1 / 39

Complexity Factors in Adjunct Parasitic Gaps

Complexity Factors in Adjunct Parasitic Gaps. Johannes Heim. SFB 833: The Construction of Meaning, A7: Focus Construction and Freezing. Intro. “These are the plants Getafix [ Miraculix ] wants me to bring without eating”. Intro.

chuong
Download Presentation

Complexity Factors in Adjunct Parasitic Gaps

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Complexity Factors in Adjunct Parasitic Gaps Johannes Heim SFB 833: The Construction of Meaning, A7: Focus Construction and Freezing

  2. Intro “These are the plants Getafix [Miraculix] wants me to bring without eating”

  3. Intro • English: - WhicharethearticlesiJohn filedtiwithoutreadingpgi. • “true gap” “parasitic gap” • (Engdahl 1983) • - Which girl did Bill praise t because Sue liked pg? • overt subject + tensed verb • Variation: (Seely 1987) • - Which antiques did Joan lift up t in order for Bethto examine pg? overt subject + untensed verb • (Kurtzman & Crawford 1991) • Bayrisch: - Das ist der Kerlideni wenn ich pgi erwisch, erschlag ich ti. • (Felix 1985) • Standard German:*- Lisa hat den Hans [anstatt pg zu küssen] geohrfeigt. • (Kathol 1995) A parasitic gap (Pgap) is a gap that is dependent on the existence of another gap in the same sentence.

  4. Intro: Gaps, Fillers, and Dependencies • Standard filler-gap dependency: • Who do you think that Mary saw t? (Hawkins1999) • FILLERGAP • Standard assumption: once a filler is “used”, it may not be used again. • Which articles did John file t without reading pg? • FILLERGAPGAP • Defining Parasitic Gaps (Engdahl 1983): • “a gap that is dependent on the existence of another gap, […]in the same sentence. By a gap, I understand an empty node that is necessarily controlled by a lexical phrase somewhere in the sentence. It follows from this definition that a parasitic gap will only occur if there is a filler-gap dependency elsewhere in the sentence and the parasitic gap is interpreted as controlled by that filler.”

  5. Chain Formation • “The paper which she filed without reading”

  6. Chain Formation • Chain construction alternatives: • There is a chain from the antecedent to both the true gap and the Pgap . • The true gap chain and the Pgap chain are composed into one. • A Pgap behaves similarly to a pronoun and has a binding syntactic antecedent. This translates into a dynamical parasitic chain formation in the course of processing. • (Culicover n.d.) • Despite the complex filler-gap dependency Pgaps are quite acceptable (Phillips 2006): • “Uninitiated native speakers share the judgments assumed by professional linguists”

  7. Engdahl’s (1983) Hierarchy of Accessibility • “People who accept parasitic gaps in one type of a domain generally accept gaps in any domain higher up on the hierarchy, but there is a lot of individual variation as to how far down the hierarchy parasitic gaps may occur” (Engdahl 1983). (> = more acceptable) It is plausible to attribute the variability in judgments directly to the construction of the chain, that is, to the identification of the antecedent at the point at which the gap, true or parasitic, is encountered (Culicover n.d.)

  8. Engdahl’s (1983) Hierarchy of Accessibility • BUT: Engdahl’s division is incorrect; tensedness also affects adverbial domains. • Kurtzman & Crawford (1991) • Which antiques did Joan buy after examining? (73% grammatical) • Which antiques did Joan buy after she examined? (43% grammatical) • Which antiques did Joan buy after Beth examined? (46% grammatical) • AND: An overt subject is claimed to be another factor. • Seely (1987) • This is the man who the FBI seized before incriminating. (78% grammatical) • This is the man who the FBI seized before Jim’s incriminating. (56% grammatical)

  9. Engdahl’s (1983) Hierarchy of Accessibility

  10. Complexity Factors • “If the parasitic gap chain does not itself contain too many complexity factors, the resulting judgment is that it is acceptable. But if the parasitic gap chain itself is complex, then the amelioration that is contributed by the true gap is not sufficient to bring the complexity down to a point where the parasitic gap chain is judged to be acceptable” (Culicover n.d.: 11)

  11. Hypotheses and beyond… • On a greaterscale: • How do complexity factors and acceptability judgments interrelate? • Do processingcostsofcomplexityfactorsapplystructure-indepedently? • How do different complexityfactorsinterrelate?

