Non-local Right-Node Raising: an Analysis using Delayed Tree-Local MC-TAG

Transcription

1 on-local Right-ode Raising: an Analysis using elayed ree-local M-AG hung-hye Han epartment of Linguistics Simon Fraser University avid Potter epartment of Linguistics Simon Fraser University ennis Ryan Storoshenko epartment of Linguistics Simon Fraser University Abstract In this paper, we show that analysis of right-node-raising (RR) in coordinate structures proposed in Sarkar and Joshi (1996) can be extended to non-local RR if is augmented with delayed tree locality (hiang and Scheffler, 2008), but not with flexible composition (Joshi et al., 2003). In proposed delayed tree-local analysis, we define multicomponent (M) elementary tree sets with contraction set specification. We propose that a member of each of M sets participates in forming a derivational unit called contraction path in derivation structure, and that contraction paths must be derivationally local to each or for relevant contraction to be licensed. 1 Introduction he term right node raising (RR) was coined by Ross (1967) to describe constructions such as (1), in which an element, here ory, appears to be syntactically and semantically shared at right periphery of rightmost conjunct of a coordinate structure. 1 Furrmore, RR may share an element at unbounded embedding depths (Wexler and ulicover, 1980). In (2)-(5), shared argumens object of verb complement clauses, relative clauses, adjunct clauses and s embedded in coordinating clauses. 2 We can thus characterize examples such as (1) as local RR and examples such We thank anonymous reviewers of AG+10 for ir insightful comments. All remaining errors are ours. his work was partially supported by SER RGPI/ to Han. 1 Subsequently, RR has been shown to apply to noncoordinate structures as well. hese will be discussed in Section 5. 2 Here we discuss only examples with shared arguments; see Potter (2010) for discussion of shared modifiers in an analysis similar to Sarkar and Joshi (1996). as (2)-(5) as non-local RR. 3 (1) [John likes ] and [im dislikes ory]. (2) [John thought you paid ] and [im insisted you didn t pay rent]. (3) [John likes professor who taught ] and [im dislikes student who debunked ory]. (4) [John left before he heard ] and [Mary came after Sue announced good news]. (5) [John likes big book ] and [im likes small book of poetry]. Early transformational analyses, e.g. Ross (1967), explained RR by extending standard notion of movement to allow across--board (AB) movement, in which two underlying copies of shared material are identified during movement, yielding a single overt copy located ex situ, outside of coordinate structure. his type of analysis implies that, apart from AB aspect of movement, RR should orwise behave as typical movement. his prediction is not borne out, however, as RR is freely able to violate both island constraints and right-roof constraint. In example (3), ory is argument of verbs in relative clauses, which are complex noun phrase islands. Under ex situ analysis, depicted in (6), shared argument raises out of coordinate structure, reby also escaping complex noun phrase island. Such movement also violates right-roof constraint, which limits rightward movement to a landing site one bounding node above source (Sabbagh, 2007). If relevant bounding nodes are vp and and shared argumens merged under vp, movement outside of coordinated structure would violate this constraint. Such behaviours 3 Examples of RR require stress on contrasting elements (Hartmann, 2000; Féry and Hartmann, 2005).

