A quantitative model of word order and movement in English, Dutch and German complement constructions

1
A quantitative model of word order and movement
in English, Dutch and German complement
constructions

• Karin Harbusch Gerard Kempen
• Computer Science
  Psychology Dept.,
• Dept., University
  Leiden University
• of Koblenz-
  Max Planck
• Landau
  Institute Nijmegen
• harbusch_at_uni-koblenz.de
  kempen_at_fsw.leidenuniv.nl

2
Preview

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Essentials of Performance Grammar
• Hierarchical component
• Linearization component topologies
• Topology sharing in the three target languages
• Linear order and typed feature unification
• 3. Examples in the three target languages
• 4. Conclusions

3
1. Introduction

• Linear order in English, Dutch and German
  complement constructions varies considerably
  w.r.t.
• Wh-extraction,
• clause union,
• extraposition,
• verb clustering,
• particle movement, etc.
• We show that both the within- and
  between-language variations of these phenomena
  reduce to differences between a few numerical
  parameters.

4
2. Essentials of Performance Grammar

• Performance Grammar (PG) is a psycho-linguisticall
  y motivated formalism. Psycholinguistic phenomena
  suggest separate hierarchical and linear grammar
  components.
• We focus on the linear component and describe it
  in declarative terms based on feature
  unification.
• The parametrization scheme we propose belongs to
  the linear component.

5
Hierarchical component of PG

• Data structures
• Segments

XP
XP
HeaD
func
pos lexical anchor
XP
6
Segments such as in clauses ...
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
HD
SUBJ
DOBJ
IOBJ
PRED
CMPR
PRT
PINF

CMP
prep
v
NP
NP
NP

PP
NP

CP

S

PP
PP
adv

PP
ADJP
... combine into lexical , e.g. clausal, frames
S
HD
SUBJ
DOBJ
MOD
ADVP

PP

S
v
NP
NP
fool
7
Example Slim snijdertje fopte dertig
zeerovers Clever tailor fooled thirty
pirates (Title of Dutch childrens story by
Annie M.G. Schmidt)
8
Lexical frames from the mental lexicon
S
DOBJ
SUBJ
HD
MOD
NP
NP
v
ADVP
PP
S


NP
NP
fopte/fooled
DET
Q
MOD
HD
DET
Q
MOD
HD

DP
n
CNP
ADJP
PP
snijdertje/tailor
DP
n
CNP
ADJP

PP
zeerover/pirate
ADJP
CNP
HD
MOD
HD
crd
ADVP
adj
dertig/thirty
slim/clever
9
Substitution (feature structures are omitted)
S
DOBJ
SUBJ
HD
MOD
NP
NP
v
ADVP
PP
S


fopte/fooled
NP
NP
DET
MOD
HD
Q
DET
Q
MOD
hd

DP
n
CNP
ADJP
PP
DP
n
CNP
ADJP

PP
snijdertje/ tailor
zeerover/pirate
CNP
ADJP
HD
MOD
HD
crd
ADVP
adj
dertig/thirty
slim/clever
10
Reduced dominance structure
S
DOBJ
SUBJ
NP
NP
q
HD
HD
MOD
n
CNP
n
ADJP
zeerover/ pirate
snijdertje/ tailor
HD
HD
crd
adj
dertig/ thirty
slim/ clever
11
Linearization Component

• Data structure topology
• A topology is associated with the foot node layer
  of every lexical frame
• Function reservation of work/storage space for
  frame constituents
• Topologies with nine slots for clauses

