Bridgingthegapbetweendictionariesand grammarshome.uni-leipzig.de/dictionaryjournal/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/... · Neta pofa “Moʔotu pofa muʔamo nofona nipopeneʔa” opa esimenepeina

Bridging the gap between dictionaries andgrammars

Barbara StiebelsUniversity of Leipzig

8.4.2016

Starting point

Online/digital dictionaries stand out from printed dictionariesdue to the following properties:

• Revision and extension of entries much easier• No/few space limits for entries• Enhanced search functions

This allows to address the gap between grammars anddictionaries.

Dictionaria workshop; Barbara Stiebels 2

The gap (illustrated for clausal complementation)

“The most neutral complementizing suffix in Choctawis -ka. It appears on the complement clauses to thefollowing verbs, among others: yimmih ‘to believe’,ikhã´nah ‘to know’, anokfillih ‘to think’, imĩkalloh ‘tobe difficult’, ĩpalammichih ‘to be difficult’, hollabih ‘totell a lie’ ...” [+ 8 further verbs] [Broadwell 2006: 268]

(1) John-atJohn-nom

anokfilli-hthink-tns

[pisachokma-ka-t].goodlooking-comp-ss

‘John thinks that he is goodlooking’



“The complementizing suffix -ka also occurs oninterrogative complement clauses.” [p. 271; no list ofpredicates; illustration only for ‘know’]

“The following verbs take complement clauses withthe complementizing suffix -oo [...]: makah ‘say,order’, hopaayih ‘foretell’, panakloh ‘ask’, tohnoh‘hire”’ [p. 272]

“Some verbs, usually psychological verbs, may selectfor the complementizing suffixes -cha ‘same subject’and -na ‘different subject”’ [p. 273; no list ofpredicates]



• Grammatical descriptions often mention only a fewpredicates that may instantiate the respective structure;they often take Noonan’s (1985/2007) list of“complement-taking verbs” as starting point.

• Grammatical descriptions usually ignore the polysemy ofthe predicates (often oversimplified glosses).

• Unless a dictionary specifies all possible types ofcomplement clauses for clause-embedding predicates,the distributional patterns of these structures remainunclear.

⇒ Any typological research on clausal embedding (e.g.,Cristofaro 2003; Givón 1980) is based on incomplete data.


Munro (2005)

“Making dictionaries is a vital aid to completing a fullgrammatical analysis of a language [...] I believe thatdictionary work can elucidate many features ofgrammatical analysis and reveal problems that mustbe dealt with that might not have been noticedotherwise.” [Munro 2005: 307]


The lexical impact on syntax

Lexical impact: certain syntactic structures are onlyinstantiated by specific predicates.

Typical examples for clausal embedding:

• Selection of complementation structures (clausal type,argument realization)

• Raising vs. control predicates• Clause union/restructuring• Parenthesis• Extraction• NEG-raising


General questions I

• Should the relevant properties be specified bygrammatical markers (enhancing linguistic typology andusing the search options of digital dictionaries) or byillustrative examples (less deterrent for non-linguists butnot always very conclusive)?

• Should the dictionary entries model the presence orabsence of features (given that some structures areconfined to a small class of clause-embeddingpredicates)?

⇒ Pragmatics of dictionary use: does the absence ofspecification/illustration indicate the absence of therespective property?


General questions II

• In case of lack of corpus data: elicitation of standardizedexamples?

• In case of incomplete data compilation: indication of thestage of compilation?


Complementation patterns

A. Specification of the admissible clausal complement types

• finite vs. infinite vs. nominalized complements• declarative vs. interrogative complements• root complements (displaying matrix clause properties)

B. Argument realization of the clausal argument

• Case marking on clausal complements or clausalcorrelates

• Indexing of clausal arguments (e.g., object agreement)


Clause type selection I

Ideal situation: the dictionary specifies all admissible types ofcomplement clauses.