  12. Hypotheses and beyond… • Hypothesis 1 (tensedness): • Pgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed. • i.e. These are the documents John filed… after reading > after Peter read. • Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): • Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not. • i.e. tensedness + overt subject = 1 complexity factor (rather than 2 individual factors) • Hypothesis 3 (universality): • Tensedness and overt subject are • universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps • i.e. Without clause / temporal adverb / purpose clause / manner adverb domain • b) universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions. • i.e. These are the documents John filed after reading… them / pg.

  13. Hypotheses and beyond… • Hypothesis 1 (tensedness): • Pgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed. • i.e. These are the documents John filed… after reading > after Peter read. • Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): • Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not. • i.e. tensedness + overt subject = 1 complexity factor (rather than 2 individual factors) • Hypothesis 3 (universality): • Tensedness and overt subject are • universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps • i.e. Without clause / temporal adverb / purpose clause / manner adverb domain • b) universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions. • i.e. These are the documents John filed after reading… them / pg.

  14. Hypotheses and beyond… • Hypothesis 1 (tensedness): • Pgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed. • i.e. These are the documents John filed… after reading > after Peter read. • Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): • Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not. • i.e. tensedness + overt subject = 1 complexity factor (rather than 2 individual factors) • Hypothesis 3 (universality): • Tensedness and overt subject are • universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps • i.e. Without clause / temporal adverb / purpose clause / manner adverb domain • b) universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions. • i.e. These are the documents John filed after reading… them / pg.

  15. General Design • 32 native speakers of English • 4 sets of 50 items: • Experiment 1: 3 factors (tensedness, overt subject, Pgap) in 1 domain • Experiment 2: 2 factors (tensedness, overt subject) in 4 different domains

  16. Method: Thermometer Judgments

  17. Method: Thermometer Judgments

  18. Comparing Thermometer Judgments Method: Thermometer Judgments open- ended scale 1 reference item 2 reference item

  19. General Design • 32 native speakers of English • 4 sets of 50 items: • Experiment 1: 3 factors (tensedness, overt subject, Pgap) in 1 domain • Testing factors structure-independently (Pgap vs. pronoun) • Experiment 2: 2 factors (tensedness, overt subject) in 4 different domains • Testing factors for all adjunct Pgap domains

  20. Design – Experiment 1 (Temporal Adverbs) [+ / - Pgap] [+ / -Tense] [+ / -Subject]

  21. Sample Item – Experiment 1

  22. Results – Experiment 1 (Temporal Adverb) • Mean ratings of experiment 1 (by subjects) [P= Pgap, T = Tensedness, S = overt Subject] •  Structure-dependent main effect of tensedness and overt subject.

  23. Evaluating Hypotheses • Hypothesis 1 (tensedness): CORRECT • Pgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed. • Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): CORRECT • Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not. • Hypothesis 3 (universality): • Tensedness and overt subject are • universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps: • universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions: • NO, the effect is STRUCTURE-DEPENDENT

  24. Design – Experiment 2 (Adverbial Conjunctions) [+ / -Tense] [+ / -Subject]

  25. Sample File – Experiment 2

  26. Results – Experiment 2 without clauses temporal adverbs purpose clauses manner adverbs

  27. Results – Experiment 2 • [+ tense / - subject] > [+ tense / + subject] > [- tense / + subject]

  28. Results – Experiment 2 • Engdahl’s (1983) Hierarchy of Accessibility withoutclauses ˅ ˅ manner adverbs

  29. Results – Experiment 2 • Hierarchy with Pattern:

  30. Evaluating Hypotheses • Hypothesis 1 (tensedness): CORRECT • Pgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed. • Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): CORRECT (if variation can be explained) • Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not. • Hypothesis 3 (universality): • Tensedness and overt subject are • universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps: YES, with ONE EXCEPTION • universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions: • NO, the effect is STRUCTURE-DEPENDENT (superadditivity: much stronger effect in Pgaps)

  31. Evaluating Hypotheses • Hypothesis 1 (tensedness): CORRECT • Pgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed. • Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): CORRECT (if variation can be explained) • Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not. • Hypothesis 3 (universality): • Tensedness and overt subject are • universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps: YES, with ONE EXCEPTION • universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions: • NO, the effect is STRUCTURE-DEPENDENT (superadditivity: much stronger effect in Pgaps)

  32. Results – Experiment 2 • These are the periodicals Robert filed without George reading. without clauses temporal adverbs purpose clauses manner adverbs • These are the books Steven bought in order for Ben to read.