Forefield Midfield
Endfield
F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
English
Dutch/German
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
12
Assigning slot positions (English)
Slot Filler
F1 Declarative main clause Topic, Focus (one constituent only) Interrogative main clause Wh-constituent Complement clause Wh-constituent
F2 Complement clause CoMPLementizeR that
F3 Subject (iff non-Wh)
M1 Pre-INFinitive to lt HeaD verb (oblig.) lt PaRTicle
M2 Direct Object (iff personal pronoun) Interrogative main cl. Subject (iff non-Wh) SUBJ lt DOBJ
M3 Indirect OBJect lt Direct OBJect (non-Wh)
M4 PaRTicle
E1 Non-finite Complement of 'Verb Raiser (in particular Auxiliaries)
E2 Non-finite Complement of 'VP Extraposition verb Finite Complement clause
13
Slot positions for Dutch German
Slot Filler
F1 Declarative main cl. SUBJect, Topic or Focus (one constituent only) Interrogative main clause Wh-constituent Complement clause Wh-constituent
M1 Main clause HeaD verb Complement clause CoMPLementizer dat/om (Du.), dass (Ger.)
M2 Subject NP (iff non-Wh), Direct OBJect (iff personal pronoun)
M3 Direct OBJect lt Indirect OBJect (iff non-Wh)
M4 PaRTicle (Du. only)
M5 Non-finite CoMPlement of Verb Raiser
M6 Subordinate clause Du. Pre-INFinitive te lt HeaD verb Ger. PaRTicle lt Pre-INFinitive zu lt HeaD verb
E1 Non-finite Complement of 'Verb Raiser (Du. only)
E2 Non-finite Complement of 'VP Extraposition verb Finite Complement clause
14
English clausal topology
S
DOBJ
SUBJ
HD
F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
NP
NP
v
fooled
HD
MOD
HD
Q
n


n
CNP
ADJP
tailor
pirate
HD
HD
adj
crd
clever
thirty
15
Dutch clausal topology
S
DOBJ
SUBJ
HD
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
NP
NP
v
fopte
HD
MOD
HD
Q
n


n
CNP
ADJP
zeerover
snijdertje
HD
HD
adj
crd
slim
dertig
16
Topology sharing
If a sentence consists of a main clause plus one
or more complement clauses, each of the clauses
(i.e. verb frames) instantiates its own topology.
In such cases, topologies are allowed to share
slots, conditionally upon several restrictions.
After two slots have been shared, they are no
longer distinguishable in fact, they are the
same object. This operation may cause upward
movement of constituents "promotion".
17

• General constraints on topology sharing
• Only between adjacent clausal topologies
• Only between identically labeled slots
• HeaD slot never participate in sharing
• Only left- and/or right-peripheral

left-peripheral central non-shared
right-peripheral shared area (LS)
area shared area (RS)
HD


18
Example
S
HD
CMP
SUBJ
v
S
N
P
HD
CMP
did
John
S
v
try
D
O
B
J
PINF
HD
N
P
P
P
v
who
to
call
19
Example (cont.)
S
HD
CMP
SUBJ
v
S
N
P
M1
M2
E1
F1
HD
CMP
did
John
S
M
1
F1
E
1
v
try
PINF
HD
D
O
B
J
M1
v
N
P
P
P
M1
F1
who
to
call
20
Example (cont.)
S
HD
CMP
SUBJ
v
S
N
P
M1
E1
F1
M2
D
O
B
J
HD
CMP
did
John
S
M
1
N
P
F1
E
1
v
try
PINF
HD
who
P
P
v
M1
M1
F1
to
call
21
Example (cont.)
S
HD
CMP
D
O
B
J
SUBJ
v
S
N
P
M1
E1
N
P
F1
M2
HD
CMP
did
John
Who
S
M
1
F1
E
1
v
PINF
HD
try
P
P
v
M1
M1
F1
to
call
22
Unsuccessful attempt at sharing
Who did Poirot claim that he saw last week?
Who did Poirot make the claim that
he saw last week?
S
HD
SUBJ
CMP
D
O
B
J
v
N
P
S
N
P
HD
D
O
B
J
did
Poirot
who
x
N
P
F1
v
CMP
DET
HD
make
D
P
n
S
CMPR
SUBJ
HD
MOD
the
claim
F1
C
P
N
P
v
N
P
that
he
saw
last week
23
Language-spec. values for LS/RS
Clause type English Dutch German
Interrogative LS0 RS0 LS0 RS1 LS0 RS1
Declarative Finite LS1 RS0 LS1 RS1 LS1 RS1
Decl. Non-Finite, VP Extraposition LS3 RS0 LS1 RS1 LS1 RS1
Decl. Non-Finite, Verb Raising LS3 RS0 LS46 RS1 LS5 RS1
Decl. Non-Finite, Third Construction n.a. LS16 RS1 LS16 RS1
24
Within-language parametrization Slot
assignment (Engl.)
Decl. Non-Finite, VP Extraposition
M1 M4 E1 E2
F1 F2 F3
HD
SUBJ
25
Parameters (cont.) English sharing
left-peripheral
central non-shared RS shared
area (LS) area
Decl. Non-Finite, VP Extraposition
M1 M2 E2
F1 F2 F3
HD
SUBJ
26
Between-language parametrization
left-peripheral
central non-shared RS shared
area (LS) area
English Decl. Non-Finite, VP Extraposition
M1 M2 E2
F1 F2 F3
HD verb in subclause
SUBJ
M6 E1
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
E2
Dutch/German Decl. Non- Finite, VP
Extraposition
27
Comparison Engl./Du./Ger. sharing
left-peripheral
central non-shared RS shared
area (LS) area
English Decl. Non-Finite, VP Extraposition
M1 M2 E2
F1 F2 F3
M6 E1
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
E2
Dutch/German Decl. Non- Finite, VP
Extraposition
28
Specification of topologies in terms of typed
feature unification