Challenges:

• Lack of corpus data for all complementation patterns ofthe respective predicates

• Corpus examples are sometimes too complex or do notfulfill the criteria for good examples (see Prinsloo 2013).

• The interpretation of the matrix predicate often dependson the selected clause type. In most cases, thisdependency is not stated explicitly.


Clause type selection II

The Tauya verb esimene- is interpreted as factive ‘know’ (with anominal clause) or as non-factive ‘think’ (with a direct quote).

Tauya (MacDonald 2013): esimene-

(1) know s.t.Mei fofi ʔatoutiyana esimeneʔa. I know he came andarrived here....

(2) think s.t.Neta pofa “Moʔotu pofa muʔamo nofona nipopeneʔa” opaesimenepeina. They thought that they all only ate thiskind.


Clause type selection III

Collins English for learners: believe1. verb: If you believe that something is true, you think that itis true, but you are not sure. (formal) [V that]

⇒ Experts believe that the coming drought will be extensive.[V that]

⇒ I believe you have something of mine. [V that]...

⇒ We believe them to be hidden here in this apartment. [Vso]...

Entry illustrates: that-deletion possible; usage as ECM-verb


Clause type selection IV

The following example illustrates the parenthetical usage ofthe predicate believe.

Collins English for learners: believe1. verb: If you believe that something is true, you think that itis true, but you are not sure. (formal) [V that]...

⇒ The main problem, I believe, lies elsewhere.


Argument realization of the clausal argument

Collins Spanish-English: empezar

1. ‘start, begin’2. empezar a hacer algo to start o begin to do sth, start o

begin doing sth ...3. empezar haciendo algo to begin o start by doing sth4. empezar con algo to start o begin with sth5. empezar por algo/algn to start with sth/sb, begin with

sth/sb ... ⇒ no sé por dónde empezar I don’t know whereto start o begin


Selection of root clauses I

Certain predicates select embedded root clauses. The rootclause properties are language-specific.

(2) Some root clause properties of English (Hooper &Thompson 1973)a. Never in my life have I seen such a crowd.b. On the wall hangs a portrait of Mao.c. “I won first prize,” Bill exclaimed.d. Syntax and semantics are related, I think. [S-Lifting]e. This book you should read. [Topicalization]f. This book, it has the recipe in it. [Left dislocation]


Selection of root clauses II

Collins English for learners: say

1. When you say something, you speak words. [V with quote]⇒ ’I’m sorry,’ he said.” [V that]...

3. ⇒ ’Highly inflammable,’ it says on the spare canister.4. If you say something to yourself, you think it. [V + to]⇒

Perhaps I’m still dreaming, I said to myself....


NEG-raising I

NEG-raising predicates allow for a reading in which negation ofthe matrix predicate may be interpreted as negation of theembedded predicate.

(3) Nina doesn’t believe Adam will come.a. Nina believes [Adam NEG will come].b. Nina NEG believe [Adam will come].

(4) Nina doesn’t know that Peter stole the car.a. *Nina knows [that Peter NEG stole the car].b. Nina NEG knows [that Peter stole the car].


NEG-raising II

There is cross-linguistic variation in the class of NEG-raisingpredicates.

Strong NEG-raisers Weak NEG-raisers

think hopebelieve supposewant imagineseem wish

planadvise

Table 1: Popp (2016)


NEG-raising III

Merriam Webster Online: think7: to have as an expectation : anticipate <we didn’t think we’dhave any trouble>

Possible lexicographic modelling:

think...Nina does not think that Adam will come ≈ Nina thinks thatAdam will not come.

• The class of NEG-raising predicates is small.• NEG-raising is often bound to a specific interpretation ofthe matrix predicate.


Clause union I

Languages differ in their clause union properties. The variousproperties are associated with specific clause-embeddingpredicates.

• Clitic climbing/preverb climbing• Long passive• Genitive of negation• Agreement patterns (agreement of matrix predicate withargument of the embedded verb)

• Licensing of negative polarity items• ...