2 are unpredicted if RR is derived from movement of shared element to a position outside of coordinate structure. (6) [ John [ vp likes professor who taught ]] and [ im [ vp dislikes student who debunked ]] ory i. While some attempt has been made to explain unpredicted behaviour of RR in ex situ analysis, e.g. Sabbagh (2007), an alternative approach to RR is available which circumvents se complications by locating shared elements in situ. Sarkar and Joshi (1996) propose such an in situ analysis using ree Adjoining Grammar (AG), positing that shared elemens located in canonical position within rightmost conjunct. One significant consequence of this analysis is that contrast between movement and RR requires no explanation; RR is not derived from movement, and thus ir differences in behaviour are unremarkable. However, implementation of Sarkar and Joshi s analysis does make clear predictions for locality of RR: it predicts that non-local RR is illicit. As will be discussed in Section 2, mechanism proposed by Sarkar and Joshi only permits sharing between two elementary trees that are directly composed. hus, examples such as (1), in which shared element ory is an object of two clauses being coordinated, are permitted. On or hand, examples such as (2)-(5) are excluded, as shared arguments in se examples are not objects of coordinated clauses, but rar objects of clauses embedded within coordinated clauses. hus, an unattested contrasn grammaticality is again predicted, in this case between local and non-local RR. he remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we firsllustrate how local RR is handled in Sarkar and Joshi (1996), using elementary trees that conform to Frank s (2002) ondition on Elementary ree Minimality (EM). We n demonstrate how mechanisms in Sarkar and Joshi cannot derive instances of non-local RR with standard AG. We consider two ways of augmenting analysis, one with delayed tree locality (hiang and Scheffler 2008) in Section 3, and or with flexible composition (Joshi et al. 2003) in Section 4. We show that only analysis with delayed tree locality yields well-formed derivation in AG. In Section 5, we briefly discuss cases of noncoordinate RR and show that our proposed analysis can be extended to se cases as well. 2 Sarkar and Joshi 1996 Sarkar and Joshi utilize elementary trees with contraction sets and coordinating auxiliary trees. he elementary trees necessary to derive (1) are illustrated in Figure 1. ote that (α ory) is a valid elementary tree conforming to Frank s EM, as a noun can form an extended projection with a, in line with Hyposis. Also, elementary trees such as (βand dislikes { } ) are in accordance with EM, as coordinators are functional heads (Potter 2010). In each of (αlikes { } ) and (βand dislikes { } ), object node is in contraction set, notated as a subscripn tree name and marked in tree with a circle around it, and represents a shared argument. When (βand dislikes { } ) adjoins to (αlikes { } ), two trees will undergo contraction, sharing node in contraction set. Effectively, in derived tree, two nodes are identified, merging into one, and in derivation tree, a simultaneously substitutes into contraction nodes. he derived and derivation structures are given in Figure 2. In (δ1), (α ory) substitutes into (αlikes { } ) and (βand dislikes { } ) simultaneously at node, and in (γ1), object s are merged into one. hese are thus directed graphs: a single node is dominated by multiple nodes. Looking at (δ1) again, elementary trees that are contracted are local to each or derivationally: (αlikes { } ) immediately dominates (βand dislikes { } ). Is this local relationship that licenses contraction. However, in instances of non-local RR, this local relationship does not obtain. he intended derived structure for (3), for example, is given in Figure 5, using elementary trees in Figures 1 and 3. 4 But structure in Figure 5 cannot be generated with given elementary trees, as it would require an illicit derivation, de- 4 ote that (αlikes) and (βand dislikes) trees are same as (αlikes { } ) and (βand dislikes { } ), except that se do not have contraction nodes.

3 : : α ory: αlikes { } : βand dislikes { } : i * onjp John im onj ory and i likes Figure 1: Elementary trees for John likes and im dislikes ory. dislikes δ1: αlikes { } i γ1: βand dislikes { } α ory onjp i i onj and i John im likes dislikes Figure 2: erivation and derived structures for John likes and im dislikes ory. ory picted in Figure 4. Here, contraction must occur between two relative clause elementary trees (βtaught { } ) and (βdebunked { } ). hese relative clause trees though are not derivationally local to each or: y must each adjoin to trees (α professor) and (α student) which in turn must substitute into object positions of (αlikes) and (βand dislikes). δ3: αlikes i α professor βtaught { } i α ory βand dislikes i α student βdebunked { } 3 erivation using elayed ree-local M-AG o address this problem, we augment Sarkar and Joshi s analysis with delayed tree locality. As defined in hiang and Scheffler, delayed tree-local multi-component (M) AG allows members of an i Figure 4: Illegal derivation structure for John likes professor who taught and im dislikes student who debunked ory using standard AG

4 α professor: α student: : βtaught { } : βdebunked { } : * * who i i professor student taught debunked Figure 3: Elementary trees for John likes professor who taught and im dislikes student who debunked ory. γ3: onjp i onj and i John im likes dislikes i professor i who i student who i taught debunked ory Figure 5: erived structure for John likes professor who taught and im dislikes student who debunked ory.

