category Empty phenomena in LFG
Nigel Vincent University of Manchester
Caveat
This presentation was prepared for use at the LFG Winter School held at the University of Canterbury, 4-8 July 2004. It was designed to follow on from the foregoing presentation by Kersti Brjars. Feel free to make use of it but please acknowledge the source.
Properties of LFG
Non-derivational Parallel correspondence Monotonic
Therefore LFG eschews:
movement the (consequent) use of empty categories the (consequent) use of uninterpretable features (in particular Case and EPP)
Instead, new analytical tools consistent with LFG premisses need to be found
A typology of empty categories
Construction Finite clause arguments Non-finite clause, equi subjects Raising/passive Unbounded dependencies Empty category pro PRO NP/DP trace wh-trace Overt category pronouns anaphors (herself) R expressions
The treatment of pro-drop
Italian:
canta
(Memo) canta
PRED = ' sing < SUBJ>' SUBJNUM = sg SUBJPERS = 3 TENSE = present SUBJPRED ( = ' pro'
)
f-structure for canta (s)he sings
PRED SUBJ TENSE
' sing < (SUBJ) > PRED ' pro' NUM sg PERS 3 pres
English non-pro-drop
English:
sings
Bill sings
vs
*sings
PRED = ' singSUBJ ' SUBJNUM = sg SUBJPERS = 3 TENSE = present
Control and raising
Missing subject relatable to matrix verb Missing subject is a semantic argument of both verbs = control (aka equi) e.g. Bill tried to dance missing subject only a semantic argument of the infinitival verb = raising e.g. Bill seemed to dance
equi vs raising
Equi traditionally handled via a construction specific empty category with no overt analogue, viz PRO Bill tried [PRO to dance] Raising handled via movement [[e] seemed [Bill to dance]
Obligatory (OC) vs nonobligatory (NOC) control
OC antecedents obligatory local c-commanding unique NOC antecedents optional non-local not c-commanding split
Bill tried to dance
to dance requires a verb to introduce it introducing verb is in the next clause up therefore introducing verb c-commands inf. no split antecedence, so: *Bill tried (*for him and Sally) to dance
f-control = OC
Let us first observe that Williams obligatory control corresponds to our functional control. That is, the central properties that Williams takes to be characteristic of obligatory control follow from our theory of functional control. (Bresnan 1982: 350)
Functional control
Involves structure sharing between SUBJ of matrix verb and SUBJ of embedded verb Structure sharing achieved by means of a new type of function, namely the open function XCOMP
COMP vs XCOMP
COMP Bill said that Sally appointed Sue COMP XCOMP Bill persuaded
Sally OBJ
to appoint Sue XCOMP
Lex entries: say, try, persuade
say say <(SUBJ) (COMP)> try try <(SUBJ) (XCOMP)> persuade persuade <(SUBJ) (OBJ) (XCOMP)
Lexical Rule of f-control
For any lexical form: a) XCOMP SUBJ = OBJ if present otherwise b) XCOMP SUBJ = SUBJ
F-structure for try
PRED TENSE SUBJ XCOMP PRES ' Bill' PRED ' like < (SUBJ)(OBJ) >' SUBJ OBJ ' strawberries' ' try < (SUBJ)(XCOMP)>'
try try <(SUBJ), (XCOMP)> (XCOMP SUBJ) = (SUBJ)
exhaustive: same info referred to in two places in fstructure, so split antecedence impossible local: verb can only subcategorise for a clause contained in its own immediate constituent obligatory: control pattern can only be introduced via lexical entry of controlling verb c-command (or f-command): controlling verb one clause up and thus subject/object/indirect object necessarily c-commands controllee
persuade vs promise
persuade <(SUBJ), (OBJ), (XCOMP)> (XCOMP SUBJ) = (OBJ) promise <(SUBJ), (OBJ), (XCOMP)> (XCOMP SUBJ) = (SUBJ)
Lexical form for seem
seem seem < (XCOMP) > (SUBJ) (XCOMP SUBJ) = (SUBJ)
NB: (SUBJ) outside the angle brackets shows it is syntactically but not semantically selected
F-structure for seem
PRED TENSE SUBJ XCOMP PRES ' Bill' PRED ' like < (SUBJ)(OBJ) >' SUBJ OBJ ' strawberries' ' seem < (XCOMP) > (SUBJ)'
believe
believe <(SUBJ), (XCOMP)> (OBJ) XCOMP SUBJ = OBJ
a-control vs control
(models f-control
Functional oblig control)
Anaphoric control
(models non-oblig control)
Structure sharing Open functions Corresponds to PRO
Co-reference Closed functions Corresponds to pro
Keep + ing
i) Susan discussed visiting Fred (anaphoric) (functional)
ii) Susan kept visiting Fred
A vs F Control
Passive: Visiting Fred was discussed/*kept by Susan Cleft: It was visiting Fred that Susan discussed/*kept
A vs F Control
Tough: Visiting Fred is unpleasant for Susan to discuss/*keep Gen subj: Susan discussed/*kept our visiting Fred
Mechanism of a-control
Add the optional equation ( GF PRED) = pro to the lexical entry of a non-finite verb
To visit Fred will annoy Susan
PRED SUBJ OBJ TENSE ' annoy < (SUBJ)(OBJ) > PRED ' visit < (SUBJ)(OBJ) >' SUBJ ' pro' OBJ ' Fred' ' Sally' future
Obviation: English want vs Italian volere
Bill wanted to visit Fred Bill wanted Susan to visit Fred Memo voleva visitare Federico Bill wanted visit.INF Fred Memo voleva [che Susanna visitasse Federico] Bill wanted [that Susan visited Fred]
Wh-movement
Involves link between a filler and a gap What filler did Bill put [e] in the box? gap
Unboundedness vs islands
Potentially infinite distance between filler and gap Who did Bill want Sally to try to invite [e]? Yet certain close dependencies are not OK *What did Bill believe the report Sally said? (Complex NP Constraint)
Wh-constructions: the challenge for LFG
Can we avoid recourse to empty categories? The construction seems to refer to categories/positions not functions: a) all categories except VP front b) categories move to a specific cstructure position
DFs vs GFs
A functional account needs to identify a function for the wh-element: TOPIC: old information; relatives; topics FOCUS: new information; questions SUBJ: grammaticalized DF; default topic
Functional dependencies: outside-in
Who did Bill visit? Who did Bill try to visit? Who did Bill say that Susan visited? Who did Bill say that Susan tried to visit? etc (FOCUS) = (OBJ) (FOCUS) = ( XCOMP OBJ) (FOCUS) = ( COMP OBJ) (FOCUS) = ( COMP XCOMP OBJ) etc
Functional dependencies: inside-out
Who did Bill visit? Who did Bill try to visit? Who did Bill say that Susan visited? Who did Bill say that Susan tried to visit? etc (OBJ) = ( FOCUS) (OBJ) = ((XCOMP ) FOCUS) (OBJ) = ((COMP ) FOCUS)
(OBJ) = ((COMP XCOMP ) FOCUS)
etc
Functional uncertainty
The infinite set of possible dependencies requires a means of selecting the ri...