COMPETENCE AND PERFORMANCE MODELLING …Regarding performance modelling, we ﬁrst present a summary of existing re-search (both theoretical and empirical) on sentence processing in

COMPETENCE AND PERFORMANCE

MODELLING OF FREE WORD ORDER

GEERT-JAN M. KRUIJFF & SHRAVAN VASISHTH

Copyright (c) 2001, Geert-Jan M. Kruijf f andShravanVasishth

Addresses:

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f

Computational Linguistics

University of theSaarland

Postfach 15 11 50

D-66041 Saarbruecken(Germany)�[email protected] �

Shravan Vasishth

Departmentof Linguistics

Ohio StateUniversity

Columbus,Ohio (USA)�[email protected] �

This document hasbeentypesetby the authorsusing LATEX 2� with the bookufal class

(whichextendsthestandardLATEX 2� book class).Otherpackages thathavebeenusedare

ChrisManning’s avm packagefor typesettingattribute-valuematrices,Hans-PeterKolb’s

gb4e andcgloss4e packagesfor typesettingtheexamples,PaulTaylor’s prooftree pack-

ageandMakotoTatsuta’s proof package for typesetting proofs, the �� -LATEX distribu-

tionof theAmericanMathematical Society, theAssociationfor ComputationalLinguistics’

acl packagefor citationcommands,andMichaelCovington’s drs macros for typesetting

discourserepresentation structures. The pictures werecreatedusingXFig andthe epic

family of graphical packages.Finally, theindexeshavebeencreatedusingMakeIndex and

F.W. Long’s multind package.

COMPETENCE AND PERFORMANCE MODELL ING OF FREE

WORD ORDER

Geert-Jan M. Kruijf f & ShravanVasishth

Abstract

Thecourse surveys competenceandperformanceissuesrelating to modelling

grammarsof freeword orderlanguages.

Regarding competenceissues,we focuson two fundamental issues:adjacency

(unbounded dependencies, crossed andnested dependencies),and the power re-

quiredof theformal apparatususedto explain freeword order. In this context, we

survey variousapproaches to modelling freeword orderin natural languagegram-

mars(notable,categorialgrammar).Following thePragueschool of linguistics,we

arguethatvariation in wordorder is astructuralmeansto realize informationstruc-

ture- just like intonationin English, or theuseof specific morphological particles

in Japanese.

Regarding performancemodelling, we first present a summaryof existing re-

search (both theoretical andempirical) on sentenceprocessingin Dutch,German,

Japanese,andKoreanthat focuseson dependency issues(like cross-serial center-

embedding, and scrambling). We also presentnew research on Hindi sentence

processing that sheds new light on the cross-linguistic issuescurrently underin-

vestigationin theliterature.

We concludeby presenting a coherent computational modelof grammarsfor

theselanguagesthattakesinto account thecompetenceandperformanceissuesand

facts discussedearlier in thecourse.

Course prerequisities: None.

CONTENTS

Intr oduction ix

0.1 Trying to understandvariability in word order . . . . . . . . . . . ix

0.2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

1 Form and function in DependencyGrammar Logic 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Syntactic categoriesandcomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2.1 Thehead/dependentasymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2.2 Categoriesandcomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3 Relating form andfunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.3.1 Modeling morphological form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.3.2 DGL’s linking theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1.3.3 Thecomposition of linguistic meaning . . . . . . . . . . 30

1.4 Typology, form, andstructural rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1.4.1 Structural rules andgradual refinement . . . . . . . . . . 37

1.4.2 Multili ngualnetworks of structural rules. . . . . . . . . . 38

2 Theoriesof Inf ormation Structur e 41

2.1 Informationstructurein linguistic meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.2 Informationstructurein thePragueSchool . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.3 Steedman’s Theme/Rheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2.4 InformationPackaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2.5 Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.6 Informationstructurein DGL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3 The category of informativity 77

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3.2 Basicword order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

3.2.1 Hawkins’ typology of basic word order . . . . . . . . . . 80

v

3.2.2 A typological modelof basic word order in DGL . . . . . 81

3.3 Variability in (basic) word ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.4 Thecategory of informativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

3.4.1 Thenull hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

3.4.2 Predicting a language’s canonical focusposition . . . . . 95

3.4.3 Focusprojection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

3.4.4 Changing focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4 A formal modelof word order asstructura l indication of informativity 107

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4.2 Modelsof flexible word order in categorial grammar . . . . . . . 108

4.2.1 Steedman’s CCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

4.2.2 Hoffman’s Multiset-CCG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

4.2.3 Baldridge’s Set-CCG,modalizedCCG . . . . . . . . . . 112

4.2.4 Modelsof word order in CTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

4.3 Variability of word order in DGL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

4.3.1 Preliminariesto theformulation of thepackages . . . . . 121

4.3.2 OV packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4.3.3 V-First packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

4.3.4 SVO packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

4.4 Modeling thestrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

5 A formal model of tune asstructural indication of informativity 161

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

5.2 Steedman’s syntax-phonology interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

5.3 Tunein DGL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

5.4 Interacting tuneandword order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

6 DGL, topic/focus,and discourse 171

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

6.2 Dynamicinterpretation of information structure . . . . . . . . . . 172

6.3 Binding across(clausal)boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

7 An empirical evaluation of sentenceprocessing models 189

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

7.2 Whatarecenter embeddingsandwhy arethey interesting? . . . . 190

7.3 Threemodels of sentenceprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Contents /vii

7.3.1 Joshi’s Embedded PushdownAutomaton (1990) . . . . . 193

7.3.2 Predictionsof theEPDA modelfor Hindi CECs. . . . . . 197

7.3.3 Concluding remarksregarding theEPDA model. . . . . . 198

7.3.4 Gibson’s Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory(1998/1999) 199

7.3.5 Lewis’ Interference andConfusability Theory (1998/1999) 200

7.4 Centerembeddingsin Hindi: Threeexperiments. . . . . . . . . . 203

7.4.1 Experiment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

7.4.2 Experiment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

7.4.3 Experiment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

7.4.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

8 Processing asAbduction+Deduction:

A SentenceProcessingModel 213

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

8.2 Processing asabduction+deduction: Themainproposal . . . . . . 215

8.2.1 Abduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

8.2.2 Somedefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

8.2.3 Thealgorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

8.3 Theempirical coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

8.3.1 Japanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

8.3.2 DutchandGerman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

8.3.3 Hindi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

8.4 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

References 237

List of Figures 249

LanguageIndex 250

NameIndex 251

Subject Index 253

viii � Contents

CHAPTER 0

INTRODUCTION

0.1 TRYING TO UNDERSTAND VARIABILITY IN WORD ORDER

Thiscourseis about trying to understand variability in wordorder. Not just how we

canprovidea modelfor it, but in particular whenandwhy variation occurs, how

that variation interacts with other levels of linguistic structure, and how people

processvariation in word order.

Theprincipalunderstandingweadvancehereis thatvariability in wordorderis

notarbitrarybut sensitive to context – variability is ameansfor speakersto express

information structure. Naturally, this raisesthequestionswhenalanguageactually

allows a speaker to do so,andhow variation might interactwith for example tune.

Thesequestionsarenot easilyanswered. Determining whena languagehasa

certain degreeof variability in wordorderis anissuethathasbarelybeenaddressed

in linguistics.Steele(1978) proposedto definethreediscretedegreesof wordorder

variability: rigid, mixed, and free, elaborating on the work on basicword order

typologydonebyfor exampleGreenberg (1966). However, Steeledoesnotprovide

a satisfactory answerfor how to predict a languagehasa certain degreeof word

order variability . Moreover, we should consider a cline from rigid to free word

orderrather thandiscrete degrees:Both DutchandGermanaremixedword order

languages,yet Germanis freer in its word order than Dutch. Oneof the points

we addressin this courseis how onecould go about constructing a typology that

predicts variability.

Turningto theissueof modeling word ordervariability , we find that mostfor-

malmodels of word order do not take informationstructureinto account asa prin-

ciple to explain why variation occurs(with theexception of for example(Hajicova

et al., 1995; Hoffman,1995a)). Word ordervariation is usually not the only fac-

tor in realizing informationstructure though. Whether we look at languageswith

mixed word order like Dutch or German,or thosewith a relatively free word or-

der like Hindi, Hungarian, or Turkish, we find that variation often interactswith

ix

x � Introduction

tune. Theinteraction guides,or restricts, theexact interpretation of thesentence’s

surfaceform. But not all formal frameworks canmodel this type of interaction.

We argue herethat transformational grammarcannot, that the current versionsof

Combinatory Categorial Grammar(CCG,MCCG – (Steedman,2000c; Hoffman,

1995a))faceproblemsaswell, andthatmostincarnationsof HPSG appear to lack

themeansto give a principledway to explain thephenomenaat hand.

The framework that we proposehere conceivesof informationstructure asa

fundamentalaspect of sentential linguistic meaning, andit explains e.g. word or-

der and tune in termsof how they realize information structure. We present a

variety of competencemodelsthat model this – not just how word orderor tune

may do so on their own, but alsoin interaction. Thereby, an important aspect of

these modelsis theway they areformulated.Ratherthanpresenting fragmentsfor

individual languages, wepresentarchitecturesof fragments. In thesearchitectures,

fragmentscanbeshared acrosslanguages, with which we canmodelcommonali-

ties anddifferencesamong(related)languages.The typological story getsfolded

into thesearchitecturesasfollows. Weconsiderthetypological implications to de-

termine whether or not a languagehasaccessto a particular fragment(modeling

specific phenomena).This leadsto the idea of a “typological universalgrammar”

(Hawkins,1983) that promotesvariety rather thanthetypeof monoliticy advanced

in Chomskian universal grammar. The structure we give it strongly reminds of

morefunctionalist approaches like (Halliday, 1985).

Comment Something on the relation between competence/performance?

Comment Performance modeling

In the remainder of the introduction we give a moredetailed overview of the

individual chapters.

0.2 OVERVIEW

In Chapter 1, Form and function in DependencyGrammar Logic I begin by

showing thehybrid logic of linguistic meaningdevelopedin (Kruijf f, 2001) canbe

tied to the resource-sensitive proof theory of categorial type logic. Hybrid logic

(Blackburn,2000) enables usto give anonthologically fine-grainedrepresentation

of the meaning that a sentenceexpresseslinguistically. By tying hybrid logic to-

gether with categorial grammar, we defineDGL asa framework of grammar. To

Introduction /xi

that end I first of all definethe formal apparatus,in the shapeof a headedcate-

gorial calculusin which theanalysisof form leads to thecompositional formation

of linguistic meaning. Like any other categorial approach,theinferencein DGL’s

calculusis drivenby categoriesthatarereflectionsof theunderlying meaningthey

realize. Traditionally the logical tradition derivescategories from Ty -formulas,

but DGL no longer doesthis - it usesa dependency-based, hybrid-logical spec-

ification of meaning. The main issuethat thus arises, is how to let a category

reflecta predicate-valency structureand its dependency relations. But this is no

new issue. Key observationshave beenmadeby Mathesius, Jakobson,and-later-

Kuryłowicz regarding the relation betweenmorphological form anddependency

relations. I argue how theseobservations canbe fruitfully used to provide a pro-

cedure of category-formationthat is basedon linguistic motivations- a possibility

arising from thePraguianview on dependency grammar.I endthechapterwith a

proposalfor anapproachto cross-linguisticmodeling in categorial grammar,intro-

ducing theconcept of a grammararchitecture.

Whatthisfirst chapterprovidesis adependency-basedgrammarformalism that

finds its linguistic motivation in the PragueSchoolof Linguistics, andwhich can

construct logical descriptions of linguistic meaning in a compositional andmono-

tonic way usinga categorial analysisof a sentence’s form. By virtue of a detailed

description of aspectual categoriesanddependency relations,the formulation of a

sentence’s linguistic meaning in DGL not only elucidates which dependents mod-

ify what heads, but alsowhat causal andtemporal entailmentsaretriggered. On

thecategorial side,DGL developsout aheaded calculus,morphological strategies,

andthenotion of agrammararchitecture. Takenaltogether, this providesuswith a

basisfor thesubsequentchapters.

The overall aim of the next chapters is to provide a preliminary account of

how we canexplain the realizationof information structure across typologically

different languages,andhow suchanexplanation canbeintegratedinto agrammar

framework.

I startwith Chapter 2, Theories of information structur e. In this chapter,

I discuss various theories of informationstructure that have found their way into

formal grammar. Basedon reflections on thesetheories,I motivatewhy I opt for

the Praguian approachandhow it is (conceptually) closely related to Steedman’s

theory of information structure. The chapter ends with definitions spelling out

how information structure is represented in DGL (contextual boundness, topic-

focusarticulation), andafew preliminary remarksonthedynamicinterpretationof

xii � Introduction

linguistic meaning andits informationstructure,to bedefinedlater in Chapter 6.

In Chapter 3, The category of informativity , I discussa basic typological

characterizationof whenlanguagesusevariability in word orderor tuneto realize

informationstructure, thustrying to characterizecontextual boundness asa typo-

logical category of informativity. The characterizationis based on empirical data

from a variety of typologically different languages, anda new typology of vari-

ability in word order. First I formulate a setof typological hypothesesthatpredict

whether a languagehasrigid, mixed,or freeword order, integrating(Steele,1978)

with Skalicka’s languagetypology (SkalickaandSgall,1994;Sgall,1995). Subse-

quently, I argue for a setof hypothesesthatpredict whereto expectthe canonical

focus position, andwhenlanguagesuseword order, tuneor a combinationthereof

to realize information structure. Thesesetsof hypotheses form the typological

basis for thegrammararchitecturesto bepresentedin thenext two chapters.

In Chapter 4, A formal model of word order as structura l indication of

informativity , I elaboratevariousgrammararchitecturesthatmodelvariability in

word order andhow that variability canbe usedasa structural indication of in-

formativity. Thearchitecturesareillustratedon a largenumber of examplesfrom

a variety of languages. The approachI take to modeling variability is motivated

in thebeginning of thechapter, whereI present a discussionof variouscategorial

accountsthathave beenprovidedto modelvariation in word order.Here,I opt for

viewing adjacency asa parameter. This enablesus to consider informationstruc-

tureasaprimaryfactor (parameter)determining wordorder. Information structure

andword orderasa structural indicationof informativity arerelated through the

notion of systemic ordering, which indicatesherewhether dependents are real-

ized in canonical orderor not. This providesa useful abstractionover a concrete

prosodic/syntactic structure, and I show in the next chapter how it enables us to

smoothly integrate tune and word order as structural indication of informativity

into a single model.

Besides word order languagesusually also use tune to realize information

structure– sometimesevenpredominantly so,like in thecaseof English. In Chap-

ter 5, A formal model of tune asstructural indication of informativity , I begin

with a discussionof Steedman’s modelof English tunedevelopedin Combinatory

Categorial Grammar.I thenpresent a moreabstractmodelof tunethatcanbe in-

stantiatedto cover different languages, andthatovercomesa few problemsI note

for Steedman’s proposal. The chapter ends with a discussion of how we canin-

clude the modelof tune in the word orderarchitecturesof Chapter4, to provide

Introduction /xiii

a modelof the interaction betweentuneandword order in realizing information

structure.

Finally, in Chapter 6, DGL, topic/focus,and discourse, I addressthe inter-

pretionof sentence’slinguisticmeaning. After (Peregrin, 1995; Kruijf f-Korbayova,

1998)I definethe interpretation of linguistic meaning dynamically, guidedby the

linguistic meaning’s information structure. I usehybrid logic to provideareformu-

lation of Kruijf f-Korbayova’s TF-DRT (Kruij ff-Korbayova, 1998). On the result-

ing proposalI illustratehow binding acrossclausescanbe modeled using hybrid

logic’s jump-operator.

To recapitulate, I provideherea preliminary, typological account of how word

ordervariability andtunecanrealizeinformationstructure.Thisaccount is coupled

to comprehensivemodelsof wordorder tuneasstructural indicationof informativ-

ity. Thegrammararchitecturescanbeusedin DGL to createa representation of a

sentence’s linguistic meaning, including informationstructure,asthe result of an

analysisof thatsentence’s form. At theend,I show how such a representation can

befurther interpreted onadiscoursemodelthatis sensitiveto informationstructure

(Kruijf f-Korbayova, 1998).

SOURCES

Chapters2 through7 arefrom Geert-Jan Kruijf f ’sdissertationentitledA Categorial-

Modal Logical Architectureof Informativity: Dependency GrammarLogic & In-

formation Structure (Kruijf f, 2001). Chapter 8 is to appear as..., whereas Chapter

9 is publishedas...

xiv � Introduction

CHAPTER 1

FORM AND FUNCTION IN DEPENDENCY

GRAMMAR LOGIC

Dependency GrammarLogic (DGL) is a dependency-basedgrammarframework in which a

categorial calculus is usedto analyze form and deliver the kind of representation of a sen-

tence’s linguistic meaning as discussedin the previous chapters. This chapter develops the

foundationsfor DGL. I introducethecategorial calculus,anddiscusshow it canbeemployed to

deliver a dependency-basedanalysisof form. To that end,I first discusshow head/dependent-

asymmetriescanbecaptured,andhow morphologicalstrategiescanbemodeled. Subsequently,

I show how linguistic meaningcanbeformedcompositionally, in parallel to theanalysisof form.

