Complement Structures: Equi and Raising

Complement Structures: Equi and Raising

HPSG WS 2007/08

Janina Kopp

20.12.2007

Outline

About Equi and Raising Constructions About Equi and Raising in HPSG Expletive pronoun constructions (Raising Expletives)

What are Equi and Raising Constructions?

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.

Motivation and Distinction Tests

We will now see what evidence there is for assuming two different underlying structures

These differences can be used to distinguish such constructions

Comparison They try to run

try: subject control 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: object control 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: object raising verb Mary is the direct object of believed and subject of to own Fido

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

Test 2: insertion of verbal adjuncts

John persuaded Mary firmly to own Fido *John believed Mary firmly/honestly to own Fido

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]

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.

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.

Realization in HPSG

a. They try to run. b. They tend to run.

More on semantic roles

Equi controllers are assigned semantic roles: (101) a. The doctor tried to examine Sandy.

TRYER: doctor b. Sandy tried to be examined by the doctor.

TRYER: Sandy (102) a. Kim persuaded the doctor to examine Sandy.

PERSUADEE: the doctor b. Kim persuaded Sandy to be examined by the doctor.

PERSUADEE: Sandy

More on semantic roles

However: (103) 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.

Expletive it or 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.

SUBCAT list of persuade:

SUBCAT list of believe:

More examples on expletive it

Kim persuades it to run it is of sort ref

Kim persuades it to rain it is of sort it ungrammatical

Kim believes it to run it is of sort ref

Kim believes it to rain it is of sort it

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.

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>].

this is 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

More on 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.

More on complement omission

p. 141: “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:

(122) Leslie tried something. (123) *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.

Auxiliary element to

to is treated as a verb in HPSG, and more explicitly, as a raising verb

Summary Equi/Raising

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

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”)

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

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 NPit and 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]>

Extraposition Lexical Rule

However, there are still exceptions that need to be listed separately:

It seems that Sandy is snoring. *That Sandy is snoring seems.

Raised Expletives