  33. Evaluating Hypothesis • Hypothesis 1 (tensedness): CORRECT • Pgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed. • Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): CORRECT (if variation can be explained) • Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not. • Hypothesis 3 (universality): • Tensedness and overt subject are • universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps: YES, with ONE EXCEPTION • universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions: • NO, the effect is STRUCTURE-DEPENDENT (superadditivity: much stronger effect in Pgaps)

  34. Conclusion • Engdahl‘s (1983) Hierarchy and Culicover‘s (2008) Complexity Factors: • As in Engdahl (1983), adverbial domains were preferred in the following order: • without clauses > temporal adverbs > purpose clauses > manner adverbs • The complexity factors tensedness and overt subject affected each adverbial domain in the same way. This translates into the following pattern: • [+ tense / - subject] > [+ tense / + subject] > [- tense / + subject] • Interrelation of complexity factors: • The complexity factors under investigation have structure dependent effects: • a Pgapconstruction • different effect of overt subject in a tenseddomain in • a non-Pgapequivalent • The effect of complexity factors does not increase in proportion to the number of factors.

  35. Conclusion • Engdahl‘s (1983) Hierarchy and Culicover‘s (2008) Complexity Factors: • As in Engdahl (1983), adverbial domains were preferred in the following order: • without clauses > temporal adverbs > purpose clauses > manner adverbs • The complexity factors tensedness and overt subject affected each adverbial domain in the same way. This translates into the following pattern: • [+ tense / - subject] > [+ tense / + subject] > [- tense / + subject] • Interrelation of complexity factors: • The complexity factors under investigation have structure dependent effects: • a Pgapconstruction • different effect of overt subject in a tenseddomain in • a non-Pgapequivalent • The effect of complexity factors does not increase in proportion to the number of factors.

  36. Outlook • Case: • The smallereffectofovertsubjectin a tenseddomain in a purposeclausemaybedue to the particular construction, viz. complementizer + accusative subject: • These are the documents John marked after Peter filing. • These are the documents John marked after he/Peter filed. • These are the documents John marked in order for Peter to read. • These are the documents John marked in order that he/Peter (might) read. • The complementizer helps the parser to identify the phrase boundary. • Semantics of adverbial conjunctions: • Without is argued to carry less semantic processing load than a temporal adverb. The decline in complexity could explain why without clauses are cross-linguistically favored in Pgap domains • These are the documents John filed without Peter reading. • These are the documents John filed after Peter reading • Saliency in Discourse: • These are the articles John filed without reading. • Which are the articles John filed without reading? • What are the articles John filed without reading? • Stronger discourse saliency ameliorates the complexity of Pgaps.

  37. Outlook • Case: • The smallereffectofovertsubjectin a tenseddomain in a purposeclausemaybedue to the particular construction, viz. complementizer + accusative subject: • These are the documents John marked after Peter filing. • These are the documents John marked after he/Peter filed. • These are the documents John marked in order for Peter to read. • These are the documents John marked in order that he/Peter (might) read. • The complementizer helps the parser to identify the phrase boundary. • Semantics of adverbial conjunctions: • Without is argued to carry less semantic processing load than a temporal adverb. The decline in complexity could explain why without clauses are cross-linguistically favored in Pgap domains • These are the documents John filed without Peter reading. • These are the documents John filed after Peter reading • Saliency in Discourse: • These are the articles John filed without reading. • Which are the articles John filed without reading? • What are the articles John filed without reading? • Stronger discourse saliency ameliorates the complexity of Pgaps.

  38. Outlook • Case: • The smallereffectofovertsubjectin a tenseddomain in a purposeclausemaybedue to the particular construction, viz. complementizer + accusative subject: • These are the documents John marked after Peter filing. • These are the documents John marked after he/Peter filed. • These are the documents John marked in order for Peter to read. • These are the documents John marked in order that he/Peter (might) read. • The complementizer helps the parser to identify the phrase boundary. • Semantics of adverbial conjunctions: • Without is argued to carry less semantic processing load than a temporal adverb. The decline in complexity could explain why without clauses are cross-linguistically favored in Pgap domains • These are the documents John filed without Peter reading. • These are the documents John filed after Peter reading • Saliency in Discourse: • These are the articles John filed without reading. • Which are the articles John filed without reading? • What are the articles John filed without reading? • Stronger discourse saliency ameliorates the complexity of Pgaps.

  39. Contact: joh.heim@gmail.com THANK YOU

More Related