5 M set to compose with different elementary trees as long as members eventually compose into same elementary tree. In derivation structure, members of M set do not need to be immediately dominated by a single node, though re must be a node that dominates all members of M set. he lowest such node is called destination of an M set. he delay of an M ses union of paths from destination to each member of M set, excluding destination itself. In deriving (3), we propose M elementary tree sets for relative clauses with shared nodes, as in Figure 6. We postulate a structural constraint between two trees in M set: degenerate tree component must dominate relative clause tree component in derived structure. In effect, with addition of M tree sets such as those in Figure 6, specification of contraction sets is now divorced from elementary trees that compose through coordination. o accommodate this separation, we need to extend licensing condition for contraction. We take an elementary tree participating in coordination and immediately dominated degenerate tree with contraction set as a derivational unit, and call it a contraction path. We propose that contraction between two M sets A and B is licensed if A and B have corresponding contraction sets, and contraction path containing degenerate tree component of A eir immediately dominates or is immediately dominated by contraction path containing degenerate tree component of B. he delayed tree-local derivation for (3) is depicted in derivation structure in Figure 7, generating derived structure in Figure 5. (βtaught1 { } ) adjoins to (α professor), and (βtaught2 { } ), a degenerate tree, adjoins to node of (αlikes). (βand dislikes) adjoins to this, and (βdebunked2 { } ) adjoins to of (βand dislikes). (βdebunked1 { } ) adjoins to (α student) which substitutes into (βand dislikes). he delay of (taught { } ) M ses {(βtaught1 { } ), (βtaught2 { } ), (α professor)} and delay of (debunked { } ) M ses {(βdebunked1 { } ), (βdebunked2 { } ), (α student)}. As no derivation node is a member of more than one delay, this is a 1-delayed tree-local M-AG derivation. In this δ3-dtl: i α professor βtaught1 { } i αlikes α ory α student βdebunked1 { } i βtaught2 { } βand dislikes i βdebunked2 { } Figure 7: erivation structure for John likes professor who taught and im dislikes student who debunked ory with delayed tree locality derivation, (αlikes) and (βtaught2 { } ) form a contraction path, which immediately dominates anor contraction path, made up of (βand dislikes), a coordinating auxiliary tree, and (βdebunked2 { } ), a degenerate tree with a corresponding contraction set specification. As two paths are local to each or, contraction of object s in relative clause trees, (βtaught1 { } ) and (βdebunked1 { } ), is licensed. he proposed analysis can rule out (7), where RR has taken place across a coordinating clause without a shared argument. (7) * [John likes professor who taught ] and [im dislikes student who took course] and [Sue hates postdoc who debunked ory]. ue to domination constraint between two trees in M set, only plausible derivation is as in Figure 8. But node contraction is not licensed in this derivation, as two contraction paths, one containing (αlikes) and (βtaught2 { } ), and or containing (βand hates) and (βdebunked2 { } ), are separated by (βand dislikes). As two paths are not derivationally local to each or, contraction between relative clauses is not licensed. Local RR can also be accounted for in terms of proposed M set with contraction set specification, and contraction paths. Returning to (1), its derivation structure can be recast as in Figure 10, using M sets in Figure 9. In hiang and Scheffler s definition of delayed tree-local M-AG, one member of an M ses allowed