Thetwo principal issuesin thatdiscussionareDGL’s linking theory, relating predicate-valency

structuresandsyntactic categories,andthe interpretation of wordgroupsasparticular types of

dependents.Finally, I presenta proposal for how to construct multil ingualgrammarfragments

in DGL, introducingtheconcept of architecture.

... �� "! �#$�%�&� �#'� � ( � �)... [the] wayup [and] down [is] oneand[the] same.

Heraclitus,Diels-Kranz22B 60

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter I lay thefoundationsfor DependencyGrammarLogic, or DGL for

short. My aim hereis to explain how the discussionof the previous two chapters

can be related to an extended form of categorial grammars (namely, categorial

type logics). The result is the basis for a dependency-basedgrammarframework

that foll ows the Praguian form/function distinction. For one, DGL should enable

us to constructgrammarfragments that modelparticular phenomenafor a given

language,foll owing out a dependency grammarperspective. But there is more:

Dueto thefundamental role thatthe(abstract)relationsbetweenform andfunction

play, DGL alsoenablesusto develop a cross-linguistic perspective on phenomena

in natural languages. This latter point is very salient in Praguianlinguistics but

has,unfortunately, received little or no attention in contemporary formal theories

of grammar.

1

2� Formandfunction in Dependency GrammarLogic

To startoff, I begin in section 1.2with aconsiderationof thenatureof syntactic

categoriesandcomposition in DGL. I presenthow categoriesandcomposition can

bebuilt aroundtheidea of a head-dependent asymmetry, andhow dependency re-

lationsandmorphological informationarerepresented in categories. Subsequently,

I work out thelinking theory andthecategorial-hybrid logical calculusin * 1.3. At

the endof this chapter I develop the ideaof integrating cross-linguistic (or typo-

logical,or multilingual)modeling into DGL.

1.2 SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES AND COMPOSITION

In the lexicon, we assigneachword a syntactic category. That category is either

a basic category or a function category. A basic category is atomic- for example,+- andindicatesthat theword does not rely on thepresenceof further arguments

to be provided for that word to enter into a grammatical composition. On the

contrary, a functional category specifies oneor moreargumentsthat areneeded,

andaresulting category thatis affected onceall theargumentshavebeen provided.

The familiar slashes ,&-/. areused to indicatethe position relative to the function

wheretheargumentis expected.

Historically, therearetwo waysin which functional categoriescanbewritten.

Oneway is dueto Lambek,theother is dueto Steedman.TheLambek-notation is

characterizedby thefactthatall theargumentsexpectedto theleft areplacedto the

left of theresulting category, andsimilarly with all theargumentsexpectedto the

right. On the otherhand,Steedman’s notation putsthe resulting category always

up front, after which all the argumentsfoll ow, againwith slashesindicatingtheir

directionality. Thefollowing examples illustratethedifferences- the(a) examples

usethe Lambek-notation, the (b)-examplesusethe Steedman-notation. To illus-

tratemoreclearly which argumentis what,we specify thetype of dependent each

argumentoughtto be: 021 meanstheargumentis a dependentof type 3 .(1) English

“Actor walks.”

a. walks 4507698;: + ,=<b. walks 4><?,=0 628@: +

(2) English

“Actor givesPatient Addr essee.”

a. gives 4BACA;0D628@:FEHG + ,=<?IC.=0 62J�JCGCKMLNLNKHK + IC.=0PORQ�:�S�KNTU: +

Formandfunction in Dependency Grammar Logic /3

b. gives 4VACA;<?,=0D698;:FENG + IC.=0 69JWJCGCKHLHLXKHK + IC.=0PORQW:�S�KNT�: +(3) Czech“ cteActor Addr esseePatient.” (English: reads)

a. cte 4BACA;<Y.=0DORQW:�S�KNT�: + IC.=0 69J�J�GMKMLHLXKHK + IC.=0P698;:FENG +b. cte 4ZACA;<[.=0 ORQW:�S�KNT�: + IC.=0 69J�J�GMKMLHLXKHK + IC.=0 698;:FENG +

(4) Japanese“Actor AddresseePatient ageta” (English: gave)

a. ageta 4>0DORQW:�S�KNT�: + ,\A;0 62J�JCGCKMLNLNKHK + ,\A;0]698@:FEHG + ,=<ÎCIb. ageta 4BACA;<^,=0 628@:FEHG + IC,=0 69J�J�GMKMLHLXKHK + IC,=0 ORQ�:�S�KNTU: +

Throughout the dissertation I useSteedman-style notation. Technically, the

Lambek-notation and Steedman-notation are just notational variants (as can be

easily verified). From the viewpoint of readability, though, it seemsthat Steed-

man-style categories remainmore perspicuous even in the presenceof detailed

information about form - becausethe resulting category is alwaysclearly located

at thebeginning.1

Definition 1 (Categoriesvalid in DGL). Givena setof basic categories _ , a set

of dependencyrelations ` , a setof features a (e.g. to specify aspectsof form),and

a setof modesb . Thenthesetof valid (or well-formed)categories in DGL, c JCdWecanbedefinedasfollows.

1. Everybasiccategory fhgi_ is a well-formedcategory: fjg�c JCdWe .2. Giventwo categories fkSH-�f�ljgmc JCdWe and a mode nogpb , thenthe follow-

ing categoriesare alsoin c J�dWe : ANf S ,Uq�f l I/-rANf S .Uq�f l I/-rANf S9s q�f l I , with f S the

resulting category.

Furthermore,let themodalprefix t of a category bethatsequenceof unary modal-

ities 0 , uwv that prefixes a category C, with C beingeither basic, or of the form

ANf2S;,'f�l�I/-rANf2SN.'fxlUI/-rANfyS s fxlUI . Then,thefollowing categoriesarealsovalid in DGL:

3. Givena dependency relation 3zg{` , anda category t�f , thenthefollowing

categories are also in c JCdWe iff 071 doesnot appear in the modal prefix t :

0P1/t�fjg�c JCdWe .4. Givena feature |}g~a , and a category t�f , thenthe following categories

are also in c JCdWe iff there is no (modalized) feature |r� in t that would -

linguistically- contravenewith | : u v�� tif7-/0 � t�fhg�c JCdWe .1Therearealsosomecomputational “arguments”- Steedman-stylecategoriesaremoreconve-

nientwhenit comesto parsingcategorial typelogics,cf. (Kruijf f, 1999b).


Valid categories are all thosecategories that can be specified on the basis of

steps 1-4; nothing elseis a valid category in DGL. �Remark 1. A few remarksarein place.Steps1 and2 build up c J�dWe in a straight-

forward way. Following the traditional formulations of categorial type logics (cf.

(Hepple,1994; Moortgat,1997a;Morril l, 1994)) we includeproducts s q (pairing),

besidesslashes , q -/. q . Step3 defines categories involving thespecification of de-

pendency relations, in such a way that we exclude the possibility to specify one

argumentto beinterpretable astwo dependency relations:

(5) a. thecategory A;<?,r�9LX8W0]698@:FEHG�0PORQ�:�S�KNTU: + I is invalid, becauseanargument

cannot bea verb’s Actor aswell asits Patient.

b. thecategory ACA;<?,U�9LN8W0P698;:FENG�IC. J�8M� 0PORQW:�S�KXT�: + is valid

Step4 avoids the situation in which oneandthe samecategory getsspecified

ashaving, for example,botha nominative andanaccusative inflection.2 �

1.2.1 THE HEAD/DEPENDENT ASYMMETRY

How do we incorporate the idea of a head-dependent asymmetry into our cate-

gories? To begin with, it hasbeenoften observed in the pastthat the functional

categoriesfoundin categorial grammarincorporatealreadyanideaof adistinction

between headsanddependents. Bar-Hillel, after all, consideredcategorial gram-

marto beadependencygrammarandnotaconstituency grammar. Amongthefirst

to exploretheideaof representing ahead-dependentasymmetry in categorial gram-

marin moredepth wasVenneman(1977). Contemporaryproposalsfor includinga

notion of head in categorial grammarinclude Barry andPickering (1992), Moort-

gatandMorrill (1991), and-basedupon the latterproposal- MoortgatandOehrle

(1994), andHepple(1994; 1996; 1997).

MoortgatandMorrill develop in (1991) a calculus thataimsat combining the

notion of constituency or phrasalstructure(i.e. linearization),andhead-dependent

asymmetry. Although their effort looks similar to what Vennemansetout to do

in his (1977), this time just using the more powerful categorial type logics, this

would neverthelessnot be correct. Whereas Venneman sought to combine con-

stituency/linearizationandahead-dependentasymmetry using thefunction/argument

2Notethatif thecategorywouldbeassignedtoawordthatismorphologically ambiguousbetweenbeingnominativeor accusative,thensuchshouldbecapturedusinganunderspecifiedmorphologicalmarking- cf. (Heylen,1999) andthediscussionaboutunderspecificationbelow.


structureof categories,this is exactly whatMoortgatandMorrill arenot trying to

do:

“The important point hereis that we consider the dependency asymmetry

asanautonomousdimensionof linguistic organization - a dimensionwhich

maycross-cut thedistinctionsthatcanbemadein termsof thefunction/argument

opposition.” (1991)(p.15).

MoortgatandMorrill contrasttheir ideaswith approacheswhereahead-dependent

asymmetryis defined in termsof function/argumentstructure,like BarryandPick-

ering’s (1992), arguing that in suchtheories“[headedness]is a derivative concept

justemployedin elucidation.” (ibid.) Whether weagreewith this position or not is

not thepoint at themoment- let usfirst have a closer look at their proposal,which

formedtheinspirationfor many othersto follow later.

Moortgat andMorrill startoff discussing how constituency canbehandled by

categorial type logics of a fairly limited power - namely, thenonassociative Lam-

bek-calculus NL andthe associative calculus L. Oneof the downsides of the as-

sociative Lambek-calculus L is its insensitivity to domains of constituency: The

immediateconstituency hypothesisgivesrise to a fairly rigid bracketing scheme,

which the L is of course imperviousto dueto its associative character. Moortgat

andMorrill discusshow acombinationof NL andL leadto a (hybrid) calculusthat

not only overcomesthis apparentproblem,but -moreimportantly- givesriseto the

well-knownnotion of “flexible constituency”.

Subsequently, MoortgatandMorrill present anon-associativecalculusin which

it is explicitly represented which of thetwo componentsin abinary structureis the

head. As Morril l clarifies later in his (1994)(p.88ff), the calculus developed in

(Moortgat andMorrill , 1991) is essentially NL with subscripts � and � addedto its

operators. The � marksthat in a binary structure the left constituent is the head,

whereas� indicatesthattheright constituent is thehead.

Thoughsimplein nature, theproposalmakesessential useof thepossibiliti es

of categorial type logics to control the construction of trees. For example, struc-

tural rulesfor associativity aregiventhatshowhow headed-nessis preservedover

rebracketing (even though constituency structure is, obviously, changed). Moort-

gatandMorrill illustratetheir approachonmetrical trees, whicharebinarytreesin

whicheachmother nodemarksonedaughternodeasstrongly stressedandanother

asweaklystressed.

With metrical trees,MoortgatandMorril l try to makeacasefor theirargument

that headedness should be consideredasa primitive concept, not asonederived


from function/argumentstructure.For example,consider theirexample(44)(p.17),

heregivenas(6):

(6) English

“What happened?”

a. Johnarrived.

b. Johnleft.

Moortgat andMorrill point out that the neutral utteranceof (6(a)) hasstress

on “John” - stress on the verb would put the verb ‘in focus’. On the otherhand,

neutral utteranceof (6(b)) hasthe stresson theverb. Using �;.U� to indicatewhich

constituent receivesstress, wecanrepresenttheexamplesasthefollowing metrical

configurations(7).

(7) (MoortgatandMorrill , 1991)(Example45,p.17)

a. � e Johnarrived]

b. � G Johnleft]

Then,to quote MoortgatandMorril l,

“Observethatany attemptto characterize prosodicstructurepurelyin terms

of the function/argumentasymmetry would have to treatthetwo verbson a

par: herethenwe seeanexample of theautonomouscharacterof thedepen-

dency dimension.” (1991)(p.17)

Moortgat andMorrill closetheir discussionwith remarking that the calculus

they develop canmodeldifferent typesof dependency - not just theprosodic per-

spective they take,but for examplealsosyntacticor semantic typesof dependency.

Let usreturnthento MoortgatandMorrill’ spoint that phrasingahead-dependent

asymmetry in termsof function/argument-structuremissesthepoint: function/argument-

structure elucidates linearization, and the head-dependent asymmetry might cut

acrossthat. In otherwords,linearization anddependency aretwo differentdimen-

sions,andshould thereforebekeptseparate. Forexample,considertheprototypical

category for asentential adjunct, like a temporal adverbial: <�,^< . Thiscategory is

a function, taking averbasits argument.However, thehead-dependentasymmetry

is exactly theopposite,astheverbgovernsthetemporal adjunct. A templatefor an

appropriate categorial assignmentwould thusbe <�,/�/�7< .

Sgalletal. makethesamepoint, thoughin adifferentguise- “The relationships

between a head(governor) and its modifications, rather than relative closeness


(constituency) arewhat dependency grammarsarebasedon [...]” (1986)(p.136).

From the viewpoint of dependency grammar,the point that Moortgat and Mor-

rill stress is perhaps not asstriking as it may appear - dependency grammarians

havealwaysconsidereddependency to constituteadifferentdimension. Venneman

phrased this very nicely: constituency deals with horizontal organization, depen-

dency deals with vertical organization. And not only in dependency grammarthis

ideahassurfaced. For example, GPSGandHPSG alsodistinguish two separate

dimensions,asexpressedby their treeadmissibilit y conditions: ID-rules statehi-

erarchical relationships,andLP-rulesspecify linearization relations(Gazdaretal.,

1985;Pollard andSag,1993).

It is this point, that linearization anddependency structurearenot isomorphic

but represent orthogonal dimensions, that we should bearin mind. What Moort-

gat and Morril l can be understoodto argue for is not that we cannot usefunc-

tion/argument structuresto representa head-dependentasymmetry - we can,but

the directionality of the slashesneed not mirror the head-dependentasymmetry,

nor is it the casethat structural rules controlling linearization necessarily leadto

changesin dependency structure.

With that in mind, let us now turn to Hepple’s proposal. Heppleoriginally

developedanapproachof locality (head-domains)in hisdissertation (1990), based

onMorrill ’suseof unary modals to modellocality in thecontext of binding (1990;

1994). Simply put,unary modalswould marktheboundariesof a domain. Hepple

critically reflectson this approachthough in (1994; 1997), makingthe point that

his approachallowed the specification of boundaries to be decoupledfrom other

aspects of structure- thusrendering thespecification rather stipulative. Insteadof

usingunary modals,Hepplethereforeswitches for MoortgatandMorrill ’soriginal

proposalto encode informationregarding head/dependentasymmetriesdirectly on� ,&-/.&- s'� . WhatmakesHepple’sdiscussionin (1994; 1997) particularly interesting

is that Heppleaddssomeexplanatory notions like R-heads, R-dependents, anda

discussionof headdomains - all of which will prove to beuseful.

1.2.2 CATEGORIES AND COMPOSITION

How canwe definehow categoriesdo compose?To begin with, we needto define

a nonassociative calculus that serves as our basis. Again, we take a (labelled)

natural deductionformulation of whatMoortgat andOehrlecall “the logic of pure

residuation”. This logic definesthebasic behavior commonto all� , q -/. q - s q � and

07SX-/u�v�S , andis thereforesometimesalsocalled the “base logic”. Note that we do


not yet definetheoperations on thesemantics isomorphic to theoperationson the

categories.

Definition 2 (Proof calculus of pure residuation). The proof calculus of pure

residuation, equivalent to the formal part of the nonassociative Lambekcalculus

NL, is definedasfollows.Givenanymodality n in b , thesetof modalities,

��}� �� Y� �� 7�� %� � �2�"�� o�}� � � �� 2��m�

¡ �o�}�]¢U£/£W££££ � �¤� � �9��m� ¥� �� ¦�

� �¤� � �y�§�}�£/£W£ ¡ �o�}�]¢£££ ¥ � �� ¨� � �¦�

¡ © �}�ª¢ ¡ « �p¬¦¢£££� ¡��©¯® � « �°¢²±m� ��± � � ® � ¬ª� � ® �� ¡ ��¢¯±}�

��±}� ��±}� ¥ ® �� %� � �2�"±�� ® � �

For the unary modals we havethe following rules defining residuation. In E ³weallow for theelimination of a diamond ³=´ by a lessspecific ³2µ while retaining

mode¶ .

·"± ¸ ¥ ¹º ·y»;¼2± ¹

¼ ¸ ·"± ¹¼ ¸

¡ © ± ¸]¢£££½ ¡º�© »$¾�¢\± � ¿ ¹½ ¡ ·�¢\± �

º ·2» ¼ ± ¸ ¥=À¦Á¼·�± À Á

¼ ¸·"± À Á

¼ ¸ ¿ À Á¼º ·y»;¼9± ¸

Notethat wehavedefinedthese rulesfor Steedman-style notation of

categories.ÂRemark 2 (Pure residuation definesstrict concatenation.). Thecalculus given

in Definition 2 only enables us to modela very restrictedform of concatenation.


Lateron, we will relax the rigidity that thecalculus imposes, by adding structural

rulesthatenable usto modify structures(representedin thelabels before theturn-

style Ã ) in a controlled fashion. ÂIn DGL we usethe arrows Ä , Å asa notation for headedmodes.This nota-

tion is reminiscentfrom dependency grammar(for example,seeHudson’s Word

Grammaror Mel’ cuk’s Meaning-Text Model), with the arrow pointing from the

headto thedependent- seeFigure1.1 for two examplesof dependency structures

(arc- versus tree-representation). In a structure Æ$ÇÈÅÊÉ�Ë , Ç is the headand É the

dependent,whereasin Æ$Ç{Ä~É�Ë[Ç is thedependentand É thehead.

Christopher greeted Kathy cheerfully

greeted

Christoper Kathy cheerfully

Figure1.1: Simpledependency structure

Ratherthan a single couple of modes Å¯Ì�Ä , we distinguish various modes,

depending on thenature of thehead(andsometimes,thatof thecomplementm,as

for ÍrÎ ). Eachmode ÏrÅ or ÄÐÏ comesfully equippedwith aproductandits residuals,

i.e. wehave Ñ�ÒUÓ/Ô?Ì/Õ Ó/Ô?Ì/Ö Ó/Ô?× and Ñ�ÒÙØ9Ó�Ì/Õ'Ø9Ó�Ì/Ö'Ø9ÓU× . Thisnaturally follows from the

basiclaw of residuation Ú>ÛÝÜÞÕ�µ@ß if f Ú�Ö�µ$ÜVÛàß if f ÜZÛÝÚ¨ÒrµXß , and-albeit

intuitively- from the fact that we regarddependency ( ÏPÅ¯Ì�ÄiÏ ) and linearization

( Ñ�Ò&Ì/Õ&Ì/Ö'× ) asseparatedimensions.

Remark 3 (Endo-/exocentricity canmodelobligatoriness/optionalit y). Follow-

ing Bloomfield,andVenneman’s discussionin (1977), we canmake a distinction

betweenanendocentric category andanexocentric category. An endocentriccat-

egory is a function category in which theheadof theresulting construction is pro-

vided by the function category itself. On the contrary, an exocentric category is

a function category in which the headof the resulting category is provided by

an argumentof the category.3 Examplesof endocentriccategories arecategories

for verbslike Æ;<áÒÐØ9âN8�³Pã98;:FäNå�æhË or Æ;<�Ò�Ø9âN8W³Pã98;:FäNåçæáËCÕ�è 8MÔ ³PéRê�: µ�ëNì :@æ . Exocentric

categories areusually assigned to adverbials (prototypically of the form <[Õ=< ) or

adjectives(prototypically of theform æ§Õçæ ).

The important point of making this distinction is that it enables us to -in a

sense- complete theaccount that DGL givesof FGD’s valency combinatorics. As

I already discussedearlier, the exact modal character of a dependency relation3Seefor similarperspectives(Malmkjæ,1996)(p.218,276)or (PollardandSag,1993).

10í Formandfunction in Dependency GrammarLogic

in a predicate-valency structuredeterminesits behaviorasan inner participant or

free modifier. Furthermore, obligatorinessof argumentsis modeled in a rather

obvious way, by including themin the endocentric category of the head they are

obligatoryargumentsto. Optionality I modelin DGL using exocentriccategories,

anda lexical meaning thataddsthemeaning of thedependent to thatof theheadit

modifies.An exocentric category for anoptionalargumentof ahead with resulting

category ß is prototypically specified as ß¨ÕCØ9Ó�ß or ß�ÒªÓ/ÔYß . Themeaningof the

argumentessentially is arecipethat takesthemeaning of theheadandconjoins the

meaning of theargumentto it, using theappropriatedependency relation. ÂTo illustratehow ÏrÅ or ÄÐÏ modeswork,webegin by consideringthestructures

presentedearlier in Figure1.1. Omitting informationabout dependency relations

for themoment,theproof in (8) illustrateshow thesestructureswould bederived.

(8)Christopherîwï

greetedî ð�ñxò�ó=ô$õNï¯ö@÷WõXø�ï Kathy î�ï ù ÷/úð greetedû2õXø kathöxî ð�ñxò�ó=ôüõHï¯ö ù ò úð Christopherû ó=ô$õ ð greetedû õNø kathö@ö�î�ñ cheerfully î�ñ�òMý ø ñ ù ÷ úð@ð ChristopherûDó=ôüõYð greetedû9õNø kathö@ö&û ý ø�þHÿ�� öxî¨ñ

Christoper greeted Kathy cheerfully

< sc

a >

c >

Figure1.2: Simpledependency structure

Thelinear structure(thelabel) ÆCÆ ChristopherÖCØ9âX87Æ greetedÖ�8MÔ kathËCËCÖrê�ÔzÎ �� $É�Ërepresentsthestructure in Figure1.2. Oneimmediately observabledifferencebe-

tweenthe linearizedform andthe structure in Figure1.2 is that the latter is flat,

whereas the linearizedform hasmoreinternal structure in theform of bracketing.

The bracketing arises from our useof binary composition, whereas flatter struc-

tures like in Figure1.2arise from � -ary composition. Theflatterstructures give a

clearer pictureof thedomainof thehead (or headdomain).

To bridge this apparentgap,we could of courseadd � -ary implications and

products,following (Moortgat,1995), anddefinecomposition betweenheads and

their modifiersin termsof � -ary connectivesrather thanbinary ones. Therelation

between � -ary connectivesandbinary onesis simple,though: � -ary connectives

area generalization of the latter, by usingfunctional composition (“Shoenfinkel’s


trick” ). Yet preciselybecausebinary connectivesaretotal functionsenabling one

to apply functional composition, thegeneralization that � -ary connectivespresent

addsnothing new, except for a different way of writing composition.

Remark 4 (N-ary composition in CTL). A formal calculus for Moortgat’s alge-

braicdiscussion(1995) couldbethefollowing:

��Ã�� Ñ��Ì/ß! �Ì "#"#"�Ì/ß¯ì�× Î� �Ãiß! %$ $ $WÎçì%Ã�ß¯ì & � �Ñ��%'YÎ '("#"#"'YÎ ì × � Ã)�A versionin which the type would specify the resulting type to obtain from

argumentscomingfrom theleft aswell astheright is just a notational variant and

we will thereforenot consider it here. Notethata moreincremental version of the

elimination rule above could be madeto allow for argumentsto combine in arbi-

trary order. Theseruleswould thusmimick the rules of Baldridge (1999)’s curly

bracketedtypesin Set-CCG,derived from Hoffman (1995a). However, such an

approachwould not be in keeping with CTL: word order is a phenomenonto be

modelled by structural rules, not by the baselogic. Instead,we obtain incremen-

tality throughthefollowing introduction rule:

Ñ�*,+ Î.-@× � Ã/� + ÎwÃ�ß0- 1 � �Ñ�*32hÎU×¨Ã��4�=Ñ��Ì/ß¤×Â

I did explore the useof � -ary connectivesin (Kruij ff, 1998a), but afterwards

had to conclude that the useof � -ary connectives led to fairly unreadablestruc-

tural rules detailing feature distribution (asusedfor examplein morphology - see51.3.1below). Therefore, I opt for a different approach,namely the oneadopted

by Hepplein (1997). To enableoneto talk of structureslike we obtained in (8)

above,Heppleintroduces the(sensible) notionsof R-headandR-dependent. Hep-

ple definesthese two notionsrecursively - in a structure like ÆCÆ$É Ä ÇRË~Å76&Ë the

(atomic) Ç is consideredto betheR-head,whereas É and 6 are Ç ’s R-dependents.4

Thedomainof aheadcanthereforebeloosely defined asthestructureof anR-

headandits R-dependents. If we would only have thecalculus givenin Definition

2, this would give rise to a very strict notion of locality, not having any structural

rulesto enable differentordering or rebracketing. Naturally, this provesto be too

restrictive to be linguistically interesting. It is then to structural rules operating

4In otherwords,

and 8 are“the ‘immediatedependents’ of the ‘projections’ of 9 .” (Hepple,1997)(p.6).


on headed structuresthat we must turn, andseehow we cangive moreshapeto

(language-specific modelsof) head-domains and the (flexible) locality they give

riseto.

Remark 5 (Product tr eesversusprocesstr ees.). To round off thediscussionon

headedcomposition, let usconsiderthe differencebetween the linear structure in

(8), andthedependency structure in Figure1.2. Thebracketing in (8) reflectsthe

steps taken in deriving the composed structure, andcanbe used to guide further

derivationsteps.This makesthetreestructureof (8) a treerepresenting a process

perspective. On thecontrary, this is not thechief purposeof a structurelike Figure

1.2. Rather, adependency structurecanbeunderstood to representtheproduct of a

derivation. Thesedifferentperspectives(productversus process)arenot mutually

exclusive, though. It is easy to seethat if we employ Hepple’s notions of R-head

and R-dependent to interpret the linear structure in (8), then we obtain exactly

the dependency structure in Figure1.2. Hepple’s recursive notions abstract away

from theindividualstepsin derivingthecomposition of aheadandits dependents,

leaving us with binary, immediaterelations betweena headand a dependent it

governs. Â

1.3 RELATING FORM AND FUNCTION

In the previous chapter, I discussedthe issueof a sentenceexpressing linguistic

meaning. The basic componentsof a sentence’s linguistic meaning, asdiscussed

in that chapter, wereevent nuclei expressingthe aspectual categories of eventu-

alities,anddependency relations that contribute to the further specification of an

eventuality.5 Following Moensand Steedman(1988) and (Steedman,2000b), I

already briefly explainedhow aspectualcategoriesrelateto theirexpression(form)

in verbaltenseandaspect (seealso(Steedman,2000b)). In the current section, I

focus on the relation betweenform anddependency relations - by what formsare

dependency relationsrealized,or conversely, how do we recognizeby theform of

a word group whattypeof dependentit is?

Within thePragueSchoolof Linguistics, the issue of the relation between the

form of a word and the function of the word’s meaning in the underlying mean-

ing of thesentencehastaken in a central place ever sincethepioneering work by

-amongothers-JakobsonandMathesius. Particularly illustrativeof theimportance

5In thesecondpartof my dissertation,a third componentis added,namelyinformationstructure- following (Sgallet al., 1986).


of distinguishingtheform-function relation is Mathesius’ programmaticcontribu-

tion to theTravauxin 1936. There,Mathesiusoutlinestheadvantageof describing

natural languagegrammarsfrom theviewpoint of functionsrather thanforms(criti-

cizingJespersen’sEssentials ontheway)sinceit is functionsthat aresharedacross

languages:

“If we areto apply analytical comparison with profit, the only way of ap-

proachto different languagesasstrictly comparablesystemsis thefunctional

point of view, sincegeneralneedsof expressionandcommunication, com-

monto all mankind, aretheonly common denominatorsto which meansof

expressionandcommunication, varying from languageto language,canbe

reasonably brought.”

– (Mathesius,1936)(p.95/306)

Here, I build forth on ideas worked out in the PragueSchoolof Linguistics

during theinterbellumby Jakobson,Mathesius,Skalicka,andTrnka,work thatset

thebasis for laterwork by Danes, Dokulil, Kuryłowicz, andSgallandhis collab-

orators - cf. (Sgall et al., 1986)(52.10) and(Panevova, 1994). The principal idea

is to distinguisha morphological category of Case, or abstract case,from actual

morphological strategies. This distinction is similar to the ideaof abstract casein

Government& Binding theory, cf. (Haegeman, 1991).6 An abstract casemediates

betweendependency relations and morphological strategies that express depen-

dency relations. The key idea is that theseCasesabstract away from language-

specificform. Eachlanguagehasits own morphological exponents (Trnka, 1932)

or morphological strategies(Croft, 1990) to express thedifferentabstract Casesat

thelevel of surface form, andthusthedependency relationsassociatedwith them.

For example, a Patient is related to the abstract caseAccusative, andacross lan-

guages we find different ways in which the Accusative canbe expressed:Czech

andGermanuseinflection,Japaneseusesanaffix 24: , andEnglishhasa particular

(canonical) position.

6Two sideremarksshould be made. First of all, Case naturally concerns those dever-bitive/denominative dependentsthat arethemselvesnominalor adjectival groups. Secondly, Caseshouldbe kept apartfrom morphological categorieslike number, genderor delimitation. Sgall etal mentionin (1986)only numberanddelimitationasmorphological categoriesfor nouns(pp.172-173).Mathesiusdiscussesin (1936) four morphologicalcategoriesfor nouns,namelynumber, total-ity, definiteness, andqualitativegender (asopposedto purelymorphological gender). Sgallet al.’sdescriptionof delimitationbasicallycoversMathesius’totality anddefiniteness(wheretotality is thedistinction illustratedby French.un pain, du pain, les pains, despains). The inclusionof genderhereasa morphological category is not Mathesius’qualitative gender, but morphological gender-his qualitative gendercorresponds to our distinctionof genderat thelevel of lexical meaning.


It is worthwhile to reflect a bit on the picture that thus arises. At one end,

we have dependency relations that areessential to structuring linguistic meaning.

At the other far end, we have the outer form of sentences. Now, this apparent

chasm between form anddifferent argumentroles hasbeencriticizedby various

authors,e.g. Dowty, Davis, andWechsler. How could onepossibly recognizethe

role of a particular argument?Theanswerpresentedhere,having its rootsin work

done in the PragueSchoolof Linguistics since the 1930s, is that we candistin-

guish language-specific morphological strategies that realize language-universal

dependency relations, and their relation is mediatedthrough language-universal

morphological categories.7

Let meconsidera few additional examplesto illustratewhatwe have in mind

here (cf. also (Kuryłowicz, 1964; Sgall et al., 1986; Sgall et al., 1996)). The

dependency relation Patient is mostly expressedby an accusative case,which in

Czechis reflectedby inflection:

(9) Czech

HonzaHonza-NOM

koblihudonut-ACC

snedlate

.

“Honzaatethedonut.”

(10) Japanese

Susi-oSushi-ACC

Taro-gaTaro-NOM

tabeta.ate

“Taroatesushi.”

Neither in Japanese(10) nor in Czech(9) the expression of accusative caseis

dependent onwordorder. Thisstandsin contrast to analytic languageslikeEnglish,

which do not have anaccusative inflection but realize theaccusative casethrough

placing thewordform in thedirect complement position (directly after theverb):

(11) English

Christopherreadthethe

book.book-ACC

7Although it might be temptingto saythatmorphologicalcategories“realize” dependency rela-tions, this wouldn’ t be correct. It is themorphological strategiesthat realizedependency relations,andwe view the relationbetweenmorphological strategiesanddependency relationsasmediatedthroughabstractmorphological categories.


Similarly, theActor dependency relation is prototypically realizedby a nom-

inative case(i.e. in sentencesin active voice). Again, synthetic languageslike

Czech(12) or Japanese(13) make useof inflection, whereasanalytic languages

like English(14) employ word order, indicatingnominative caseby placementin

subject position:

(12) Czech

HonzaHonza-NOM

koblihudonut-ACC

snedl.ate

“Honza atethedonut.”

(13) Japanese

Hanako-gahon-okatta.

Hanako-NOM book-ACCbought

“Hanako bought a book.”

(14) English

KathyKathy-NOM

despisesJohnWaynemovies

Otherexamplesaretheuseof thedative caseto realize theAddr esseedepen-

dency relation. In Japanesethedative is formedusing the -ni postposition, Czech

hasa dative inflection, whereas in Englishandin Dutchdative caseis reflectedby

placement in the indirect object position or useof a function word like English

“to” or Dutch “aan”.

All theexamplesabove illustratetheprototypical useof cases to realizea spe-

cific dependency relation. Kuryłowicz (1964) calls thesedependency relationsthe

primary functions of the respective cases - i.e. a case’s primary function is that

dependency relation which it usually realizes(p.16). Opposite to a case’s primary

function is its secondary function - that dependency relation which it can real-

ize aswell, but only in what Sgall et al. call “contextually conditioned items” in

(1996)(p.71). For example, Sgall et al. consider the following oppositions in the

useof theaccusative - once realizing its primary function, Patient (15), andonce

its secondaryfunction, theTime:How Long (16):

(15) Christopherreadtheentire book.

(16) Christopherreadtheentire night.


Sgall et al. alsomention that the Accusative hasin Sanskrit as its secondary

function Dir ection:Where To:

(17) Sanskrit

vanamgo-3-SING

gacchatiforest-ACC

(Sgallet al., 1996)(p.72)

“S/hegoesinto theforest”

Theinterestingpoint about (17) is thatin bothGermaniclanguagesandSlavonic

languagestheAccusative displayssimilar behavior, whencombinedwith particu-

lar propositions.For example, in Germanthepreposition auf whencombinedwith

anominal group in accusativecaserealizesDir ection:WhereTo (here: “onto X”),

andsodoestheCzechproposition na whencombinedwith anaccusative.

To recapitulate, we make a distinction betweenmorphological strategiesand

morphological categories.Weconnectdependency relationsto morphological strate-

giesthroughmorphological categories,wherebywe candiscernprimary andsec-

ondary functions for the latter. Morphological strategies are languagespecific,

andmorphological categoriesareassumedto belanguageuniversal8. Puttogether,

we not only advancethe hypothesisthat with this setupwe can explain the re-

lation betweena sentence’s form and its linguistic meaning. Equally important,

the intention is to present an account that might find a validity that applies cross-

linguistically - andwith that,it goes well beyond theaccountsof Wechsler (1995)

or Davis (1996).

In section51.3.1belowI discussmorphological strategiesin somemoredetail,

explaining how for examplecasemarking, adposition, positioning or linking can

be modeled in DGL. Section51.3.2 continuesthe story: Here, I detail out how

one derives the category of a word, given its lexical meaning. Finally, section51.3.3roundsit all of, completing thecalculuspresentedearlier suchthatlinguistic

meaning is built compositionally.

1.3.1 MODEL ING MORPHOLOGICAL FORM

Following Croft’s discussionin (1990)(Ch.2),onecandistinguishfor examplethe

following morphological strategies(18) that a languagemay employ to realizea

particular morphological category.

8Thoughthey neednot alwaysbe“available” in a particularlanguage.


(18) a. case: The useof bound morphemesor casemarkers to indicate the

morphological category.

b. adposition: A morphological category is signalledby a function word

affixedto thewordform.

c. positioning: Thewordform’s position in theclause,relative to for ex-

amplethemainverb,is anindicationof theunderlying morphological

category.

d. linker: A linker is an invariant marker, or morpheme,that relatesthe

modifier and the modified. Unlike the above three strategies, linkers

arenotusedfor verb-nounmodification;only noun-noun modifications

arelinked.9

Thesestrategiesareillustrated in (19) through (22). Particularly (22) is inter-

estingsinceit exemplifieshow strategiescanbecombined.10

(19) positioning

a. English

Elijah wrotea letter, accusative(directcomplementposition)

b. Dutch

datElijah Kathy eenboekgaf,dative(indirectcomplement position)

(20) case

a. Czechknih-a, nominative; Czechknih-u, accusative

b. German desKind-es, genitive

(21) adposition

a. Dutch aan Kathy, dative

b. JapaneseKathy-ni, dative

(22) linking

a. English

Elijah’s cowboy-boots,genitive

9Note that if a linker morphemeis usedonly for the possessive, and not for either predicate-argumentrelationsor any othermodifier-nounrelation,thenit maybedifficult or evenimpossibletodistinguisha linker from e.g.a casemarker or anagreement marker; cf. (Croft, 1990),p.32.

10Note: exceptfor theJapaneseexamples,the‘-’ in eachexampleonly servesto illustratethecasemarker separatelyfrom theroot. Normally, no hyphens areused.


b. English

thecowboy bootsof Elijah’s, genitive

(linking+adposition), (Croft, 1990)(p.33)

In thenext sectionswe discusshow we canmodelin DGL themorphological

strategiespositioning (51.3.1), case(

51.3.1), andadposition (

51.3.1)

Mor phological strategies: Positioning

I canbe fairly brief about how to modelpositioning in DGL. The reason is that

a system like the Lambekcalculus by its very nature provides all the necessary

ingredients - namely, composition and type-raising. Type-raising is the creation

of a category C’ from a category C suchthat C’ is a function that takes as its

argumenta function that takes C as its argument. CCG includesrules for type-

raising in its basic calculus (theT-combinator, cf. (Steedman,2000c)(p.43ff)). In

categorial typelogic, type-raising is a theoremfor all thosemodesthathaveaccess

to (full ) associativity (cf. (Oehrle, 1994; Moortgat, 1997a)). Example(23) gives

anillustrationof type-raising.

(23) æ ;<+ type-raising- = <[Õ\Æ;<?Ò�æhËSteedmanproposesto usetype-raising to model positioning. The intuitions

aresimple, andcanbe illustratedon example(23). What the type-raising in (23)

effectively doesis turning the noun into a category stating that the nounshould

appear in subject-position. That is, the category specifies the noun asnominative

“case” , asillustratedin (24). Note that we make useof the specification of > as

Ú�Î@?A:�� in diamond elimination.

(24)

BDCFEHG À ÁFIKJMLON ¹QPMRº BDCFEz»

IKJ�LSN G ¹ P R T ¿ À¦ÁVUº BDCFE%»SW�XZY[G ¹QPMR]\<^`_Fa

T b G RcUedº b »Sf Ihg XSijG ¹ f Ihg XSi R T k ¹lU Tr m Gon Á J�Ihg B í�p LOIZq Uhrº b »Of Ihg XZilsut LOIZv G \ T ¿ í

Uº BDCFE%»SW�XSYwsut LOIZv G \ T ¿ ¹lU

º BDCFE%»SW�XSYxG ¹ f Ihg XSi Rzy t LOI@{ ¹ f Ihg XZi R í t LOI \}| T kyFU~r

BDCFEHG À¦Á W�XSY { ¹ f Ihg XZi Rzy t LOI { ¹ f Ihg XZi R í t LOI \}|Z| T kÀ¦ÁVU

Similar categoriescanbe specified for other “cases”, like the English dative

(indirect object position) andaccusative (directobjectposition).

Mor phological strategies: Case

Heylen (1999) proposesanapproachto handling featural information in thesetting

of categorial type logics. The leading partsin Heylen’s approachareplayed by


namedinstancesof the unarymodaloperators ³ and �� . The ideais to give the

boxes names,like we give namesto modes. Particularly, as nameswe can use

thenamesof morphological features,like fem(feminine), �&Î�Î (accusative) andso

on. Then,by prefixing a type with such boxes,we canspecify its morphological

features.For example, (25) states that to thetoken Czech“kniha” (English book)

we canassignthetypespecifying “kniha” asa feminine nounin nominative case,

singular.

(25) ��%�Z�D�oÃ�� ëZ� � ��ì ä � � � â µì�� The � � ’s comeinto play in a proof by eliminating themfrom the type, thus

introducing themasexplicit information in the structure. For example,applying& � � to ��%�Z�D��Ã�� ëZ� � ��ì ä � � � â µ�ì�� .:�:�� leadsto thefoll owing:

(26)

��%�Z��Ã�� ëZ� � � ì ä � � � â µì�� & �j�� %�Z�D�<� � ëZ� Ã�� ì ä � � � â µ�ì�� & �u�� %�Z�� ëS� � ì ä � Ã�� â µ�ì�� & � �� %�A�D�<� � ëS� � ì ä � � â µì�� Ã��Now thatwe have themorphological informationexplicit in thestructure,we

canoperateon it. For example, asHeylen showed,it is fairly straightforward to

allow for underspecification. The basicideathereis that we introducestructural

rules that enable us to rewrite the nameof a unary modal operator into another

name,in the appropriate context asspecifiedby the structural rule. For example,

consider � � ì��V�,�@ë å asmeaning thatthetypeis underspecified for �%��F�V� - i.e. the

tokencanbeinterpreted asbeing eithersingular or plural. Thetoken“sheep” is an

examplein case- �l� ì��V��@ë å � meansthat“sheep” is anoun, either pluralor singular.

Then,structural ruleslike the following canbeusedto specify theunderspecified

feature to either singular or plural (the ³ ’s correspondto the angular brackets� $��

in thestructure):

(27) a. +��Q��Î�Õ��%��F� ��ÌWÍ��O�Q��- ³Pâ µ�ì�� Ú Û ³ ì��V�,�@ë å Úb. +��Î�Õ��%��@�V�UÌ��~��- ³Q�V� � å ÚpÛ ³ ì��@ë å Ú

Usingthefirst rule,wecanfor exampleinfer:

(28)

Í��5Ã�� ì��V��@ë å � & � �� Í��Q� ì��@ë å Ã�� +��Q��Î�Õ��%��F� ��ÌWÍ��O�Q��-� Í�� Q� â µ�ì�� Ã��


Note that if we would continue the proof with a1 �D� step,we could derive

the type � � â µì�� for “sheep”. Hence,oneof the nice advantagesof this kind of

underspecification is that it enablesusto introducelexical generalizations. Rather

thanhaving separatelexical entriesfor “sheep”asa singular noun,and“sheep” as

a plural noun,wecanhave just onelexical entrydefining “sheep” asa nounthat is

underspecified for number.

Naturally, we should be able to modelmorecomplex casesaswell. For ex-

ample,consider the Czech“knihy”. This form’s caseandnumber areambiguous

between genitive singular, or plural with either nominative or accusative. A cate-

gory for “knihy” would thushave both the �%�� and ÎF�\Í�� featuresunderspecified

(e.g. ¡�� ëZ� ¡�� ì�� ¡��V¢;êçâ ë æ ). Subsequently, we would needstructural rules that

specify e.g.tuples of featuresratherthansinglefeatures,like in (29).

(29)

��A � â µ�ì�� /ëXì Û ��

A � ì��V� � ¢Xê/â ë��A � �V� � å � ì ä � Û ��

A � ì�� ¢;ê/â ë��A � �V� � å � ê.¢O¢ Û ��

A � ì��V� � ¢;ê/â ëA proper consideration of suchmorecomplex casesis presented in (Heylen,

1999)(Ch.8),whereHeylen discussessortal hierarchies that control the specifica-

tion of feature structures.

The way agreement is modeledmimics, in a way, agreement by unification.11

Namely, the idea is that a composite structure can be “assigned” a feature � if

andonly if both of its componentshave that feature � aswell. Thus,an abstract

structuralrule for agreement(concord)would look somethinglike this, in Heylen’s

theory:

(30) ³ � Æ°Ú Ö�ÜÞË]Û ³ � Ú~Ö�³ � ÜIn DGL, wherewe considerheadedness asan inherentaspect of composition,

I employ slightly differentabstractstructural rulesfor handling agreementin gen-

eral:12

(31) a. ³ � Æ°Ú~Ö�Ø[ÜÞË]Û ³ � Ú ÖwØD³ � Üb. ³ � Æ°Ú~Ö�Ô[ÜÞË]Û ³ � Ú ÖwÔD³ � Ü

11Although we shouldhastento say that the model is inherentlymore powerful than the waymorphological informationis donein HPSGor featurelogics in general,andthatwe arenot doingunification.Seealsobelow.

12Therulesin (31) do not intendto cover specificsecondarycasessuchastheremaindersof theDual in Russian,or Czech“kote a stene si hraly” insteadof “hrala”.


Let usconsideranexample.Take thelexical entry �V�`?{Ã��V� � å Æh�§Ò�Ø[Í Ë , and

try to prove that “Sheep eat” is a sentencewith a verbal headthat is plural. For

agreement (plural) we usethefollowing structural rule:

(32) ³��V� � å Æ°Ú Ö�Ø[ÜÞË]Û ³Q�� å Ú Ö�ØD³Q�� å Ü

(33)

ôK£�¤�¤¦¥4§z¨@©�ª.«�¬Q ® ¨ ©¯ ô�£�¤h¤¦¥�° ªM«�¬ §� ± ² ¥ ¤$õK³O@´MµQ¶¦¤�·O¸�¥�¹º´M·K»¯ ôK£�¤�¤¦¥�°�¼ ½ «�¾ §4¤ ý ¿ §z¨@© ¼A½ «�¾MÀ �¥<Á�Â'ôKÃ ® ¨ ©¯ ¤ ý�¿ °�¼A½ «�¾ § À QÁ�ÂÙôKÃ ® Á¯ ôK£�¤�¤¦¥�°�¼A½ «�¾<Ä Â ¯ ¤ ý�¿ °�¼A½ «�¾ §Rô Å�Æ ·S³h¥�¹º´M·K¸°ó¯ ô�£�¤h¤¦¥ Ä Â�¤ ý�¿ °�¼A½ «�¾ §[ô Ç ¨ ©ôK£�¤�¤e¥ Ä Â�¤ ý�¿ §È¨@© ¼A½ «�¾ ô

Thereis animportant observation thatwehaveto makeabout theproof in (33).

As said,wetried to prove �}��V� � å Í - our“goal type”. Theobservationconcernshow

the � � �V� � å in thegoal typeactually enforcestheagreement.For that weshould read

theproof in abottom-upway. Thegoal type is obtainedby introducing the �V�M�V� � å ,which is only possible if the entirestructure indeed carriesthe corresponding di-

amond(i.e.� $�� V� � å ). For that to be possible, the agreementrule positsthat both

componentsof the structure have to be decoratedwith that diamond - thus, both

“sheep” and“eat” have to be labeled asplural (��h�� ). Which they are- “eat” by

lexical assignment,“sheep” by specification of an underspecified feature assign-

ment( �%��F� � ). In other words, subjectandverbagree, andall is well indeed. But

notewhatwould havehappenedif wewould have hada subject in singular. Going

bottom-up,theagreementrule would have posited therebeing a subject in plural,

whereasfrom the lexical entry for the subject we would have obtained singular

case(top-down). This clashwould have resulted in theproof falling through - we

would not beableto derive thegoaltype.13

Themodelso far is asHeylen discussedit his dissertation (Heylen, 1999)and

various papers, for example(Heylen, 1997). In (Kruijf f, 1998a) I introducedan

“extension” to Heylen’s model, in the form of “a-symmetric distribution rules”.

Heylen’s agreementrules, aswe saw themabove, areessentially rules that sym-

metrically distribute a label� $�� from a construction over its two components.

However, whenoneappliesHeylen’s modelto morphologically rich languages, it

quickly becomesapparent thatwe needdifferentkinds of structural rulesto man-

agefeatureinformation- notonly symmetricdistribution rulesdefiningagreement.13Unless,of course,we would have themorecomplex casesof coordinated,singularsubjects- as

thesewould leadto aplural construction.


Because, it may very well happen that a component carriesmorelabels thanare

neededfor aparticular typeof agreement.For example,averbmaycarryinforma-

tion about ? �V�YÍ�� , which is informationnot relevant to agreementwith its subject.

This leadsto structuralrulesthat allow labelsto percolateupwards: if a headhasa

feature � that is not relevant for agreement,thenwe canpercolatethat feature up-

wards,distributing it over theentirecomposition. Theserulesarethusa-symmetric

in thatonly onecomponent will berequiredto havesomeappropriate labeling,not

bothcomponents.14

As amatterof fact,eventhoughpercolationrulesarestraightforwardto specify

in categorial type logics (andDGL), they presentan important linguistic general-

ization (together with the way agreement is handled) that feature logics as em-

ployed in HPSG are not capable of capturing (Oliva, p.c.). Namely, for unifi-

cation to work, eachfeature used in a particular type of agreementneeds to be

listed explicitly in the attribute-value matrix. This caneasily leadto doubling of

informationabout morphological information, andto ensure “consistency” theat-

tribute/value pairs areco-indexed to indicate that the values should be identical.

But this is not particularly satisfying - it seemscounterintuitive to have to specify

various attributes� in oneandthe samelexical entry. Our approachto handling

morphological (featural) informationby meansof symmetricagreementrules and

a-symmetricpercolation rulesleadsto a muchmoreintuitive picture: Specifythe

informationonce, andonly once. We cando so becausewe arerewriting, rather

thanusing unification.

Mor phological strategies: Adposition

Finally, let usdiscussadposition. As we already mentionedabove, we understand

by adposition theuseof function wordsto indicatewhatmorphological category a

wordform realizes. Examplesof suchfunction wordsarementionedin (34).

(34) a. Prepositions:

i. English

“to” (+N, dative), “of ” (+N, genitive)

ii. Dutch “voor”/“ aan”(+N, dative), “van” (genitive)

b. Postpositions:

i. Japanese“-ga” (+N, nominative), “-o” (+N, accusative)14Notethatthey aresimilar to the É!Ê�÷.ÉzË rulesdefinedin (Moortgat,1997a).


ii. Korean“-ka” (+N, nominative), “-lul” (+N, accusative)

Again,theapproachto modeling thesephenomenain DGL is relatively straight-

forward.Wedistinguish modes��: Í�?¦Å Ì�Ä�� for composition between thenoun

andits postposition or apreposition,respectively. Example(35) illustratesthepro-

totypical categoriesfor prepositionsandpostpositions,respectively.

(35) a. Preposition corresponding to caseß : ¡%��Ì7æ§Õ � å ë � æb. Postposition corresponding to case ß : ¡ � ÌPæhÒ � äCâOÍ@æ

Analyzing a combination of strategies

Although we canmodeleachof thedifferentmorphological strategies,how would

they cooperatein ananalysisof a sentencein which variousmorphological strate-

giesareusedat thesametime?For example,consider thesentencein (36).

(36) English

Elijah reads Christopher’s book to Kathy.

The sentence in (36) illustratesthreestrategies: positioning (Elijah, book),

linking (Christopher’s), andadposition (to Kathy). For a proof for (36), the most

illustrative stepsin this context aregivenin (37) below.

(37) a.

¿4ÎeÏeÐ�Ñ�Ò G À¦ÁFIKJ�LON�¹ P Rº ¿ÓÎeÏeÐ�Ñ�Ò » IKJ�LON G ¹ P R T ¿ À¦ÁVUº BDCFEz» W�XZY G ¹ P R \�^�_Fa

T b G RÔU#dº b »Sf Ihg XSiuG ¹ f Ihg XZi R T k ¹}U Tr m GÕn Á J�Ihg B í�p LOIAq Uhrº b » f Ihg XSi s t LSI v G \ T ¿ í

Uº ¿ÓÎeÏeÐ�Ñ�Ò »SW�XSY3s t LOI v G \ T ¿ ¹lU

º ¿ÓÎeÏeÐ�Ñ�Ò »SW�XSYÖG ¹ f Ihg XZi Rzy t LOI { ¹ f Ihg XZi R í t LOI \}| T ky@U r

¿ÓÎ¦Ï#Ð�Ñ�Ò G À¦Á W�XZY { ¹ f Ihg XZi Rzy t LOIM{ ¹ f Ihg XSi R í t LOI \}|S| T kÀ¦Á�U

b.

chris GÕn Á IKJ�LONW¹ P B ‘s GÕn Á IKJ�LON�¹ P B íF× ¼ W�Ø@Ù { n ÁFIKJ�LSN�¹ P B y p J�Ú ¾ n ÁFIKJMLON�¹ P B |chris s × ¼ W�Ø@Ù ‘s GÕn Á IKJ�LONW¹ P B y p J�Ú ¾ n ÁFIKJ�LSN�¹ P B

T í ¿ Ubook Gon Á IKJ�LON�¹ P B{

chris s × ¼ W�Ø@Ù ‘s| s p J�Ú ¾ book GÕn ÁFIKJMLON�¹ P B T y ¿ U

c.

to Gon Á Ú�J g ¹ f Ú�Ú i NSLOLONON B y p�Û i N Û n Á IKJ�LON ¹QP B kathy Gon Á IKJ�LSN ¹QP Bto s p�Û i N Û kathy Gon ÁFÚ�J g;¹ f Ú�Ú i NOLOLONSN B

T y ¿ U


1.3.2 DGL’ S LINKING THEORY

Let mebegin by addressing theissueof a linkingtheory in moredetail. Oneimpor-

tantaspect of theaccount I give hereis that it overcomes thekind of criticism that

hasbeenlevied both againstapproaches within dependency grammar(like Fill-

more’s - cf. (Panevova, 1974;Sgall et al., 1986)), andagainst similar approaches

based onspecifying semanticsin termsof Ü -frames(cf. Davis’sdissertation (1996),

andreferencestherein to discussionsby Wechsler andDowty). Thesecriticismsall

comedown to therebeing no obvious relation between lexical meaning andform

(or syntacticbehavior). Putdifferently, themeaning is renderedstipulative at least

from theviewpoint of therebeing no relation between different syntacticbehavior

(form) anda differentiation in meaning.

This criticism is overcomein DGL by realizing therelation betweenform and

function asmediatedby morphological categories,a relation thathasbeenpointed

out and elaboratedwithin the PragueSchoolof Linguistics ever since the early

1930’s. The reason why we indeedovercomethe criticism, rather than replace

it by another stipulative account, is simple. Morphological categories present a

cross-linguistic generalization of the intuitive relation between function and ab-

stract form, andthey canbestraightforwardly related to themorphological strate-

giesof a particular language.This meansthatmorphological categoriesnot only

capture intuitionsabout languagesinvestigatedby variousmembersof thePrague

school (notably, Slavonic languages, Germaniclanguages,English) - becausethey

are abstract and presentcross-linguistic generalizations, they also make predic-

tions aboutlanguagesthat have not beeninvestigated from this point of view. The

prediction is that,if wecouple themorphological strategiesof a“new” languageto

themorphological categories,thenweexpect thesameintuitionsabout therelation

between form and function to be verified (i.e. the morphological strategies help

realize the sameprimary andsecondary functions of the morphological category

asobserved in other languages). Ratherthanbeing stipulative, theaccount is ver-

ifiable - cross-linguistically, even though the repertoiresof categoriesmay differ

from onelanguageto another.15

To formulatea linking theoryfor DGL, I start from the basic approachadvo-

cated by categorial type logics. Categorial type logic providesa fairly straightfor-

ward modelof lexical semantics. The semantic Ý -term of a word is related to a

15With that, thepresent approachpresentsan account of the relationbetweenform andfunctionthatis morefundamental thanfor exampleWechsler’sapproach, which doesnotappearto lenditselfwell to cross-linguisticgeneralizations.


syntactic type using a Curry-Howard correspondence(cf. for exampleOehrle’s

articles (1994; 1995)). A suitable namefor this kind of modelof lexical semantics

would be logical lexical semantics, which maybeunderstood astrying to explain

therelation betweenform andfunction/meaning in a logical way.

According to someauthors, the Curry-Howard correspondence in categorial

typelogic should take theform of anisomorphism.Thatway categorial typelogic

would answera mathematical-logical ideal. Thus,according to Oehrle’s (1994),

syntactic categoriesandtyped Ý -termsarerelated asperDefinition 3.

Definition 3 (Categories and semantictypesin CTL). Givena mapping that re-

latesbasic categories Þ[ßáà with a corresponding type ?NÉ��Þ in a typedÝ -calculus.

Theassociationbetweenthefull setof categories,built usingthecategory-formation

operators Ñ�Ò@â9Ì/Õ�â9Ì/Ö�â�× , andsemantic typescanthenbedefinedasfollows:

ã associateeach implicational typewith argument Ú andresulting category Ü(like ÜÞÕVâ&Ú²Ì�ÜÞÒ�â&Ú ) with the Ý -type ?NÉ��7Æ°Ú¯Ë¨Ûä?HÉ��7Æ°ÜÞË , i.e. functions from

?HÉ��7Æ°Ú¯Ë to ?HÉ��7Æ°ÜÞË ;ã associate the product typewith first projection Ú and second projection Ü

with thepairing of ?NÉ��7Æ°Ú¯Ë and ?NÉ��7Æ°ÜÞËSeealsoHepple’s (1994; 1995), andMoortgat’s (1997a). Â

However, I would like to arguethatanisomorphic mapping betweensyntactic

typesand Ý -typesdoesnotappearto bedesirablefrom alinguistic viewpoint.16 Be-

cause, if therewereto exist anisomorphismbetween argumentsthatareobligatory

from theviewpoint of proper “grammaticaluse”,andargumentsthatareobligatory

from theviewpoint of meaning (determining “inferrableinformation”or something

similar), thenevery syntactic argumentshould be reflected in the semantics, and

vice versa.This neednot betrue, in eitherdirection.16Even thoughwhat we argue for resultsin a loss of the isomorphismbetweensyntactictypes

and å -types(or formulasandtypesin the generallogical setting),we neednot losethe possibilityto obtainanisomorphismbetweenproofsand å -terms.TheessentialideabehindtheCurry-Howardisomorphismis that, due to the isomorphism betweenformulasand types,we can alsoobtainanisomorphismbetweenaproofof a formulaandatypedterm.Thelatterisomorphismgivesriseto thepossibility of reconstructingthe å -termoncegiven the proof, andvice versa,given the å -term,wecanreconstructtheproof. It appearsto methat,despitethelossof anisomorphismbetweenformulasandtypes,we canstill obtaintheisomorphismbetweenproofsand å -terms,by:æ addinginformationto the å -term,recordingexplicitly eachstepthatis taken;and,æ requiring that the axiomswe begin with (or reasonbackwards to) are identifiable lexical

items.


Expletive pronouns In various languagesthereareverbsthat require an ex-

pletive pronoun to function assurface subject. A niceexample is theGermanverb

“geben”, which requiresanexpletivepronoun“es” to form asentencelike “Es gibt

einen Student im Kino” (& �ç" “There is a student in the cinema”). Now, if we

would indeedhave an isomorphismbetweenthesyntactic type of “geben” andits

Ý -term,we would have an argumentposition in the Ý -term for the expletive pro-

noun aswell, whichshould befilled by whateversemanticswewouldassign to the

expletive pronoun. But, linguistically speaking, this seemscounter-intuitive. The

expletivepronounis neededto form agrammatical sentence- but semantically, the

expletive canbe argued to be vacuous (cf. the discussion in Sgall et al. (1986)

about function words,andalsoother approacheswhereexpletivesareconsidered

to make no realcontribution to themeaning of sentences- cf. HPSG(Pollard and

Sag,1993), (combinatory)categorial grammar(Jacobson, 1990)).

Oehrlepointed out (p.c.) that onecould perhapsargue for an argumentslot

for theexpletive pronoun if thepronoun wereunderstood asreferring to thelarger

situation in which the event is placed. Erteshik-Shir does in fact present suchan

approach,basedon a very literal interpretation of Heim’s file-change metaphor.

However, given theapproachwe take hereto specifying meaning, theneachverb

canbe given an interpretation relative to world-time pairs. In otherwords, asan

eventuality set in a specific time and place. Trying to understand the expletive

pronounasestablishing that givenagainseemsto beredundant,then.

Relational nouns Oneneednot only consider the isomorphismin the direc-

tion from syntactic typeto Ý -type. An example showing why thereneednot bean

isomorphismfrom Ý -type to syntactictype is providedby relational nouns. These

nouns have semantic argumentsandyet neednot to subcategorize in order to be

usedgrammatically (cf. (Sgallet al., 1986)). Consider thenoun“brother”, which

hasas its semantics �.��:�?��V��Æ$ÇRË with (at least) the necessary argument brother-

of( ÇYÌCÉ ), i.e. Ý�Ç%Ý�É�"�ÆK�.��:�?��V�xÆ$ÇyË(èw�.��:�?��V�é2ê:��]Æ$ÇYÌCÉxË . Paraphrased,whenever a

person Ç is a brother, he is necessarily a brother of someother person É , ÇHë;5É ;

onecould extendthis by saying that Ç is alsoa sonof 6 , with Ç�ë;BÉìë;�6 . But

thesyntactic typeof “brother” doesnot needto subcategorize for a syntactic type

corresponding to theargument É , or 6 , in order for “brother” to beusedgrammat-

ically. As Sgall et al. (1986) point out, the extra argument É is therebecausein

the discoursecontext it should be answerable who Ç is a brother of. Onecannot

sensibly utter that “John is a brother” (understanding brother in the family-sense)

without being ableto answerthequestion “Who is Johna brother of?”, asper the


dialoguetest.

Raising verbs Finally, variousframeworks give anaccount of raising verbs in

which their syntactic type(s) do not correspond isomorphically to their semantic

argumentstructure. This couldcount asanother argumentagainst a strict isomor-

phism,though this very muchdependson one’s linguistic intuitions. For example,

Jacobson(1990) doesgive analternative account of raising using function compo-

sition, basedon a combinatory form of categorial grammar,andpresentsevidence

for thataccount.

Thus,themodelof lexical semantics thatcategorial typelogic providesuswith

appears to be too strict to enable us to present particular linguistic intuitions one

might have. We need to relax the isomorphism criterion betweensyntactic types

and Ý -typesin orderto beableto capture(at least)thecaseswementionedabove.17

DGL’s linking theory is definedasfoll ows.

Definition 4 (DGL’s linking theory). Given a mapping B betweenbasic cate-

gories Þ andthesortsusedfor specifying lexical meaning(e.g. objectsandvarious

kindsof eventualities),a mapping M betweenmorphological categoriesandkinds

of dependency relations(i.e. themorphological categories’ primaryandsecondary

functions),anda mapping S betweenmorphological categoriesandmorphological

strategies.

1. Givena predicate-valency structure for an eventuality, of theform

ÆhíîèðïQñ�è � > ��Æh� Ëlè3$ $ $�è � > µ ��Æh� µ ËCË ,specifying theobligatory arguments for ï . Thesyntactic category correspond-

ing to this predicate-valencystructure is built asfollows.

First, theresulting category is a basic category ò , mappedby B fromtheeven-

tuality in í . Setthepredicate-valencystructure’s category ó to ò . Then,going

fromleft to right throughtheconjunction, for each argument� >#ô��Æh�}ô=Ë , weuse

B to map the sort of the nominal ��ô to a category õ . Then,we also extend

ó with ó^Õ�âk³(ö ÷�õ or ø��HÒ�âx³(ö ÷�õ , depending on (a) canonical surfaceordering,

and(b) S.

2. Givena predicate-valency structure basedon a nominal ù that is not an event

nucleus,of theform Æhùúèûï�üýè � > ��Æ þrË%è�$ $ $�è � > ´ ��Æh� ´ ËCË . First, theresulting

17As a matterof fact, on the dependency grammarpoint of view all function words provide acounterexample,sincethey would bemodeled(in DGL) asfunction typesbut their contribution tolinguistic meaningwould bephrasedentirelydifferently(if it all).


category is a basic category ò , mapped by B from ù . Setthepredicate-valency

structure’s category ó to ò . If anyof thearguments specifiedby thepredicate-

valency structure are required to be mappedto syntactic categories for the

word to beusedgrammatically, thenfollow thesteps outlinedabove.

Finally, to expressa particular wordform’s morphological features like number,

gender, or person, ó is prefixedwith theappropriate ¡�� ’s.

Example. To illustratetheabove linking theory, let usconsidera few simpleex-

amplesfrom EnglishandCzech.First,wesetupthefollowing mappings. For each

mapping we indicatefor whatlanguage(s)it is applicable.

(38) a. B Ñ Cz,En×ÿ�� if object

Í if eventuality

b. M Ñ Cz,En�ÿ�� }:�� if Actor�� if Patient �� if Addr essee

c.

S � En � �� first pre-verbalposition �� if nom

direct-complementposition � �� if acc

indirect-complementposition �� if dat

S � Cz � �� first post-verbalposition �� if nom

Actor � Patient � �� if acc

Actor � Addr essee� Addr essee� Patient � �� if dat

d. morph.features� Cz,En� � ��! #"#$%��'&)(+*-, if 3rd person,singular

��/.0&)12��43!576!" if 1stperson,plural

Subsequently, considerthefoll owing predicate-valency structuresin (39).

(39) a. 8�9;:<�'=?>'>#@A:CB ACTOR D�8FEHGIGb. 8�9J:LKM> � :CB ACTOR D�8FEHGN:OB PATIENT D�8FPQGIG

(39(a)) translatesinto thecategoriesgiven in (40) for English andCzech.The

resulting lexical entries aregivenin (41).

(40) a. English: �-RTS &0UWVYXZU[1]\ "_^b. Czech: �/` &2UWabVYXZU[1]\ "c^


(41) a. English: sleepd �e� .0&)1 ��f3!576!" 8[�/R�S &0U4VgXZU)1]\ "c^ Gihj8M9k:l�%=[>%>W@m:nB ACTOR D�8FEHGoGb. Czech: spıme d � �T.0&)1 � � 3!576!" 8[�/` &2UWabVYXZU[1]\ "_^ GNh�8T9p:l�%=[>%>W@m:nB ACTOR D�8FEHGoG

Similarly, (39(b)) translatesinto thecategoriesfor English andCzechgivenin

(42). Theresulting lexical entries aregivenin (43).

(42) a. English: 8[�/R/S &0UfVgXoU[1]\ "c^ GW` $ UWa VYqsrf1t(tu2*-1 ^b. Czech: 8[�/` U#avVgqsr41t(tu2*-1 ^ GW` &2U#avVgXoU[1]\ "4^

(43) a. English

readsd ��! #"#$%�� &2(+*', 8W8[�/R�S &0U4VgXZU)1]\ "_^ GW` $ U#a Vgqsr41t(tu2*-1 ^ Gwh8�9J:JKT> � :OB ACTOR D�8FEHGN:CB PATIENT D�8FPQGgGb. Czech

cte d � � #"W$'� �%&)(+*-, 8W8[�-` UWabVYqsrf1t(tu2*-1 ^ GW` &2UWabVYXZU[1]\ "c^ Gwh8�9J:JKT> � :OB ACTOR D�8FEHGN:CB PATIENT D�8FPQGgGWith therelation betweenpredicate-valency structuresandsyntacticcategories

thusestablished,how doweinterpretawordform asaparticularkind of dependent?

Theanswer to this is significantly lessinvolved thanthe previousdiscussion, and

is based on a discussion I providedin (1999a).

Essentially, what we do is introducestructural rules that enable us to rewrite

a modalindicatingthat a structure realizesa particular a morphological category,

to a modalindicatinga type of dependency relation which is theprimary (or pos-

sibly secondary) function of that morphological category. Additionally, function

wordscanbegivenfunction categoriesthathave,astheresult category, a category

indicating a typeof dependency relation.

For example,considerthestructural rules in (44(a)),andthefunction wordsin

(44(b)).

(44) a.

BWB?x�D */\0y D XoU[1]\ "{z BWB?xjD */\|y D|}BWB?x�D r4U2U D qsrf1t(tu0*'1 z BWB?xjD rcU)U D }BWB?x�D $ r41 D X $f$W" u|&|&0u0u z BWB?xjD $ rf1 D|}b.

German in d ��~ \#U)rf1t(+�4u ^ ` 3�" u 3 ��$ rf1 ^ h��j��B LOCATIVE D �German in d � �!� � u " u2�Z\ ^ ` 3!" u 3 � �!r4U)U ^ hm�j�QB WHERETO D �

Thefunction wordsin (44(b)) leadto complement-categories. Alternatively, if

wewantto create adjuncts,thenwe canusethecategoriesasin (45).

(45)German in d V ~ \#U)rf1t(+�4u 8[�-R r!a �-GW` 3!" u 3 � � $ rf1 ^ ho8)� U4� GGerman in d Vg� � u " u2�Z\ 8[�/R r�a �/GW` 3�" u 3 ��!rcU)U ^ h�8)� U � G


Example1.3.3(page35ff.) illustratestheuseof theseGermanfunction words

in a derivation, after I have presentedtheentirebaselogic for DGL.

1.3.3 THE COMPOSITION OF LINGUISTIC MEANING

How do weconstruct linguistic meaningin DGL?Thekey ideafollowedhereis to

build “syntactic structureandsemantic structure in parallel”. In theprevioussec-

tion I already discussedhow thefunctionalstructureof aword’s lexical meaning is

closely reflectedin its syntactical category. Hence,thecomposition of asentence’s

linguistic meaning closely correspondsto how wordscanberelatedat thesurface.

More precisely, DGL adheresto a principle of compositionality, characterized

by Parteeet al. in (1990) asfoll ows:

”The meaning of acompoundexpressionis a function of themeaningsof its

partsandof thesyntacticruleby which they arecombined.” (p.318)

Similar principles of compositionality canbe found throughout formal gram-

marandformal semantics - seeJanssen’s (1997) for ageneraloverview of compo-

sitionality principles,Gamut’s (1991), VanBenthem’s(1991),andMorrill’ s (1994)

for compositionally relating categorial grammarandMontague’s intensional logi-

cal semantics.

A differencebetweenDGL andMontagueGrammaris though that we make

a differencebetween theabsenceof meaning, andtheabsurdity of meaning. This

point datesback to Sgall et al.’s discussionin (1986). In Montague’s approach,

only thosetreesareconsideredto be well-formedwhich canreceive an interpre-

tation from a model for that intensional logic being used. In otherwords,well-

formednessequatesto meaningfullness,with the latter meaning “interpretableon

a model”. Sgallet al., whendiscussingChomsky’s infamous example(46), point

out thatthesentencedoeshavea meaning,andthatthesentencedefinitely is well-

formed- despite thefactthatthemeaningis absurd.

(46) Colorlessgreen ideassleep furiously. (Chomsky, 1957)

Parasitic situationsaside, we would normally not consider (46) to make sense

- yet the very fact that we can make that consideration meansthat (46) at least

hasa linguistic meaning.18 On theotherhand,(47) doesnot evenhave anabsurd18We couldtry to phrase“absurdityof meaning”in transparentintensional logic (Materna,1998)

asthe impossibility to conceive of anobjectthat theconstruction madefor theexpressionthat (46)correspondsto. Absencesimplymeansthatthereis noconstructionfor theexpression. For arelation


linguistic meaning, since it is not grammatically well-formedandhencedoes not

evenenable usto constructa representationof its linguistic meaning.

(47) English

Furiously sleep ideasgreencolorless.

In the remainder of this section, I discusshow DGL builds representationsof

linguistic meaningin acompositional way, andhow weexplain thementioneddif-

ference betweenabsenceandabsurdity of linguistic meaning.

Traditionally, categorial type logics usea (typed) � -calculus for specifying the

meaningof a sentence. A convenientmathematical fact thereby is that thereis

a close correspondencebetweennatural deduction andthe � -calculus- theCurry-

Howard correspondence. An important result establishedby the Curry-Howard

correspondenceis thataneliminationrule,eliminating animplication andthereby

combining two elements, correspondsto functional application in the � -calculus.

Conversely, an introduction rule corresponds to functional abstraction. Thus,for

example,whenwe apply an elimination rule to combinea function andan argu-

ment,we canin parallel apply themeaning of theargumentto themeaningof the

function (which is traditionally specified asa � -term).

Theissue now is, how canwe establish a correspondencebetween natural de-

duction andoperationsin a hybrid logic, so as to composea representation of a

sentence’s linguistic meaningin parallel to ananalysis of thesentence’s form? The

answeris relatively simple, in fact.19 Firstof all, weshould recall thatwhatweare

building arerelational structures.For a head � that meansthat it maybe looking

for an argument. That is, ��:��e�QB[�/D , we have a nominal � that refersto some

statewherethehead’s proposition holds,andfrom whereweshould beableto link

to someother (yet unspecified)state

along a � (dependency) relation. Similarly,

oncewe interpret a word group asa particular type of dependent, we specify that

assaying that it is a dependent that is looking for a head.We have something like�j�QB[�-D , but now � and

arefurther specified andit is the � thatwe needto estab-

lish. In other words,to combinea head � with a dependent, all we needto say

is that

is what � is looking for, andvice versa. For example, consideragainthe

lexical assignmentfor “sleeps”, repeatedbelow in (48).

betweencategorial grammar,dependency grammar,andtransparent intensionallogic seethe briefdiscussionin (Kruijf f, 2000).

19I am very much indebtedto CarlosArecesand to AlexanderKoller for the discussions thateventuallyled thecalculusI presenthere.


(48) sleeps d �e�� #"W$'�� &2(+*', 8[�/R &0UWVYXZU[1]\ "_^ Gwh�8�9;:��'=[>%>#@�B ACTOR D�8FEHGgGHow does it getcombinedwith its Actor? Thestepsarein given(49).

(49) i. ��Q8F9<:J�%�F��<:CB ACTOR D�8FEHGIGii. � �!� B ACTOR D�8o>�:<��?� �!��Giii. �j�Q8F9�:l�%�F��i:nB ACTOR D�8FEsGHGo:i�m��2B ACTOR D�8�>�:��?� �!��kGH:i�m�T�Q�iv. Axiom: � ( B ACTOR D?��: � ( B ACTOR D#¡ z �£¢!¡v. �j�Q8�9J:J�'�¤��¥B ACTOR D�8Z>�:<��?� �!��GWG

Because stating that �¦�T� � meansthat � and � � refer to thesamestate,(49v) is

model-theoretically equivalentto (49iii) togetherwith theaxiom in (49iv). Clearly,

this operationis similar to § -normalization.

Conversely, how do we modelthe analogonof functional abstraction? Func-

tional abstraction correspondsto the application of an introduction rule, which

dischargesan assumption. For that discharge to work, the assumption musthave

beenusedearlier in the derivation. Given the above discussion, this must have

leadto the introduction of a link (@) between theassumption’s ‘meaning’ andan

argument.Discharging theassumption thencanbeunderstood assimply severing

that link: Formally, we replace the link �Y�-E betweentheassumption’s nominal �andthe argument E by � . Becausex¨: � © x , we thus effectively drop the

assumption.20

Definition 5 (Baselogic for DGL). We define the baselogic for DGL in terms

of the proof calculusof Definition 2 (p.8) to which we add operationsacting on

representationsformulatedin a hybrid logic.

ª¬«®°¯-±�²�³ ´¬«Aµ¤¶ � � �·g¯-±�²4¸¤¹ º �7�µ¤ª¼» � ´Z·p«®¶½¯/±�²f¸¾¹À¿�±�²4¸t³Á«¬µ¤¶�Á � ¦·g¯-±�²4¸]¹ ªÂ«®°¯-±�²�³ º Á �µ]´Ã» � ªH·p«®¶½¯-± ² ¸ ¹�¿À± ² ¸ ³

20And, for thatreason,wealsodroptheconjunct.


Ä ªL«Å°¯/±eÆ'Ç�È-É4ÉcÉÉÉÉ µ¾ªÀ» � ´Z·p«®¶½¯-±�²4¸]¹�¿�±�²4¸¤Ç k � �´¬«Aµ¤¶ �7� �·g¯-± ² ¸ ¹

µ]´Ã» � ªH·l«Å¶Ê¯-± ² ¸]¹�¿�± ² ¸¤ÇÉ4É4É Ä ªÂ«®°¯-±eÆ/Ç�ÈÉÉÉ k Á �Á«¬µ¾¶jÁ � �·g¯/± ²f¸ ¹Ä Ë «®¶½¯-± Æ Ç�È Ä Ì «®ÍÅ¯-± Æ_¸ Ç�ÈÉÉÉª Ä µ Ë�Î � Ì ·[Èm«Å°¯T± ² ¸¾¹ÐÏ�¿�± Æ Çn¿¼± Æ ¸¤Ç Á«Aµ¾¶ Î � ÍÑ·I¯/± ²WÒ ¹oÓ º Î �ª Ä ´QÈm«Å°¯T±�²f¸¾¹ Ï ¿�±�²f¸¾¹ Ó

ªÂ«®°¯-Ô Ï Á«®¶½¯%¹ Ó k Î �µ¤ª¼» � ´Z·l«® Î � ¶½¯-±�²4¸¾¹ Ï ¿�±�²fÒc¹ Ó

Notethat wehavedefinedtheaboverules for Steedman-style notation of

categories. Therulesbelow definethebehavior of unary modalsÕ � and Ö that are

semantically relevant (Morrill , 1994). Unary modalsthat are semantically neutral

leavethesemantics untouched.

ª�«Ã°¯-±eÆ%³ k-×Ø ªHÙ)Ú[ÛÑ« × Ú °¯/± Æ Ø I Ù2Û!³ ªN« × Ú °¯-±¦Ü Ø I Ù)³Ä Ë «mÝ¯'Þ�ÈÉÉÉ´ ÄßØ]Ë Ù?à Û È�«Ã¶½¯%¹ ÄáØ

JÙ Û Þ�È º ×´ Ä ª�ÈQ«â¶½¯TÔ ÄßØ

JÙ2Û�³gÈ

Ø ªHÙ Ú ÛÑ«Ãã¯%ä ÄßÄ I È]Û�³gÈ kTå�æ Úªl« å æ Ú °¯'ä ÄáÄ I È Û ³gÈªl« å æ Ú °¯-±¦Ü Ä I È Û ³ º å�æ ÚØ ªoÙ2Ú Û «Ã°¯/±¦Ü Ä

IÈ Û ³

Wekeeptherelationsbetween� � / V and çáè é / B|èßD strictly local. Weobtain this by

labelling a structural modalwith an index ê corresponding to the index given to

theunderlying modalrelation. Observe that weallow for a more specific modeEto replacea lessspecific modeP in therepresentationof linguistic meaning in ë V .

In line with this possibility wedrop theceteris paribuscondition usually assumed


for structural rules: If a structural rule changesthe modeof a structural modal,

thenthemodeof theunderlying modalrelation changes accordingly. Finally, note

that we do not have term constructors or deconstructors in DGL. They can be

considered identity functions,by which we trivially obey the general residuation

lawsfor unary modaloperators (Moortgat,1997a). ìRemark 6 (Putting things together). Theelimination rules in Definition 5 bind

theheadandthedependentasfollows. Thedependentcomeswith a referenceto a

head@ , whereas theheadis statedat @ � . Theresulting conjunction statesthatboth

thedependent andthehead hold at @!� . This is anabbreviationthat is equivalentto

repeating theoriginal formulasandthenequating @ and @ � using � 3 @ � , asdonein

(49iii).

With that, the point could be raisedthat on the onehand,I arguedthat (in a� -calculus) delayed § -normalization would be favorable over including normal-

ization directly in thecalculus,whereas on theotherhandit seemsthatDefinition

5 does includea form of normalization. Is there a contradiction arising from this?

Theansweris, no. Theimportantpoint is not somuchwhether or not to delay§ -normalization - the point is whetherwe areable to explain the differencebe-

tweenthe absence of linguistic meaning andthe absurdity of linguistic meaning.

Unlike standard § -normalization, composition asdefinedin Definition 5 does not

fail whenincompatible meaningsarecombined.Thereasonfor this is thatweonly

state that something to hold. But, recall that as long as we have not bound the

nominalsto specificstatesin amodel,thatstatement is all wehave. Thedifference

between absurdity andabsenceof linguistic meaning (Sgall et al., 1986) is thus

maintained. ìExample. On the basis of Definition 5, how canwe built the linguistic meaning

givenin (50) in parallel to ananalysisof its surfaceform?

(50) a. German

ChristopherChristopher

gehtgoes

insinto-the

Kinocinema

inin

derthe

Stadt.city

“Christophergoesto thecinemain thecity.”

b. 8M9I:gíZîâ:ïB ACTOR D�8 � : Christopher GZ:nB DIR:WHERE TO D�8[¡�:pð��?ñv��òó��G:óB LOCATIVE D�8[�¥:<ð��¤ôcõYGvGTheproof in (51)showshow to employ thecalculusof Definition 5 andrelevant


structural rules to analyze the sentence’s surfaceform, andbuild a representation

of its linguistic meaning.21

(51)

1. Lex ö?÷ « ×Ðø Æ�ù i ù?ú¾û ÷ Á/üM² i ùF² å�æ�ýfþ[þ#×Hÿ ÷ ¯-±¦Ü�µ?±¦Ü��¥¿ ±eÆ Ø WHERETOÙ ÷ ·

2. Lex �� « åeæ ýfþ[þ × ÿ ÷ Á ü��Wù?ú å�æ þ[ý ù × ÿ ÷ ¯-±��/Ç3. Lex kö?÷�� « å æ þ[ý ù × ÿ ÷ ¯/±�� Ø�� Ùfµ��¿��M·4. E/(2,3) µ �� » ü��Wù?ú kö?÷�� ·s« å�æ ýfþ[þ × ÿ ÷ ¯-±�� Ø � Ù4µ��¿��!� �"��M·5. E/(4,5) µ ö?÷ »ÑüM² i ù¤²Tµ �!�#� »�ü��Wù?ú pöF÷�� ·0·Ð«À±eÆ Ø WHERETO

Ùfµ��w¿��!� �"��M·6. Lex $�% �'&H«lµ�( � ü )þ ×*) þ ú¾û i ÷ ·0Á þ,+ ×.- Æ�ù i ù0/�û ÷ ¯-±21-µ0µ43Å¿�576�·m¿ Ø

ACTORÙ � ¿ Ø

WHERETOÙ98�·

7. Lex Í:�<; ö9� & �>= � % ;Ñ« åeæ@? û,A ×Hÿ ÷ ¯T±eÆMµ�Bp¿C�ED�FG� H�·8. E

å¦æ(7)

ØChristopherÙ ? û,A « ×Hÿ ÷ ¯-±eÆ�µ Bk¿I�EDJFG� H�·

9. Hyp K «ML10. I

×(9)

ØX Ù ) þ ú¾û i�« ×*) þ ú¾û i L

11. E/(6,5) $�% �'&�» þ,+ µ öF÷ » üM² i ù¤² µ ��#� » ü��Wù[ú pö?÷�� ·2·Ð«lµ�( � ü )þ ×*) þ ú¾û i ÷ ·I¯±21-µ0µ43Å¿N576�·m¿ ØACTOR

Ù � ¿ ØWHERETO

Ùfµ��w¿��M·0·12. E� (11,10) K »�ü )þ µ $#% �'&�» þ,+ µ ö?÷ »�üM² i ùF²Mµ �!�#� »�ü��Wù?ú kö?÷�� ·0·2·b«M(n¯± 1 µ0µ43Å¿N576�·m¿ Ø

ACTORÙ � ¿ Ø

WHERETOÙfµ��w¿��M·0·

13. E×

(12,8)ØChristopherÙ ? û,A »�ü )þ µ $#% �'&�» þ,+ µ ö?÷ »�ü�² i ù¤²�µ �!�#� »�ü��Wù?ú kö?÷�� ·0·2·Ð«I(�¯±21-µ0µ43Å¿N576�·m¿ Ø

ACTORÙfµ Bk¿I�ED�FE��H�·m¿ Ø

WHERETOÙ4µ��w¿��M·0·

14. Lex ö?÷ «lµ�( � ý@+ (Ð·0Á üM² i ù¤² å�æ � ý ú × ÿ ÷ ¯±eÆ ¸ µF±eÆ ¸PO ¿Ê±¦Ü Ø LOCATIVEÙ ÷ ·

15. Lex ��% ;Ñ« åeæ � ý ú ×Hÿ ÷ Á-ü��Wù?ú å�æ�þ[ýQ ù ×Hÿ ÷ ¯-± ý Ç16. Lex (*& �� &H« åeæ�þ[ý ù ×Hÿ ÷ ¯/±eÆ Ø�� Ùfµ � ¿��!�4R>So·17. E/(15,16) µ �!% ;�»�ü��Wù[ú0(T& �� &2·Ð« å�æ � ý ú ×Hÿ ÷ ¯-±eÆ Ø � Ù4µ � ¿�� R>So·18. E/(14,17) µ ö?÷ » ü�² i ù¤² µ ��% ;�» ü��Wù?ú (*& �� &2·2·Ð«lµ�( � ý@+ (Ð·I¯/± Ü Ø LOCATIVE

Ùfµ � ¿N�!�4R>So·19. E� (18,13) UVUVW ChristopherX�Y[Z�\^]7_!`�a>U bdc0egfG]<aih�Ukjml"]7_Gn,o0pPnGUrq,s>t�] _!u9p�v�w jxlQy,zVzVzVzE]7_!{@Ukjml*]7_Gn,o0p4nGU qdci|<] _!u9p�v�} f~s>q,fPzVzVzG� }��± 1 µ0µ43Å¿N576�·m¿ Ø

ACTORÙfµ Bk¿I�ED�FE��H�·m¿ Ø

WHERETOÙ4µ��w¿��M·¿ Ø

LOCATIVEÙ4µ � ¿�� RdSH·2·

1.4 TYPOLOGY, FORM , AND STRUCTURAL RULES

The ideaI want to explore here is how to build multilingual grammarfragments,

i.e. fragmentsdescribing phenomenaof morethanonelanguage,by distinguishing

in whatlanguage(s)a particular structural rule is applicable.

The approach that I take here with DGL is of course not entirely unique.

Therehavebeenpreviousattemptsatcombiningformalapproachesto grammar(or

rather, to syntax pure) anda typological perspective. Oneapproachwasinstigated

by Chomsky in (1965), andfocusedon constructing a “Universal Grammar”that21BecauseI havenotdealtwith informationstructureyet, I donotspecifyany semanticimport for

determinersin (51).


would arguably underly every existing humanlanguage. A fundamentalproblem

with thatapproachwasthat theUniversal Grammarwasthought to beconstruable

by studying just a single language– English. This naturally led to the criticism

that typological universals cannot be defined on the basis of the results obtained

from a singlelanguage. Later, approachesshiftedtheir emphasisto variation. The

PrinciplesandParameters generativegrammarframework, proposedby Chomsky

in the early 1980’s, definesparameters on variation. The collective possibilities

of how to setthese parametersdefine“the” possible grammars- and,stronger, the

possible humanlanguages.Anotherapproachis Jackendoff’ sX-bar theory (1977).

What the above approaches thus have more or lessin commonis that they start

from a single language, anddescribe possible variation in the build-up of gram-

marsin termsof theobservations doneon that language. This is not theapproach

I take here.Rather, theattempts I make hereshould beplaced in a paradigm that

could (loosely) be called “typological universal grammar”,as advancedby peo-

ple like Greenberg, Keenan, Comrie,andHawkins, andwhich -at times-hashad

close tieswith categorial grammar.Thestarting point of this paradigm is that lan-

guagesdiffer, andthat the taskis to characterize the regularities in that variation.

As this type of variation canbemoreconveniently capturedby a head-dependent

asymmetry distinction thanthe strictly linear character of phrase-structuregram-

mars(cf. (Hawkins, 1983)), it should comeperhapsasno surprise that the above

perspective on cross-linguistic modeling hasbeen tried before in categorial for-

mal grammars. Vennemanproposedaround two decadesagoan approachbased

onacategorial grammarformalismthatincludedahead-dependentasymmetry(cf.

(Venneman,1977; Hawkins,1983)), andSteedman’s CCGprovidesanaccountof

cross-linguistic variation (in Germaniclanguages) in termsof availability of spe-

cific combinatory rules(1996; 2000c). It is this ‘tradition’ that I try to continue

with DGL, combining it with insights from Praguian views on typology and the

systemof languageassuch.

Technically, if we restrict eachrule to being applicablein onelanguageonly,

we obtain a “hybrid” fragment that is simply a setof structural rules,for several

languages, thatdonot interactatall. This is onesense in which wecanunderstand

multili nguality of resources: We have a collection of separate,language-specific

resources.However, if we allow a structural rule to be applicablein various lan-

guages,wegetamuchmoreinterestingperspective. If astructural rule, describing

form, is applicable in several languagesthen that rule canbe understood to indi-


catewhatthese languageshave in common, whereas a structural rule applicablein

only onelanguageindicateshow that languagediffers from all therest.This is the

senseof multili nguality I am interestedin here:merged resources,wheremodels

for different languagesmay shareparticular fragments. (Seealso (Kruijf f et al.,

2000).)

The important point hereis that multilingual grammarfragments enable one

to construct a typological perspective of cross-linguistic comparison (cf. (Croft,

1990), Ch.1). Arguably, it is necessary for a framework to beableto provide this

perspective: Only throughapplicationof agivengrammarframework to modelling

a variety of languagesthe framework can be validated. Modelling phenomena

cross-linguistically elucidateswhethera framework’s mechanismsareindeedgen-

eralenough to beableto bespecific enough.

DGL, andcategorial type logic, provideasetting in whichwecanachievethis.

We assumethat the base logic, defined earlier, is languageuniversal. Thus,we

conjecture that we canbuild modelsfor all natural languagegrammarsthat start

from this commonbasis, defining the relation betweenform and meaning in a

compositional way, to which we canaddstructural rulesdefining moreelaborate

meansof structuralcontrol andstructural relaxation.22 Below, weproposeto model

of cross-linguistic variation andsimilarity asnetworks of structuralrules.

1.4.1 STRUCTURAL RULES AND GRADUAL REFINEMENT

According to Halliday, a grammar is “a theory aboutlanguageasa resourcefor

makingmeaning” (1985)(p.xxvi). Halliday (1985) proposesto build upagrammar

from systems, organizedin networks thatarestratifiedby ranks. A systemmodels

a particular choice, driven by the meaning we want to convey. Descending down

the ranks,the choices madeby the systemsinhabiting theselower ranks become

successively morespecific,dealing with increasingly finer detail. To relate this to

grammatical structure,systemsat a higher rank dealwith general organization of

a sentence,e.g. typeof speech act,clause-complexity, choice of moodandvoice.

Systemsat a lower rank decide aboutmorespecific detail. Next to the notion of

ranksHalliday considersthe notion of delicacy. By the delicacy of a system, or

groupof systems, we understandthe relative generality of the decision a system

makes.A lowerdelicacy meansthatit is moregeneral thanahigh delicacy choice,

22It shouldbenotedthattheclaim concernsherethepossibilityto modelgrammarsthatway. Weareby no meansclaimingthatnatural language grammars all work thatway from a cognitive pointof view. Sucha perspective is hardlywarrantedby, andgoesbeyond, mathematicalmodeling.


andassuch there is somehopethat it holds for morelanguages- though this is,

of course,anempirical matter. Undera non-standard interpretation (Bateman,p.c.)

onecanalsoconsider the useof a syntagmaticnotion of delicacy: that is having

grammatical constituents described in more or lessdetail. With this, we get an

analogy betweenrankanddelicacy: Thehigher therank, thelower thedelicacy.

How canwetranslatethispictureto categorial typelogics? As farasI amaware

of, cross-linguistic modelling (in the above sense) hasnever beendiscussed in

categorial typelogics,only -to someextent- in CCG(cf. (Steedman, 2000c; Kruijf f

andBaldridge, 2000)). Here,I proposeto represent a setof structural rulesasa

network. Wecanannotateeachstructural rule (or packageof structural rules)with

the language(s) for which it holds. Following the ideasof ranking anddelicacy,

structural rules of higher ranking expresscommonalities amonglanguages(if the

setis multil ingual), andlower ranking expressesdifferentiation.

1.4.2 MULTIL INGUAL NETWORKS OF STRUCTURAL RULES

In thecurrent section I discusshow wecanbuild multilingualnetworksof structural

rules. (Part II containsnumerousexamples of suchnetworks.)

As is customaryin categorial type logic, eachstructural rule in a fragment is

given a name- be that something like the rather nondescriptive ç ��E�é or a more

elaboratenamelike ç � > � �� K � @M@�� ^*� é . Givena name çk��é for a structural rule� z � � , we generally write çk��é � z � � . We extend that representation herewith

a set � indicating the languages to which the structural rule is applicable - i.e.

the structural rule is understood to modelpart of a phenomenon in a way that is

appropriate for the language(s) listed in � . For example,if çk��é is applicable to

languages�� ( ��%¢�� , thenwewrite this asin (52).

(52) çk��é �d� j0� �9�@�� z � �Model-theoretically, this change to the representation haslittle or no impact:

We aremerelyclaiming that çk��é is modelled by the appropriate frame-conditions

both in themodel � � j for language� ( , andin themodel � �9� for �!¢ .23

Givena setof structural rules,eachannotatedfor the language(s)they areap-

plicableto, how do we organize theminto a network? The organizingprinciples

arelaid down in Definition 6.23We do not explore herethe(purely technical)questionwhetherwe couldgenerate a combined

model for a setof languages � , �� , in which rankingcould for examplerelateto a hierarchyoffiltersasdiscussedin (Kurtonina,1995).


Definition 6 (Ar chitectures: Multilingual networks of structural rules). Given

a setof structural rules, ��C�� . �G�P�P�t�g� * � , wherebyeach structural rule is of the

form çk��é�� z �� . Wesaythat two rules � ( and � ¢ are connectedin thenetwork,¡, with � ( dominating �!¢ (written as � (£¢ �-¢ ), iff:

i. ¤r�¦¥ j ¤C§¨¤r©ª¥ � ¤ , i.e. � ( is applicableto at least asmanylanguagesas �[¢ .ii. Theoutput structureof � ( servesasaninput structureto � ¢ , i.e if � ( © � z ��

then �%¢ © �� z � .

A connected path « between a structural rule � ( and �'¬ is definedasthenon-

reflexivetransitive closure over ¢ . Theexistenceof a path « between � ( and �'¬ is

written as � ( ¢ �7¬ . Thesetof language(s) that a pathcovers is defined astheset

of languages of �!¬ .

Finally, to ensurethata networkis alwaysfully connected, weadda Startnode.

Thisnode doesnot correspond to a structural rule. It only indicatesthetop of the

network. By definition it dominates every node, and there alwaysexists a path

betweenStartandeveryrule in thegivensetof structural rules. ìTo illustrateDefinition 6, I endthis section with two (abstract) examples. In

thenext Part I discussamoreelaboratelinguistic examples, mostlyinvolving word

order.

Example. Consider thesetof structural rulesin (53),defined for languages � . ��<® .(53) � . �

¯ çk�±°_é �d�@² � �g³[� � � z �,çk�^´'é �d�@² � �g³[� � � � z � � ,çk�^µ'é �d� ² � ��¶ · z � � � ,çk�¦¸/é �d�g³E� � ¶~¹ ·�z ��

º

Clearly, wehave thefollowing relations: �±° ¢ �^´ , �^´ ¢ �^µ , �^´ ¢ �ª¸ . Thus,

wecandepict thenetwork asa tree, asin Figure1.4.2below.

[treefit=tight,levelsep=6ex] Startçk�±°_é �d�@² � �g³Q�çk�^´'é �d�@² � �g³Q�çk�^µ'é �d�@²� çk�¦¸/é �d�g³[�Figure1.3: A simplemultil ingual network of structural rules

Furthermore, thelanguage� . is coveredby thepath çk�±°_é ¢ çk�^µ'é , whereas � ®is covered by çk�±°_é ¢ çk�¦¸/é . ìExample. Let usconsiderwhathappenswhenwe extendtheset � . given in (53)

with thefollowing setof rules, givenin (54)


(54) � . � ¯ çk�^»'é �d�@²� � ¶~¼ ·�z � ¶~½ · ,çk�^¾'é��d� ² � � ¶V¿ ·�z � ¶~¼ ·º

We have that �^» ¢ �^¾ but thereis no structural rule thatdominates �^» . This

situationmayfor examplehappenwhentheentry-condition for �^» is arisesfrom a

lexical assignment, rather thanfrom structural reasoning. Thesameis actually the

casewith �±° in theexampleabove!

Thus, the network we now obtain would not be fully connected, without the

Start node. This is thepoint why therealwayshasto bea Startnode. With that in

mind, thenetwork we obtain is givenin Figure1.4.2.

Start�d�@² � �g³[�çk�^»'é �d�@²�çk�^¾'é �d�@²�çk�±°_é �d�@² � �g³@�çk�^´'é �d�@² � �g³@�çk�^µ'é �d�@²� çk�¦¸/é �d�g³@�Figure1.4: A simplemultili ngualnetwork of structural rulesincluding Start

SUMMARY

In this chapter I focusedon the relationbetweenlinguistic meaning andsurfaceform, in

particularthe realization of a linguistic meaning’s dependency structure. To that end, I

discussedhow dependency relationscanbe relatedto morphological strategiesthat real-

ize them. Becausethe relationis mediatedby abstractmorphological categories (like in

Government& Binding’s theory of case),the relationis not language-specificbut cross-

linguistic. In this way, DGL canprovide a linking theory that overcomesthe criticism

thathasit thattheinterpretationof a wordform asa particular “role” is stipulated. Subse-

quently, I focusedonhow wecanprovidealogicalcalculus in whichasentence’slinguistic

meaningis built in a compositional, monotonic way asa reflectionof the analysisof its

surfaceform. I useda resource-sensitive categorial proof theoryfor theanalysisof form,

alike theLambek-stylecalculi usedin categorial typelogic. However, ratherthanoperat-

ing ontype-logical termsto reflectsemanticsusingaCurry-Howardstylecorrespondence,

theproof theory in DGL operateson hybrid logical terms.Usingcategories that indicate

head/dependent asymmetries,anda formalizationof morphological strategies, I showed

how wecanobtainthekindof linguisticmeaningrepresentationsdiscussedin earlierchap-

tersthroughacompositionalanalysisof sententialform.

CHAPTER 2

THEORIES OF INFORMATION STRUCTURE

In thischapterI discussvarioustheoriesof informationstructurethatstresstheimportanceof ex-

plaining boththeexpressionof information structureandhow information structurebearsupon

linguistic meaning. Based onreflectionson thesetheories,I motivatewhy I opt for thePraguian

approach,andI discusscoreconceptslike contextualboundnessandtopic-focusarticulation. At

theendof thechapter, I explainhow contextualboundnesscanbeindicatedin thehybrid logical

formulation of asentence’s linguistic meaning,andhow wecanderivea topic-focusarticulation

from theindividual nodes’indicationsof contextual boundness.I alsopoint out how we arego-

ing to interpret a sentence’s topic-focusarticulation model-theoretically, andwhy dependency

relationsarenecessaryfor explaining (therealization of) information structure.

[the phenomenaat issuehere]have to do primarily

with how themessageis sentandonly secondarily

with themessageitself, just asthepackaging of

toothpastecanaffect salesin partial independence

of thequality of thetoothpasteinside.

– WallaceL. Chafe

2.1 INFORMATION STRUCTURE IN LINGUISTIC MEANING

In general, the purpose of a (declarative) sentence is to communicate meaning.

As mostsentencesareuttered in the context of a larger discourse,there is a side-

condition on this communication: the sentence’s meaning needs to be coherent

with the precedingcontext. Arguably, the claim behind information structureas

a theoretical construct is that it helps us to explain how the meaning a sentence

conveys canbecoherentwith respectto a larger discourse.

Froman abstract viewpoint, informationstructuretries to divide the meaning

of a sentence into several parts. Onesuch part, which I call for the momentthe

Relatum, states how themeaning of thesentencepurports to relate to the already

establisheddiscourse. It helpsto set,as it were,the conditions under which the

meaningof thesentencecanbetrue,providedthese conditions aremet.1

1An importantpointhereis thattheRelatumconditions themeaning- for informationstructuretomakeany explanatoryimpact,wemustdistinguishinformationstructureandthelinguisticmeaningitis partof from thesubsequentinterpretationof thesentencein thesettingof theestablisheddiscourse

41

42À Theoriesof InformationStructure

Next to the Relatumwe candistinguish a part that I call herethe Attributum.

TheAttributumsayssomethingabout theRelatum,by qualifyin g or modifying the

meaning it is relatedto in thecontext. Thus,whereas theRelatum of a sentence’s

linguistic meaning could beunderstoodasspecifying certain ‘given’ information,

it would be only partially correct to perceive of the Attributum as the ‘new’ in-

formation. The Attributum neednot provide information that is entirely new, in

an additive fashion. It may well indicate the needto change, modify, a piece of

informationthathadpreviously beenestablishedin thediscourse.

An importantissue now is how a sentence’s surfaceform realizestheinforma-

tion structureof theunderlying linguistic meaning. After all, whereas themeaning

that is beingcommunicatedis by nature multi-dimensional 2, wordformscanonly

beuttered in a linear order. Thus,weneedto project thecomplex underlying struc-

turesontoasingledimension,andtherebyweareconstrained by language-specific

rules defininggrammaticality.

Thebasic ideais thatformsareiconic of their informativity - they carrywhatI

call herestructural indicationsof informativity. It naturally dependson thetypeof

languagewhatmeansareavailableto indicateinformativity. For example,Slavonic

languageslike Czechor Russianpredominantlyuseword order, structuring a sen-

tence suchthat thewordsrealizing theRelatumappear at thebeginning, followed

by the Attributum - see(55) for somepossibilit ies in Czech,and their English

counterparts in (56).