Clause union II


2. empezar a hacer algo to start o begin to do sth, start obegin doing sth... ⇒ la película me está empezando a aburrir the film isstarting o beginning to bore me

(5) Lathe

películafilm

mei1sg.acc

estábe.3sg

empeza-ndostart-ptcp

[ato

aburrirbore.inf

ti].

‘the film is starting to bore me’


Clause union III

Possible lexicographic modelling:


2. ... ⇒ la película me está empezando a aburrir (←empezando a aburrir=me) the film is starting o beginningto bore me


Clause union IV

Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch Ungarisch-Deutsch: akar‘want’

1. ...be ∼ jönni/menni er will herein-/hinein (kommen/gehen)haza ∼ok menni ich will nach Hause gehen

2. ...nem ∼ok hazamenni ich mag nicht nach Hause (gehen)nem ∼om látni ich mag ihn nicht sehen

(6) a. nemneg

akar-okwant-1sg.indef

haza-mennihouse-go.inf

b. nemneg

akar-omwant-1sg.def

lát-nisee-inf


Summary

• Even large-scale dictionaries indicate only somegrammatical properties of clause-embedding predicates,often quite unsystematically.

• Grammatical properties of the respective constructionsare typically not specified.

• Modelling of the relevant properties is not always easyand may require advanced annotation of the examples.


References

Broadwell, George Aaron. 2006. A Choctaw reference grammar.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Givón, Talmy. 1980. The Binding Hierarchy and the typology ofcomplements. Studies in Language 4. 333–377.

Hooper, Joan B. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1973. On theapplicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4.465–497.

MacDonald, Lorna. 2013. A Dictionary of Tauya. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.

Munro, Pamela. 2005. From parts of speech to grammar.Studies in Language 30. 307–349.


Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Timothy Shopened., Language typology and syntactic description: Complexconstructions, Volume II, 42–140. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Popp, Marie-Luise. 2016. NEG-Raising in crosslinguisticperspective. MA thesis. University of Leipzig.

Prinsloo, Daniel J. 2013. New developments in the selection ofexamples. In Rufus H. et al. Gouws ed., Dictionaries: Aninternational encyclopedia of lexicography (Supplementaryvolume: Recent devolopments with focus on electronic andcomputational lexicography, 509–516. Berlin: De GruyterMouton.


Appendix

Control vs. raising I

Raising and control predicates exhibit different types ofsyntax-semantics mismatches:

• Raising: an argument of the embedded predicate P istreated syntactically as argument of the matrix predicatea. λP λx seem(P(x))b. λP λx stop(P(x))

• Control: the matrix predicate and the embedded predicateP share an argument, which, however, is only realizedonce (in the canonical case of infinite complementation)c. λP λx stop(x, P(x))d. λP λx try(x, P(x))e. λP λy λx order(x, y, P(y))


Control vs. raising II

Raising and control structures can be distinguished by certaintests (e.g., embedding of impersonal verbs, embedding ofsubject-idiom constructions).


2. empezar a hacer algo to start o begin to do sth, start obegin doing sth... ⇒ empezó a llover it started o began to rain, it startedo began raining


Extraction I

Only certain clause-embedding predicates (bridge verbs) allowextraction from their complement clause.

(7) a. *Howi do you regret that you behaved ti?b. Howi do you think that you behaved ti?


Extraction II

Collins Concise Spanish-English: creer...2 (= pensar) to think; ¿de dónde te crees que sacan eldinero? where do you think they get the money? ...

(8) [defrom

dónde]iwhere

te2sg

creesbelieve.2sg

[quethat

sacanget.3pl

elthe

dineromoney

ti]?

‘where do you think they get the money?’


Documents

Bridgingthegapbetweendictionariesand grammarshome.uni-leipzig.de/dictionaryjournal/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/... · Neta pofa “Moʔotu pofa muʔamo nofona nipopeneʔa” opa esimenepeina