6 { βtaught1 { } : } { βtaught2 { } : * βdebunked1 { } : βdebunked2 { } : * } * * i i taught debunked Figure 6: M sets for relative clauses with contraction sets δ7-dtl: i αlikes α professor βtaught2 { } βtaught1 { } i βand dislikes α ory i α student βtook i βand hates i α postdoc αsue βdebunked2 { } α course βdebunked1 { } Figure 8: Illegal derivation structure for *John likes professor who taught and im dislikes student who took course and Sue hates postdoc who debunked ory { αlikes { } : i ti βlikes2 { } : * } { } βand dislikes{ }: βand dislikes2 { } : * * onjp likes onj and i ti dislikes i δ1-dtl: αlikes1 { } i βlikes2 { } βand dislikes1 { } i α ory βand dislikes2 { } Figure 10: elayed tree-local derivation for John likes and im dislikes ory Figure 9: M sets for likes and and dislikes with contraction sets to adjoin into anor. As such, in Figure 10, (βlikes2 { } ) adjoins to (αlikes1 { } ), forming one contraction path, and (βand dislikes2 { } ) adjoins to (βand dislikes1 { } ), forming anor. he two contraction paths are in immediate domination relation, licensing contraction of object s. 4 erivation using Flexible omposition We now attempt to augment Sarkar and Joshi s analysis with tree-local M-AG with flexible composition. Flexible composition can be seen as reverseadjoining: instead of β adjoining onto α at node η, α splits at η and wraps around β. By reversing adjoining this way, tree-locality can be preserved in an orwise non-local M-AG derivation.

7 δ3-fc: i αlikes βtaught1 { } i rev@ α ory α professor βdebunked1 { } rev@ i α student βtaught2 { } βand dislikes i βdebunked2 {} Figure 11: Illegal derivation structure for John likes professor who taught and im dislikes student who debunked ory with flexible composition As depicted in derivation structure in Figure 11, flexible composition seems to keep derivation tree-local: (α professor) reverseadjoins to (βtaught1 { } ) which in turn substitutes into (αlikes), and (βtaught2 { } ), or component of (taught { } ) M set adjoins to (αlikes). And (βand dislikes) adjoins to (βtaught2 { } ), (βdebunked2 { } ) adjoins to (βand dislikes), and (α student) reverse-adjoins to (βdebunked1 { } ), which allows (βdebunked1 { } ) to substitute into (βand dislikes). he contraction path containing (αlikes) and (βtaught2 { } ) and one containing (βand dislikes) and (βdebunked2 { } ) are local to each or, and so contraction between relative clauses should in principle be possible. But re is a problem with this derivation: it substitutes (βtaught1 { } ) and (βdebunked1 { } ) into (αlikes) and (βand dislikes) respectively. his is problematic because se substitutions are using new nodes created by reverse-adjoining of (α professor) to (βtaught1) and (α student) to (βdebunked1). hough this composition is allowed by definition in Joshi et al. (2003), is not allowed by definition in hiang and Scheffler (2008), where is speculated that allowing such derivation may increase weak generative capacity beyond standard AG. his result provides furr support for hiang and Scheffler s (2008) observation that while any derivation using flexible composition can alternatively be expressed in a 2-delayed tree-local M- AG, a derivation using a 1-delayed tree-local analysis may not be expressed in an M-AG with flexible composition. o verify this observation, hiang and Scheffler used EM construction where re is a binding relationship between matrix subject and EM subject, as in (8). (8) John believes himself to be a decent guy. (Ryant and Scheffler, 2006) hey show that though re is a simple derivation using a 1-delayed tree-local M-AG, derivation with flexible composition originally proposed for (8) by Ryant and Scheffler (2006) is actually illegal. here, a reverse-adjoining takes place at a site thas created by a reverse-substitution. We have essentially obtained same results with derivation of non-local RR. 5 oncoordinate RR Following Hudson (1976), apoli (1983), Goodall (1987), Postal (1994), and Phillips (2003), and as illustrated in (9) and (10), RR is possible in noncoordinated structures. (9) a. [avid changed ] while [Angela distracted baby]. b. [I organize ] more than [I actually run her life]. c. [I organize ] although [I don t really run her life]. (10) a. Of people questioned, those [who liked ] outnumbered by two to one those [who disliked way in which devaluation of pound had been handled]. (Hudson, 1976) b. Politicians [who have fought for ] may well snub those [who have fought against animal rights]. (Postal, 1994) c. he professor [who taught ] dislikes student [who debunked ory]. Our proposed analysis of coordinate RR can straightforwardly be extended to examples in (9). In derivation of each of examples, elementary tree representing adjunct clause adjoins to matrix clause, just as elementary tree representing coordinated clause did. hese elementary trees thus form a natural class with coordinating elementary trees, and as such, y can each form a contraction path with immediately dominated

