Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar 3. Complement Structure

1. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar3. Complement Structure Lin, Yu-Chun

2. Outline • Category Selection • Small Clauses • Unsaturated Complement • Equi and Raising • Expletive Pronoun Construction

3. Category Selection • In GB, all of the following bracketed phrases are constituents: • Kim said [(that) Sandy left]. • Dana preferred [for Pat to get the job]. • Leslie wanted [Chris to go]. • Lee believed [Dominique to have made a mistake]. • Rene tried [PRO to win]. • Tracy proved [the theorem false]. • Bo considered [Lou a friend]. • Gerry expects [those children off the ship].

4. Small Clauses - Problems • Verbs select for categories within those bracketings: • I consider [John a friend]. • *I consider [John off my ship]. • I expect [those children off the ship]. • *I expect [that man stupid]. • Locality of subcategorization • You can’t subcategorize for something within the thing you’re subcategorizing for • So, either it’s not local or we shouldn’t use the small clause analysis

5. Analyze Complement - Questions • Is the selection simply semantic? • Probably not • *I expect that island off the route. • I expect that island to be off the route. • Does the verb need access to the categorial properties of its complements? • Most likely, yes • Are all verbs the same? • Definitely not • I consider/expect that island to be off the route. • I consider/*expect that island off the route. • I consider/expect that island to be a good vacation spot. • I consider/*expect that island a good vacation spot.

6. Analyze Complement - Generalizations • expect and consider allow AP, PP, and infinitival complements • With AP and PP, expect and consider can often have complements which are semantically difficult to interpret (sent. 3) • consider, but not expect, allows NP complements

7. Analyze Complement - become • In fact, lots of verbs seem to behave pretty differently w.r.t. their acceptable complements, as in all these verbs of become: • Kim became/grew/got/turned out/ended up/waxed political • (AP) • Kim became/*grew/*got/turned out/ended up/*waxed a success • (NP) • Kim *became/*grew/got/*turned out/*ended up/*waxed sent more and more leaflets. • (VP-en) • Kim *became/*grew/*got/*turned out/ended up/*waxed doing all the work. • (VP-ing) • Kim *became/grew/got/turned out/*ended up/*waxed to like anchovies. • (VP-inf)

8. Analyze Complement - consider • consider • We rate/consider/*regard/*count Kim to be an acceptable candidate • (VP-inf) • We rate/consider/*regard/*count Kim an acceptable candidate • (NP) • We rate/consider/*regard/*count Kim quite acceptable • (AP) • We rate/consider/*regard/count Kim among the most acceptable candidates • (PP) • We rate/*consider/regard/count Kim as an acceptable candidate • (PP-as) • consider and similar verbs need access to the phrase following Kim • Thus, Kim an acceptable candidate doesn’t work as a small clause

9. Lexicalization and Localization • Complement selection must be highly lexicalized • Is not reducible to the semantics of a word • Subcategorization is local • These verbs need their complements to be sisters • consider, allows infinitival, NP, AP, PP complements, but not as-phrases, whereas regard allows only as-phrases.

10. Unsaturated Complements • Where does it say in these ID schemata that every subcategorized item must be realized? • In English, many verbs and adjectives subcategorize for an unsaturated complement • In other words, a complement can be specified as [SUBCAT<NP>], rather than [SUBCAT<>] • The Head-Subject Schema allows for this. • And this will give consider access to the lower subject, as well as its own subject.

11. Unsaturated Complements - HPSG • Head-marker structure • The mother and MARKER-DTR share a specification for the attribute MARKING • MARKING values that and for are two subsorts of the sort comp • HEAD-DTR is specified as [MARKING unmarked] • Abbreviation • S[comp] and S[unmarked] distinguish clauses with [MARKING marked] from those specified as [MARKING unmarked] X MARKER-DTR HEAD-DTR

12. Unsaturated Complements – HPSG • Infinitival phrases in English • for Kim to resign (S[inf,comp]) • Kim to resign (S[inf,unmarked]) • to resign (VP[inf])

13. Unsaturated Complements – HPSG S[comp] (incompatible information) MARKER[SPEC S[inf]] S[unmarked,fin] (HFP) for NP VP[fin] (HFP) V[fin]

14. Equi and Raising Construction –Introduction • Consider the following two sentence pairs: • They tend to run • They try to run • John believes Mary to own Fido • John persuades Mary to own Fido • On the first sight, the underlying structure looks just the same, however, there is a crucial difference. • We will now see what evidence there is for assuming two different underlying structures • These differences can be used to distinguish such constructions

15. Equi and Raising Construction –Comparison • They try to run • try: subjectcontrol verb or equi verb • they is agent argument of both try and run • They tend to run • tend: raising verb • they is agent argument only of run, not of tend • John persuaded Mary to own Fido • persuade: objectcontrol verb • Mary is direct object of persuaded, but semantically both patient of persuaded and agent of to own Fido • John believed Mary to own Fido • believe: objectraising verb • Mary is the direct object of believed and subject of to own Fido

16. Equi and Raising Construction –Test 1: passivization • Think about how the meaning of these sentences changes: • (1a) John believed Mary to own Fido • (1b) John believed Fido to be owned by Mary • (2a) John persuaded Mary to own Fido • (2b) John persuaded Fido to be owned by Mary • in (1), both sentences have the same meaning • in (2a), Mary is the persuadee, while in (2b) it is Fido

17. Equi and Raising Construction –Test 2: insertion of verbal adjuncts • John persuaded Mary firmly to own Fido • *John believed Mary firmly/honestly to own Fido

18. Equi and Raising Construction –Test 3: paraphrasing • (1) John persuaded Mary to own Fido • (1’) John persuaded Mary that she should own Fido • (2) John believed Mary to own Fido • (2’) John believed that Mary owned Fido • persuade: three-place-predicate: • Subject John, Primary Object Mary, Secondary Object [that she should own Fido] • believe: two-place-predicate: • Subject John, Object [that Mary owned Fido]

19. Equi and Raising Construction –Test 4: complement omission • John persuaded/told/convinced Mary to own Fido, but I don’t think he has persuaded/told/ convinced Sandy yet. • *John believed/expected/reported Mary to own Fido, but I don’t think he has believed/expected/ reported Sandy. • They try/refuse/hope to run, but I don’t think that you try/refuse/hope. • *They tend/continue/happen to run, but I don’t think that you tend/continue/happen.

20. Equi and Raising Construction –Test 5: there as a complement • There with subject raising verbs: • There tends to be disorder after a revolution. • There seems to be some misunderstanding. • There kept being problems with the analysis. • There with object raising verbs: • Kim believed there to be some misunderstanding. • Compare with corresponding equi constructions: • *There tries to be disorder after a revolution. • *There hopes to be some misunderstanding. • *Kim persuaded there to be some misunderstanding.

21. Equi and Raising Construction –Realization in HPSG a. They try to run.b. They tend to run

22. Equi and Raising Construction –More on semantic roles • Equi controllers are assigned semantic roles: • a. The doctor tried to examine Sandy. • TRYER: doctor • b. Sandy tried to be examined by the doctor. • TRYER: Sandy • a. Kim persuaded the doctor to examine Sandy. • PERSUADEE: the doctor • b. Kim persuaded Sandy to be examined by the doctor. • PERSUADEE: Sandy

23. Equi and Raising Construction –More on semantic roles (cont.) • However: • a. Kim believed the doctor to have examined Sandy • b. Kim believed Sandy to have been examined by the doctor • The raising controller does not have a semantic role in “believe”. We only have a SOA-ARG which associates the doctor with the EXAMINER role and Sandy with the EXAMINEE role.

24. Expletive • it/there • Only raising constructions allow expletive it or there as a complement: • There tends to be disorder after a revolution. • Kim believed there to be some misunderstanding. • *There tries to be disorder after a revolution. • *Kim persuaded there to be some misunderstanding. • It tends to be warm in September • Lee believes it to bother Kim that Sandy snores. • *It tries to be warm in September • *Lee persuades it to bother Kim that Sandy snores. • An equi controller has to be of sort ref.

25. Expletive - SUBCAT list of persuade:

26. Expletive - SUBCAT list of believe:

27. Expletive - More examples • Kim persuades it to run • itis of sortref • Kim persuades it to rain • itis of sortit • ungrammatical • Kim believes it to run • itis of sortref • Kim believes it to rain • itis of sortit

28. Shared information • The unexpressed subject of the VP complement is identified with • equi controller’s index in equi verbs • raising controller’s SYNSEM value in raising verbs • Examples of Icelandic: • raising controllers in Icelandic share CASE values with the unexpressed subjects of unsaturated complements.

29. Raising Principle • Let E be a lexical entry whose SUBCAT list L contains an element X not specified as expletive. Then X is lexically assigned no semantic role in the content of E if and only if L also contains a (nonsubject) Y[SUBCAT<X>]. • Only a constraint on lexical entries • Follows from the generalization that unassigned arguments must be raising controllers • Unassigned arguments can only be on the SUBCAT list if there is a corresponding unsaturated phrase

30. Complement omission persuaded • They told Jan to leave, convinced persuaded but I don’t think they have told Sandy yet. convinced seems • *Taylor tends to be obnoxious, seems but I don’t think that Gerry tends.

31. Complement omission (cont.) • Removing the unsaturated complement from a raising verb’s SUBCAT list would leave a semantically unassigned SUBCAT element that was not raised. • there is no “TENDER” (subject raising) or “BELIEVEE” (object raising) • NP substitution: • Leslie tried something. • *Whitney tends something. • tends assigns no semantic role to its subject, Whitney, so there must be an unsaturated complement on the SUBCAT list. Something, though, is already saturated.

32. Auxiliary element to • to is treated as a verb in HPSG, and more explicitly, as a raising verb

33. Equi / Raising - Summary • raising verbs • fail to assign a semantic role to one of their dependents • the entire SYNSEM value of the SUBCAT list element of the VP complement is structure shared with the raising controller • allows it and there as a complement • equi verbs • only the INDEX of the VP complement’s subject is structure shared with the equi controller • controllers are assigned semantic roles

34. Expletive pronoun constructions • We already saw that the sort there or it is inappropriate for NP dependents that are assigned a semantic role: • *There died. • *We like there very much. • *It died. • *We talked to it. (it not being a ppro) • environments subcategorizing for there: • subject of copula (be, is), with add. postcopula • environments subcategorizing for it (no ref allowed!): • weather verbs (rain, snow) • temporal expressions (late, five o’clock) • extraposed clauses (It bothers me that Sandy snores) • can also occur in the object position (“I take it that you pay”)

35. Expletive pronoun constructions • be– an example (143) • CONTENT is token identical to the CONTENT of the XP[+PRD] • The unexpressed subject of the XP[+PRD] complement is structure shared with the postcopular NP complement • CONTENT is not determined by subject, but by the postcopular NP and the XP element • CONTENT is complete even before adding Subject NPthere to the structure • NUM value of the NPthere is dependent on the postcopular NP

36. Extraposition Lexical Rule • verbs/adjectives combining with an extraposed clause: • It bothers Kim that Sandy snores. • That Sandy snores bothers Kim. • The idea is to assume an underlying, basic lexical entry and a rule that transforms its SUBCAT list. • The Extraposition Lexical Rule removes an S[comp] from a SUBCAT list, replacing it by NPitand appends the S[comp] to the end of the SUBCAT list. • SUBCAT<NP, S[comp], PP[to]> (explain, mention) •  SUBCAT<NP, NPit, PP[to], S[comp]> • SUBCAT<NP, S[comp]> (regret, resent) •  SUBCAT<NP, NPit, S[comp]> • However, there are still exceptions that need to be listed separately: • It seems that Sandy is snoring. • *That Sandy is snoring seems.

37. Raised Expletives