Karin Harbusch & Gerard Kempen Computer Science Psychology Dept.,

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@uni-koblenz.dekempen@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-linguistically 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 SUBJ MOD* HD DOBJ ADVP | PP | S v NP NP fool

7. Example “Slim snijdertje fopte dertig zeerovers” “Clever tailor fooled thirty pirates” (Title of Dutch children’s 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 CNP n ADJP PP snijdertje/tailor DP CNP n ADJP PP | zeerover/pirate ADJP CNP HD MOD* HD crd ADVP adj slim/clever dertig/thirty

9. Substitution (feature structures are omitted) S DOBJ SUBJ HD MOD* NP NP v ADVP PP S | | fopte/fooled NP NP DET MOD* HD DET Q MOD* hd Q | DP CNP n ADJP PP DP CNP n ADJP PP | snijdertje/ tailor zeerover/pirate CNP ADJP HD MOD* HD crd ADVP adj dertig/thirty slim/clever

10. HD HD HD v v v fopte/ fooled fopte/ fooled fopte/ fooled Reduced dominance structure S DOBJ SUBJ NP NP q HD HD MOD CNP n 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 English Dutch/German

12. Assigning slot positions (English)

13. Slot positions for Dutch & German

14. English clausal topology S DOBJ SUBJ HD NP NP v fooled HD MOD HD Q n CNP n ADJP tailor pirate HD HD adj crd clever thirty

15. Dutch clausal topology S DOBJ SUBJ HD NP NP v fopte HD MOD HD Q n CNP n 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 labeledslots • 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)

18. Example S HD CMP SUBJ S v N P HD CMP did John S v PINF D O B J HD try P P N P v who to call

19. Example (cont.) S HD CMP SUBJ S v N P M2 M1 E1 F1 HD CMP did John S M 1 F1 E 1 v PINF HD try 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 F1 N P E 1 v PINF HD try 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 F1 N P 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 D O B J HD SUBJ CMP N P v N P S HD D O B J who did Poirot x N P F1 v CMP HD DET 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

24. Within-language parametrization: Slot assignment (Engl.) Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition SUBJ HD

25. Parameters (cont.): English sharing left-peripheral central non-shared RS shared area (LS) area Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition SUBJ HD

26. Between-language parametrization left-peripheral central non-shared RS shared area (LS) area English Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition HD verb in subclause SUBJ 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 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 slottypes 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., [F1tF1 ]. Lists of segments can be combined by the append operation, represented by the symbol ”O". A slot type may impose a constraint on thecardinality (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 "c=1" in [F1tF1 c=1] 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? 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 LS=3 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? 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  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.) S a. Who did you claim that you saw last week? D O B J H D S U B J C M P F1 N P v N P S CMP HD who did you 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 S a. Who did you claim that you saw last week? b.*Who did you make the claim that you saw last week? D O B J H D S U B J C M P N P v N P S H D D O B J who did you 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?’ a´. 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?’

37. Dutch question formation (cont.) Zij vroeg of ik Jan kendeShe asked whether I John knew‘She asked whether I knew John’  Because the complement is interrogative here, the sharing rule prohibits left-peripheral sharing: LS=0.

38. Clause Union in Dutch ... dat ik Jan zal bellen that I John will phone '... that I will phone John 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 (LS=4:6). 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'

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' The positions marked by "" are grammatical alternatives to the particle (op) position mentioned in the example; no other positions are allowed. GivenLS=4:6 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. F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2 dat ik  zou  hebben  Dutch Particle Hopping (cont.) ... dat ik Jan zou hebben opgebeld that I John would have up called '... that I would have called John up' • Second level: LS=4:6, third level: LS=4

42. F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2 dat ik  zou       hebben  Jan op gebeld Dutch Particle Hopping (cont.) ... dat ik Jan zou ophebben gebeld that I John would up have called '... that I would have called John up'  • Second level: LS=4, third level: LS=4:6

43. F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2 dat ik   zou        hebben  Jan op gebeld Dutch Particle Hopping (cont.) ... dat ik Jan opzou hebben gebeld that I John up would have called '... that I would have called John up' • Second level: LS=4:6, third level: LS=4:6

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' 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' • Parametrization for German VP Extraposion verbs: • shared areas: LS=1, RS=1 • slot assignment for complement clause: E2

46. F1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 E1 E2 dass er uns verspricht   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: LS=1:6, RS=1 • 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

48. Third Construction (cont.) d. ... dass er es uns verspricht zu tun e. ? ... dass er uns es verspricht 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