8 δ10c: βtaught2 { } i α professor βtaught1 { } i αdislikes α ory α student βdebunked1 { } i βdebunked2 { } Figure 12: erivation structure for he professor who taught dislikes student who debunked ory degenerate tree. And since contraction path containing degenerate tree member representing matrix clause immediately dominates one containing degenerate tree member of adjunct clause, contraction of object s is licensed. Unlike cases of coordinate RR and examples in (9), in examples in (10), second clause containing shared argumens not adjoining onto first clause with shared argument. Rar, y are relative clauses, each contained in subject and object. (10c), for example, can thus be given a 1-delayed tree-local derivation as in Figure 12, using elementary tree sets in Figure 6. Here, degenerate trees, (βtaught2 { } ) and (βdebunked2 { } ), both adjoin to (αdislikes), forming two contraction paths, one containing (αdislikes) and (βtaught2 { } ) and or containing (αdislikes) and (βdebunked2 { } ). he two paths are in sister relation, which is arguably as local as immediate domination relation. It thus follows that contraction of object s in relative clause trees, (βtaught1 { } ) and (βdebunked1 { } ), is licensed. 6 onclusion In this paper, we have observed that non-local RR calls for a AG derivation thas more descriptively powerful than one of standard AG, and applied two such variants of AG to problem, tree-local M-AG with flexible composition and 1-delayed tree-local M-AG. We have shown that analysis of local RR proposed in Sarkar and Joshi can be extended to non-local RR if is augmented with delayed tree locality but not with flexible composition. We have seen that proposed analysis is constraining as well, ruling out non-contiguous RR, and can also be extended to handle cases of noncoordinate RR. References hiang, avid, and atjana Scheffler Flexible omposition and elayed ree-locality. In Proceedings of AG+ 9. übingen, Germany. Féry, aroline, and Katharina Hartmann Focus and prosodic structures of German Gapping and Right ode Raising. he Linguistic Review 22: Goodall, Grant Parallel structures in syntax. ambridge University Press. Hartmann, Katharina Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. John Benjamins Publishing ompany. Hudson, Richard A onjunction reduction, gapping, and right-node raising. Language 52: Joshi, Aravind K., Laura Kallmeyer, and Maribel Romero Flexible composition in LAG: Quantifier scope and inverse linking. In Proceedings of IWS-5, eds. Harry Bunt et. al., volume 5, ilburg, he erlands. apoli, onna Jo omparative ellipsis: A phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14: Phillips, olin Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34: Postal, Paul Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 25: Potter, avid A multiple dominance analysis of sharing coordination constructions using ree Adjoining Grammar. Master s sis, Simon Fraser University. Ross, John Robert onstraints on variables in syntax. octoral issertation, MI. Ryant, eville, and atjana Scheffler Binding of anaphors in LAG. In Proceedings of AG+ 8, Sydney, Australia. Sabbagh, Joseph Ordering and linearizing rightward movement. atural Language and Linguistic heory 25: Sarkar, Anoop, and Aravind Joshi oordination in ree Adjoining Grammars: formalization and implementation. In Proceedings of OL- IG 96, openhagen. Wexler, Kenneth, and Peter ulicover Formal principles of language acquisition. MA: MI Press. ambridge,