• S tpl ?p(1)t, p(2)t, ... p(9)t? where p(i)t
  denotes the type of the ith member of the list.
  For each of the target languages 9 slot types are
  defined (e.g., F1t). Slots are attributes that
  take a non-branching list of lemmas or
  constituents (e.g. SUBJect-NP, CoMPlement-S or
  HeaD-v) as their value.
• Slots are initialized with the value empty list,
  denoted by "??" (e.g., F1t F1 ??. Lists of
  segments can be combined by the append operation,
  represented by the symbol O". A slot type may
  impose a constraint on the cardinality (the
  number of members) of the list serving as its
  value. Cardinality constraints are expressed as
  subscripts of the value list. E.g., the subscript
  "c1" in F1t F1 ??c1 states that the list
  serving as F1's value should contain exactly one
  member.

29
Specification of topologies (cont.)

• Depending on the values of sharing parameters LS
  and RS, the list is divided into a left area, the
  central area, and the right area. LS and RS are
  set to zero by default this applies to the root
  S of main clauses and adverbial subordinate
  clauses. The root S of a complement clause
  obtains its sharing parameter values from the
  foot of the S-CMP-S segment belonging to the
  lexical frame of its governing verb.

• Sharing (see 1 ) simply means unifying the slots
  in the two laterally shared areas according to
  the LS and RS parameters.
• The contents of non-shared (central) slots are
  appended to the contents of the receiving slot
• (see 2 ).

tpl ? 1 F1, ..., E2 ? 2 ?
S
CMP
2 tpl ? 1 F1, ...? ctype decl-fin
S

30
3. English question formation

• Who do I have to call?

F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
? do ?
? ?
have ?
? ?
Who to call
The non-finite complements of both do and have
are declarative. (Cf. the paraphrase "For which
person x is it the case that I have to call x",
which highlights the scope of who.) It follows
that LS3 in both complements. Do is a Verb
Raiser, have (in have to) is a VP Extraposition
verb.
31
English question formation (cont.)

• Who did you say John saw?

F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
? did you ?
? ?
say ?
? ?
Who John saw
The lower clause is finite and declarative (LS
1) cf. the paraphrase For which person x is it
the case that you said that John saw x. (The
scope of who exceeds its own clause and
includes the matrix clause.) LS 3 in the middle
topology.
32
English question formation (cont.)
I know who John saw

• I know who John saw

F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
I know
?
?
who John saw
Here, the scope of the interrogative pronoun does
not include the main clause (I know for which
person x it is the case that John saw x).
Therefore, the complement is interrogative and
does not share its F1 slot with that of the main
clause (LS 0).
33
English question formation (cont.)

• a. Who did you claim that you saw last week?

S
H
D
S
U
B
J
C
M
P
D
O
B
J
F1
v
N
P
S
N
P
CMP
HD
did
you
who
F1
v
S
claim
C
M
P
R
S
U
B
J
H
D
M
O
D
F1
C
P
N
P
v
N
P
that
you
saw
last week
34
Island Effects in English

• a. Who did you claim that you saw last week?
• b.Who did you make the claim that you saw last
  week?

