Case Assignment and “Adjuncts as Complements”’, in G. Webelhuth, A. Kathol, and J.-P. Koenig (eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 231–246.Google Scholar
  78. Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1999c. ‘On Complements and Adjuncts in Polish’, in R. Borsley and A. Przepiórkowski (eds.), Slavic in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  79. Reape, Michael. 1994. ‘Domain Union and Word Order Variation in German’, in J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 151–197.Google Scholar
  80. Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  81. Rothstein, Susan. 1991. ‘Heads, Projections, and Categorial Determination’, in K. Leffel and D. Bouchard (eds.), Views on Phrase Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 97–112.Google Scholar
  82. Sag, Ivan A. 1997. ‘English Relative Clause Constructions’, Journal of Linguistics, 33, 431–484.Google Scholar
  83. Sag, Ivan A. 1998. ‘Without a Trace’, Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  84. Sag, Ivan A. and Janet Dean Fodor. 1994. ‘Extraction without Traces’, in Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 13, Stanford, pp. 365–384.Google Scholar
  85. Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  86. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. ‘A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corrolaries for Constituent Structure’, Linguistic inquiry 19, 425-449.Google Scholar
  87. Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface Structure and Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  88. Szabolcsi, Anna and Frans Zwarts. 1993. ‘Weak Islands and an Algebraic Semantics for Scope Taking’, Natural Language Semantics 2, 1–50.Google Scholar
  89. Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Elements de Syntaxe Structurale, C. Klincksieck, Paris.Google Scholar
  90. Torrego, Esther. 1984. ‘On Inversion in Spanish and Some of its Effects’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 103–129.Google Scholar
  91. van Noord, Gertjan and Gosse Bouma. 1994. ‘Adjuncts and the Processing of Lexical Rules’, in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Kyoto, pp. 250–256.Google Scholar
  92. van Noord, Gertjan and Gosse Bouma. 1996. ‘Dutch Verb Clustering without Verb Clusters’, in P. Blackburn and M. de Rijke (eds.), Specifying Syntactic Structures, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 123–153.Google Scholar
  93. Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  94. Wechsler, Stephen. 1995. The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  95. Wechsler, Stephen and Yae-Sheik Lee. 1996. ‘The Domain of Direct Case Assignment’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 629–664.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gosse Bouma
    • 1
  • Robert Malouf
    • 1
  • Ivan A. Sag
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Humanities ComputingUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CSLI, Ventura HallStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations