Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (11)
- Part of a Book (3)
Language
- English (14)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (14)
Keywords
Dutch has four pronouns "er" which show an intriguing pattern of syntactic haplology when a finite verb has more than one "er" dependent. We present a theory that captures this pattern by relying on two central aspects of HPSG: (i) the distinction between ARG-ST and COMPS and (ii) the distinction between canonical and non-canonical synsem objects. No deletion rules of the kind used in transformational analyses of "er" are necessary.
Dutch is well-known for the formation of verb clusters. A characteristic aspect of such constructions is that the order of the verbs may differ from the order in which they are selected. Across the Dutch language area verb clusters show different types of word order variation. This paper proposes a constructivist account of word order variation in Dutch verb clusters. Linearization is not modelled in terms of the GVOR feature, after Kathol (2000). Instead, it relies on the bidimensional phrase hierarchy initiated by Ginzburg & Sag (2000), which is extended for the analysis of constructions with verb clusters. This proposal accounts for the most common instances of word order variation in Dutch verb clusters, and it can be easily adapted to model a specific variety or dialect.
In Dutch, adpositions can be stranded, typically if their complement is an R-pronoun. The complement usually appears in the left part of the Mittelfeld or in the Vorfeld. In HPSG this is canonically modeled in terms of extraction, making use of nonlocal devices such as SLASH and BIND. This paper argues that the extraction analysis is indeed appropriate for cases in which the complement is realised in the Vorfeld, but proposes an alternative for the cases in which the complement is realised in the Mittelfeld. The new treatment is based on argument inheritance, as complement raising in the Mittelfeld involves a middle distance dependency rather than a long distance dependency.
In Dutch V-final clauses the verbs tend to form a cluster in which the main verb is separated from its syntactic arguments by one or more other verbs. In HPSG the link between the main verb and its arguments is canonically modeled in terms of argument inheritance, also known as argument composition or generalized raising. When applied to Dutch, this treatment yields a number of problems, making incorrect predictions about the interaction with the binding principles and the passive lexical rule. To repair them this paper proposes an alternative, in which subject raising and complement raising are modeled in terms of different devices. More specifically, while subject raising is modeled in terms of lexical constraints, as for English, complement raising is modeled in terms of a more general constraint on headed phrases. This new constraint not only accounts for complement raising out of verbal complements, it also deals with complement raising out of adjectival and adpositional complements, as well as with complement raising out of PP adjuncts and subject NPs. It is, hence, a rather powerful device. To prevent overgeneration we add a number of constraints. For Dutch, the relevant constraints block complement raising out of CPs, V-initial VPs and P-initial PPs. For English, the Empty COMPS Constraint is sufficient to block complement raising entirely.
Since Pollard and Sag (1994) it has been assumed that raising involves full structure sharing, whereas a control verb merely shares the content of one of the lower verb's arguments. This has been considered a property of the phenomena, despite the fact that Pollard and Sag (1994) present this syntactic difference as a hypothesis confirmed for Icelandic only. In this paper we discuss the difference between raising and control from the perspective of Dutch and German passives. It has already been shown by Van Noord and Kordoni (2005) that the secondary object passives in these languages are raising structures, in which the case of the raised argument changes. In this paper we provide additional evidence for the raising analysis, and we propose a new analysis, which allows for a uniform account of Dutch and German passives as raising structures. Przepiorkowski and Rosen (2004) show that control may exhibit case transmission; the data presented in this paper shows that raising may not. Therefore, we claim that the distinction between raising and control is found in theta-role assignment. Syntactically they tend to behave differently, but they may also behave in the exact same way.
This paper focuses on passive constructions in Dutch. Specifically, we focus on worden, as well as krijgen passives in Dutch, for which we propose a uniform, raising analysis in HPSG. We also show that such an analysis can be carried over to account for passives cross-linguistically. Specifically, we look at corresponding structures in German and show that there is no need for a dual raising and control analysis for the German "agentive" (werden) and the German "dative" (kriegen) passives, respectively, as has been proposed in Müller (2002) and Müller (2003).
In Pollard & Sag (1994) and in Ginzburg & Sag (2000) phrases are either headed or non-headed, and if they are headed, there is a relation of selection between the daughters: either the head daughter selects its non-head sister(s), as in the phrases of type 'head-complements', or the non-head daughter selects its head sister, as in the phrases of type 'head-adjunct'. In the non-headed phrases, by contrast, there is no selection; in a coordinate structure, for instance, there is no relation of selection, neither between the conjuncts nor between the conjunction and the conjuncts. The central claim of this paper is that there are also phrases which are headed but in which neither daughter selects the other. To model such phrases I propose a new type, called 'head-independent'. Its properties are spelled out and its range of application is illustrated with various examples, including asymmetric coordination and apposition.
Prenominals in Dutch
(2003)
For modeling the internal structure of noun phrases (Pollard and Sag, 1994, 385) treats the noun as the head and classi£es its dependents in terms of a three-fold distinction, £rst proposed in Chomsky (1970), between complements, adjuncts and speci£ers. For a phrase like the expensive picture of Sandy the structure looks as follows.
I present a treatment of the Dutch R-pronouns in HPSG drawing on Linearization Theory as developed in Reape (1996) and Kathol (1995,2000). R-pronouns in Dutch are a set of locatives which also serve as pronominal arguments of prepositions, and as such may form non-local dependencies. Linearization and techniques of domain union, compaction and partial compaction allow for a straightforward analysis of these dependencies. I focus my analysis on the light R-pronoun er, and its iteration with two homophonous items, the quantitative and expletive ers.
Using the sign/construction distinction developed in Donohue and Sag (1999) and Sag (2001), I implement Kathol's notion of partial compaction in constraints on constructions of type prepositional-phrase, noun-phrase, etc. This places the phonological content of the R-pronoun or quantitative er in the DOMAIN list as a free agent, able to appear in the clause disconnected from the original selector. This use of linearization also permits a haplology rule to capture the idiosyncratic co-occurrence behavior that occurs when multiple functions of er appear together within a clause.
Since the introduction of the X-bar principles it is commonly assumed that prepositions are heads of PPs, in the same way as nouns and pronouns are heads of NPs. However, while this is well motivated for a large majority of the pronouns and the prepositions in many languages, there are also exceptions. More specifically, Van Eynde (1999) argues that the reduced or minor pronouns of Dutch — as opposed to their full or tonic counterparts — cannot head an NP, and the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that there are also prepositions which cannot head a PP. The first section introduces the distinction between major and minor categories. The second shows how it can be applied to the prepositions and presents a way of treating minor prepositions in HPSG. The third singles out the Dutch te(to) as a plausible candidate for a minor preposition treatment, and the fourth provides criteria for the identification of other minor prepositions. The concluding section points out the wider significance of these findings.