S
H
D
S
U
B
J
C
M
P
D
O
B
J
v
N
P
S
N
P
H
D
D
O
B
J
did
you
who
x
F1
v
N
P
DET
HD
CMP
make
D
P
n
S
C
M
P
R
S
U
B
J
H
D
M
O
D
the
claim
F1
C
P
N
P
v
N
P
that
you
saw
last week
35
Dutch question formation
Dutch interrogative main clauses feature
Subject-Verb inversion without the equivalent of
do-insertion

• a. Zag je dat?
• saw you that
• Did you see that?

F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
Zag je dat
a. Je zag dat?
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
Je zag dat
36
Dutch question formation (cont.)

• b. Wie zag dat? who saw that
  Who saw that?
• c. Wat zagen ze? What did they see?

F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
Wie zag dat
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
Wat zagen ze
37
Dutch question formation (cont.)

• Zij vroeg of ik Jan
  kende She asked whether I John
  knewShe asked whether I knew John

F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
Zij vroeg
?
?
of ik Jan kende
Because the complement is interrogative here, the
sharing rule prohibits left-peripheral sharing
LS0.
38
Clause Union in Dutch

• ... dat ik Jan zal bellen
• that I John will phone
• '... that I will phone John

F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dat ik ? zal ?
? ?
Jan bellen
The subordinate clause features clause union,
causing the auxiliary zal to intervene between
the Direct OBJect Jan and its governor bellen.
The left-peripheral sharing area may vary between
4 and 6 slots (LS46). Because Jan lands in M3,
i.e. in the shared area, it is promoted. The
remainder of the lower topology, including the
HeaD bellen itself, occupies E1 one of the
options of the complement of a Verb Raiser.
39
Clause Union in Dutch (cont.)

• ... dat ik Jan bellen zal
• that I John phone will
• '... that I will phone John'

F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dat ik ? ? zal
? ?
Jan bellen
40
Dutch Particle Hopping
... dat ik Jan ? zou ? hebben op
gebeld that I John would have
up called '... that I would have called John
up'
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dat ik ? zou ?
? ?
hebben ?
? ?
Jan op gebeld

• The positions marked by "?" are grammatical
  alternatives to the particle (op) position
  mentioned in the example no other positions are
  allowed. Given LS46 for complements of Verb
  Raisers, it follows that Jan is obligatorily
  promoted into the higher topology. However,
  sharing of the fifth slot (M4) is optional.

41
Dutch Particle Hopping (cont.)
... dat ik Jan zou hebben op gebeld
that I John would have up called '...
that I would have called John up'
? ?
? ?
Jan op gebeld

• Second level LS46, third level LS4

42
Dutch Particle Hopping (cont.)
... dat ik Jan zou op hebben gebeld
that I John would up have called '...
that I would have called John up'
?

• Second level LS4, third level LS46

43
Dutch Particle Hopping (cont.)
... dat ik Jan op zou hebben gebeld
that I John up would have called '...
that I would have called John up'

• Second level LS46, third level LS46

44
Dutch Cross-serial Dependency
... dat ik Jan de fiets wil
helpen maken that I John the bike
want-to help repair '... that I want to
help John to repair the bike'
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dat ik ? ? wil ?
? ? ?
Jan helpen ?
? ?
de fiets maken

• Assumption about the order of constituents that
  land in the same slot but originate from
  different levels in the clause hierarchy We
  stipulate that constituents from more deeply
  embedded clauses follow constituents belonging to
  higher clauses.

45
German VP Extraction

• ... dass er uns zwingt es zu tun
• that he us (Akk.) forces it to do
• '... that he forces us to do it'

F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dass er uns zwingt ?
?
es zu tun

• Parametrization for German VP Extraposion verbs
• shared areas LS1, RS1
• slot assignment for complement clause E2

46
German Third Construction

• a. ... dass er uns verspricht es zu
  tun
• that he us (Dat.) promises it
  to do
• '... that he promises us to do it'

es
zu tun

• Parametrization for German Third Construction
  verbs
• shared areas LS16, RS1
• slot assignment for complement clause M5 or E2

47
German Third Construction (cont.)

• b. ... dass er uns es zu tun verspricht
• c. ... dass er es uns zu tun verspricht

F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dass er uns ? verspricht
?
es zu tun
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dass er ? uns ? verspricht
? ?
es zu tun
48
Third Construction (cont.)

• d. ... dass er es uns verspricht zu tun
• e. ? ... dass er uns es verspricht zu tun

F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dass er ? uns verspricht ?
? ?
es zu tun
F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2
dass er uns ? verspricht ?
? ?
es zu tun
49
4. Conclusions

• We have shown that the introduction of topologies
  with a fixed number of slots, in conjunction with
  cross-clause lateral topology sharing enables a
  simple treatment of word order and movement
  (promotion) in complement structures of the three
  target languages. The great amount of within- and
  between-language variation typical of these
  constructions could be analyzed as resulting from
  different settings of a small number of
  quantitative parameters (size of shared areas
  slot number of landing site targeted by the
  complement clause, by head verb, and by other
  major constituents).
• Due to space limitations we could not go into
  much detail. Elsewhere we have provided a more
  fine-grained discussion of our approach and its
  psycholinguistic motivation. Future study is
  needed to find out whether the PG approach
  generalizes to other languages.

50
Thank you!

• Sources of the examples
• Haegeman, 1994
• Kathol, 2000
• Rambow,1994
• Sag Wasow, 1999For more PG details see
• http//www.uni-koblenz.de/harbusch/pg.html

51
Nominal Segments ...
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
HD
DET
Q
MOD
CMP
n

pro
PP

S
DP
CNP
ADJP

PP

S
... form nominal lexical frames
NP
HD
DET
Q
MOD
DP
CNP
n
ADJP

PP

S
pirate
52
Example
S
CMP
SUBJ
HD
NP
v
S
know
HD
DOBJ
HD
SUBJ
v
NP
NP
pro
hates
we
Dana
Kim

• Hierarchical structure
• Simplified lexical frames underlying the
  sentences
• We know Dana hates Kim and Kim we know Dana hates.

53
Example (cont.)
S
CMP
SUBJ
HD
F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
NP
v
S
know
DOBJ
SUBJ
HD
HD
F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
v
NP
NP
pro
hates
we
Dana
Kim

• Topology slot assignment
• The focused Direct OBJect Kim may go to M3,
• producing
• We know Dana hates Kim

54
Example (cont.)
S
CMP
SUBJ
HD
F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
NP
v
S
know
DOBJ
HD
SUBJ
HD
F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
v
NP
NP
pro
hates
we
Dana
Kim

• Topology slot assignment
• The Direct OBJect Kim may also go to F1
• if the constituent is focused

55
Example (cont.)
S
DOBJ
CMP
SUBJ
HD
F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
NP
NP
v
S
know
HD
SUBJ
HD
Kim
F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 E2
v
NP
pro
hates
we
Dana

• Sharing produces
• Kim we know Dana hates

56
Example (cont.)
ctype MainCl tpl ? 1 F1, F3 o 2 , M1 o
3 , B2 o 4 ?
S
CMP
SUBJ
HD
? 1 F1o 7 ,F3o 5 ,M1o 6 ?
tpl 4
tpl ? 2 ?
NP
S
v
lemma ? 3 ?
? 1 F1,F3o 5 ,M1o 6 ,M3o 7 ?
know
SUBJ
HD
DOBJ
HD
foc tpl 7
tpl ? 5 ?
NP
NP
v
pro
we
hates
lemma ? 6 ?
Dana
Kim

• Topology slot assignment in terms of feature
  structures
• Both placement options of the focused direct
  object are
• specified in the disjunctive alternatives of the
  TPL feature
• of the complement S node (gray rectangle).

57
Scrambling in German
a. ... dass niemand verspricht zu
versuchen das Fahrrad zu reparieren that
nobody promises to try the
bike to repair that nobody
promises to try to repair the bike
dass
58
Scrambling in German (cont.)
b. ... dass niemand das Fahrrad verspricht zu
versuchen zu reparieren
dass
59
Scrambling in German (cont.)
c. ?... dass das Fahrrad niemand verspricht zu
versuchen zu reparieren
dass
d.Fahrr.
60
Right-peripheral sharing
Versprochen wird er ihr nicht haben den Wagen zu
waschen promised will he her not
have the car to wash He
will not have promised her to wash the car.
er
?
?
wird
?
ihr nicht
d.Wag.