(55) Czech

a. VceraElijah cetlÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅJÆdÇmÈQÉPÊ�Ë KatceknihuÁ ÂEÃ ÄÌ ÉPÉPÍ>ÎPÏiÊ�ÉPÊ�Ë .

b. KatceElijah vcera cetlÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅ�Æ,ÇxÈÉPÊ�Ë knihuÁ ÂEÃ ÄÌ ÉPÉPÍ>ÎPÏiÊ�ÉPÊ�Ë .

c. Knihu Elijah vceracetlÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅJÆdÇmÈQÉPÊ�Ë KatceÁ ÂEÃ ÄÌ ÉPÉPÍ>ÎPÏiÊ�ÉPÊ�Ë .

“Elijah reada bookto Kathy yesterday.”

Thus,even though Slavonic languageshave a relatively free word order, that

word order is by no meansarbitrary: It indicatesinformativity, andthereforethe

sentence’s felicity mayvary dependingon thecontext.

context. Thepurportedrelation,or contextual referencein abroadsense,is not yetresolved. It is the(im)possibility of resolvingthe referencethat rendersa sentence’s linguistic meaning(in)coherent.Also, notethatinformationstructureis notequalto truth-conditions - (Sgalletal., 1986;Hajicova etal., 1998; Peregrin, 1995).

2In thesensethatconceptual structuresarenot linear.

Theoriesof InformationStructure /43

On theotherhand,a languagelike Englishalready usesword orderasa mor-

phological strategy to realize Case,a rich inflectional system being absent. To

realize informativity, Englishpredominantly uses other means, in particular tune.

Theexamples below (56) illustratetheuseof tuneto realizethesameinformation

structuresasin (55). Pitchaccent is indicatedby SMALL CAPS.

(56) English

a. Yesterday Elijah readÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅJÆdÇmÈQÉPÊ�Ë A BOOK TO KATHYÁ ÂEÃ ÄÌ ÉPÉPÍ>ÎVÏiÊ�ÉPÊ�Ë .

b. Elijah readÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅJÆdÇmÈQÉPÊ�Ë A BOOKÁ ÂGÃ ÄÌ ÉPÉPÍ>ÎVÏiÊ�ÉPÊ�Ë to Kathy yesterdayÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅ�Æ,ÇxÈÉPÊ�Ë .

c. Yesterday Elijah readthebookÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅJÆdÇmÈQÉPÊ�Ë TO KATHYÁ ÂEÃ ÄÌ ÉPÉPÍ>ÎVÏiÊ�ÉPÊ�Ë .

Besidestune,Englishcanalsousefunction wordsto realize informativity. For

example, a definite determiner prototypically indicatesthat the meaningof the

modifiednoun is contextually given (56c), whereasverbal auxiliariescanbeused

to make themainverbmoremarked(57).

(57) English

a. Yesterday Elijah readÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅJÆdÇmÈQÉPÊ�Ë A BOOK TO KATHYÁ ÂEÃ ÄÌ ÉPÉPÍ>ÎVÏiÊ�ÉPÊ�Ë .

b. Yesterday ElijahÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅ�Æ,ÇxÈÉPÊ�Ë DID READ a bookÁ ÂEÃ ÄÌ ÉPÉPÍ>ÎPÏiÊ�ÉPÊ�Ë to KathyÁ ÂEÃ ÄÅ�Æ,ÇxÈÉPÊ�Ë .

Finally, wealsoencounterlanguagesthathavearich nominal morphology and

-hence-arelatively freer word order,which realize informationstructureprimarily

throughaffixation. An often-citedexampleis Japanese,wherethe-wasuffix marks

a contextually given item and -ga is often associatedwith newness(though see

(Heycock, 1993)). Haimanmentionsother languagesthat have similar construc-

tions(cf. (Croft, 1990),p.10).For example, thePapuanlanguageHuausesa suffix

-mo to indicate a sentence’s Relatum. Furthermore, although Turkish normally

usesword order to indicate information structure (Hoffman, 1995b; Hoffman,

1995a) Haimannotes that the -sA suffix canmark contrast (“contrastive topic”).

Interestingly enough, Tagalogalso usesmorphological meansto indicate infor-

mativity but, asKroeger observes, it depends on the dependency relation that is

involvedwhetherthesuffix indicatesthattheitem belongsto theRelatum or to the

Attributum (1993)(pp.64-69,pp.130-131). Applying what Kroeger calls the -ay-

Inversion construction to anActor makestheActor part of theRelatum,but using


-ay-Inversion with any other dependency relation indicatesthedependentspecifies

something new. Finally, Engdahl & Vallduvı mention in (1994) Navajo andVute,

languagesin which Attributa areassociatedwith a particular suffix.

To recapitulate,weseethatthereis aninterestingvarietyin how languagescanre-

alize informationstructure,andthat it is necessaryto distinguishdifferenttypesof

dependency relations to give anadequateaccount. Depending on the type of lan-

guage we aredealing with different typesof structural indications of informativity

arepredominantly used,like word orderin Czech,tunein Englishor a dedicated

morphological suffix in Japanese. ‘Predominantly’ should be stressedhere,be-

cause no languageappearsto bemakingabsolute useof oneandonly onemeans.

For example, if we take the two typologically rather different languagesthat

Sgallet al contrast in (1986), EnglishandCzech,thenwecanseethatEnglish can

useword order-relatedconstructions like topicalization or focal fronting, andthat

Czechcanusetuneto mark contrast. If we take languagesthat we canconceive

of asbeing ‘somewhereinbetween’like Dutch or German,thenwe canobserve

anevenmoreobviouscontinuumbetween theuseof word order andtuneasstruc-

tural indications of informativity. Sgall et al. often presentexamples like (58),

illustrating theuseof word order in English.3 Naturally, any theory of information

structureshould beableto handle these.

(58) a. Christopherwaswriting his dissertation on theweekends.

b. On theweekends,Christopherwaswriting his dissertation.

It is thenthis relativelypredominantuserather thananabsoluteuseof different

structural indications of informativity thathasimportant severalconsequencesfor

a theory of information structure,modeledin a particular grammarframework.4

Firstof all, becausegrammardescribestherelation betweenfunction(linguistic

meaning) andform, the framework underlying thegrammarneedsto bepowerful

enough to modelthevarious strategiesa languagemayadopt asstructural indica-

tionsof informativity, andthepotential interactionbetween thesestrategieswithin

a single language.

Secondly, a theory of informationstructure-asaninherentcomponentof a the-

ory of language- mustbeableto makepredictionsabout how informationstructure

canberealizedcross-linguistically. Naturally, a language’s inventoryof strategies3Observe alsotheword ordervariationin (56)4Certainlyfrom the Praguianpoint of view, aswell asthe othertheoriesdiscussedhere,where

themodelingof informationstructureis a matterof grammar.


to structurally realize informativity depends on its typological characterization.

But, becausestrategiesare relative ratherthan absolute, each languageshares at

leastpartof its inventory with other languages.Consequently, lestthetheory gives

rise to a ratherad hocexplaination of information structure, it should bepossible

to lift the modelof how a particular strategy contributesto realizing information

structure in one languageto a different languageif the latter employs that same

strategy. Thus,onewould for exampleexpect that a modelof informationstruc-

ture for Germanwould show significant overlap with similar modelsfor Dutch

andEnglish. And that,wheredifferences do arise, they would be explainableby

language-specific constraints on grammaticality (or “prosodic well-formedness”,

(Morrill , 1994)).

Below I describevarioustheoriesof informationstructure,andreflectonthemfrom

thesetwo perspectivesof cross-linguistic explanationand(formal) coverage. The

theoriesI describearecontemporaryframeworks that oneoftenencountersin for-

mal grammaror formal semantics: thePraguian theoryof topic-focusarticulation

( Ð 2.2), Steedman’s Theme/Rheme( Ð 2.3), and Vallduvı’s information packaging

( Ð 2.4). Thus,my coverage is by nomeans‘total’ but there is agoodreason for dis-

cussing just thesetheories. Namely, these aretheonly theories thatconsiderboth

the “semantics” of information structure and its modeling in a grammarframe-

work - unlike the ‘degrammatized’theoriesof Karttunenor Rooth,or mostof the

Government& Binding tradition which considersonly the syntax of information

structure and not its reflection in linguistic meaning.5 For other overviews, see

for exampleKruijf f-Korbayova (1998), Hajicova andKruijf f-Korbayova (1999),

or Vallduvı (1990).6

After these discussions, I provide in Ð 2.5 a brief reflection from theviewpoint

of theabove remarks about theoriesof informationstructure,andI presentin Ð 2.6

anoverview of how information structureis modeledin DGL.

5TheorieslikeGrosz& Sidner’s(1986),Groszetal’s(1995)andHahn& Strube’sextensionof thelatter(usingDanes’s theoryof thematicstructures)areall concerned with discoursestructureratherthangrammar, andthereforefall outsidethescopeof thisdissertation.SeeKruijf f-Korbayova (1998)for adiscussionof how thesetheoriesrelateto thePraguiantheorythatI dodiscusshere.For reasonsof time I am not ableto discussZubizaretta(1998)or Lambrecht(1996). Both accountsappear todeserve interest,particularlyZubizaretta’s asshetakesa perspective on informationstructurethat ismodeledon thebasisof word orderphenomenaandtunein GermanicandRomancelanguages.

6Vallduvı’s descriptionof Sgallet al’s theoryof topic-focusarticulation(1986) is, however, de-batable.


2.2 INFORMATION STRUCTURE IN THE PRAGUE SCHOOL

Information structure hassincelong beenan essential ingredient of the view on

languagedevelopedin thePrague Schoolof Linguistics. Nowadays, a distinction

is madebetween the topic of a sentence,andthe focus. Thesetwo termscanbe

traced back to Weil’s work in the nineteenth century (1844). Weil’s work was

resumed by several Germanlinguists in the decades around the turn of the last

century. Subsequently, thePragueSchoolof Linguistics startedpaying systematic

attention to issues of information structure, starting with Mathesius’s work (1936;

1975). Mathesius recognized that the distinction betweentopic and focus was

importantto problemsranging from tuneto wordorder,andformulatedanaccount

on thebasisof a structural comparison of CzechandEnglish(cf. also(Sgallet al.,

1986),p.175)).

Within the Functional Generative Description, the theoryof topic-focus artic-

ulation (or TFA for short)hasbeenelaboratedby Sgall, Hajicova, andtheir col-

laboratorsfor more than four decadesnow. Hajicova presents in (1993) a brief

overview of thedevelopmentsthat includeSgallet al (1973; 1980; 1986) andvar-

ious articles primarily by Sgall andHajicova. A recent dialogueexamining TFA

and its relation to formal semantics canbe found in Hajicova, Partee,andSgall

(1998).

Therearethreeprincipal ingredients to thePraguian theory of TFA:

i. thetopic andfocusdichotomy thatdividesasentence’s linguisticmeaning into

acontextually giventopic (theRelatum)andafocusthatis about thetopic (the

Attributum);

ii. contextualboundness, acharacterizationof anindividualhead’sor dependent’s

informativity, beingeithercontextually boundor contextually nonbound;and,

iii. communicativedynamism, which is a relative orderingover theheads andde-

pendentsmakingup a sentence’s linguistic meaning indicating how informa-

tive they arerelative to oneanother.

Furthermore,we have the closely related conceptsof salience (discourseac-

tivation) andthe Stockof Shared Knowledge. Both play an important role in the

discourseinterpretation of TFA (Sgallet al., 1986;Hajicova,1993).

An importantcharacteristic of FGD’sTFA is thatthetermstopic andfocusare

not primarynotions,like their counterparts in othertheories. Rather, topic andfo-


cusarebased on the structural notion of contextual boundness.7 Eachdependent

andeachhead in a sentence’s linguistic meaning is characterized asbeing either

contextually bound or contextually nonbound. Intuitively, items that have been

activated in the preceding discoursemay function as contextually bound (CB),

whereasnon-activateditemsarealwayscontextually nonbound(NB) (Sgallet al.,

1986)(p.54ff,p187ff). Mostly, an item is activated by introducing it explicitly into

thediscourse. Importantabout contextual boundnessis, though,that it is a linguis-

tic opposition, reflectedin thestructuring of linguistic meaningandits realization

- it is not precise to equate contextual boundness to the discourse(or cognitive)

opposition of given/new. For example,apreviouslyitem(CB) mayoccur in acon-

trastive focus, andwecanpresentitemsasCB if they areactivatedby thesituation

of thediscourseor canbeactivated indirectlyby for exampleassociation(Hajicova

et al., 1998)(p.59). In otherwords,contextual boundnessis an issue of linguistic

presentation.

Giventhis characterization, andtheinternal structureof thesentence’s linguis-

tic meaning, wecanderivetheactual topic andfocus. To thatend,Sgalletal define

in (1986) thefollowing procedure(p.216).

Definition 7 (FGD’s Topic-FocusArticulat ion). Givena tectogrammatical rep-

resentation of a sentence’s linguistic meaning,

Ñ themainverbbelongsto thefocus if it is contextually nonbound, andto the

topic if it is contextually bound;

Ñ thecontextually nonboundnodesdepending on themainverbbelongto the

focus, andsodo all nodes(transitively) subordinatedto them;

Ñ if someof theelements of the tectogrammatical representation belong to its

focusaccording to either of theabovepoints, theneverycontextually bound

daughterof themainverbtogetherwith all nodes(transitively) subordinated

to it belong to thetopic;

Ñ if no nodeof thetectogrammatical representation fulfills thefirst two points

above, thenthe focusmaybe more deeplyembedded; special rules for the

determination of focus are applied in these cases.

Ò7To quoteSgallet al.: “If the notionsof topic andfocus(aspartsof a tectogrammaticalrepre-

sentation)arecharacterizedon thebasisof contextual boundness,thenwedon’t have to worry aboutquestionswhethertopic andfocusarea single(deepor surface)constituent[...].” (1986)(p.188).


In FGD, the scaleof communicative dynamismdefinesa (partial) orderover

thenodes in a sentence’s linguistic meaning, after Firbas’s original notion of com-

municative dynamism (seeFirbas(1992) for a recentformulation). If we project

thelinguistic meaning’s treeto a line, then weobtain a reflection of thatorder. The

topic proper andthe focus proper aretheleastrespectively mostcommunicatively

dynamic elements in a sentence’s linguistic meaning. In the projected(deep) or-

der, thetopic propercorresponds to theleftmost item,whereas thefocusproper is

identified by thetherightmost element.

Hajicova andSgallnote in (Hajicova et al., 1998)(p.56ff) thatthere is a strong

correspondencebetween communicative dynamism and word order (and, indi-

rectly, tune). This certainly holds for languageslike Czech. Dependents that are

contextually nonboundareconsideredto becommunicatively moredynamic, and

occur prototypically after the head, whereascontextually bounddependents are

lessdynamic and should occur before the modified head. The mutual ordering

of contextually nonbounddependents thereby follows what is calledthe systemic

ordering, thecanonical ordering in which complement typesoccur in a given lan-

guage(Sgalletal., 1986;Sgalletal., 1995). Ontheotherhand, FGDconsidersthe

order of contextually bound complements to be only determined by their mutual

communicative dynamism. The examples in (59) give a brief illustration of the

above ideas. Also, recall theearlier examples(58) and(56).

(59) a. CzechCoElijah udelal? (English Whatdid Elijah do?)

ElijahElijah-CB

koupilbought-NB

knihu.book-NB.

“Elijah bought a BOOK.”

Topic=Ó Actor :Elijah Ô , Focus=Ó buy, Patient:bookÔb. CzechCoElijah koupil? (English Whatdid Elijah buy?)Õ

he-CBkoupilbought-CB

knihu.book-NB

“He bought a BOOK.”

Topic=Ó Actor :he,buy Ô , Focus=Ó Patient:book ÔDefinition 7 also covers cases where the focus is deeper embedded. Thus,

the dependent(s) constituting the focus do not modify the main verbal headbut

(transitively) one of its dependents. In the examplein (60), only the dependent

realizedasskapsami(English “with pockets”) belongsto thefocus,therestof the

sentence’s linguistic meaningconstitutesthetopic. Consider also(61).


(60) CzechJake nosı krtek kalhotky?

(English “What trousers doesthemolewear?”)

Krtekmole-CB

nosıwears-CB

kalhotkytrousers-CB

swith

kapsami.pockets-NB

“The molewearstrousersWITH POCKETS.”

Topic=Ó Actor : mole,wear,Patient: trousersÔ , Focus=Ó GenRel:pocketsÔ(Kruij ff-Korbayova,1998)(p.27)

(61) English

(Whatteacherdid you meetyesterday?)Ö(Yesterday×9Ø Ï (I ×dØ Ï (met×dØ Ï (theteacher ×0Ø Ï,ÙPÚ Ö

(of CHEMISTRY ×,Û ÏEÜ Ù Ý– cf. (Sgallet al., 1986), (Hajicova et al., 1998)(p.135)

Thus,the primary notions contextually bound andcontextually nonbound are

recursive in the sensethat contextually nonbound itemscanbe embedded under

contextually bound itemsandviceversa.

In thegeneral case,neithertopic norfocusis asingle item,as(60)or (62)show.

(62) English

(Whathappenedto Jim?)

A burgler INJURED him.

Topic=Ó Patient:heÔ , Focus=Ó Actor: burglar, injureÔ (Hajicova,1993)

Petkevic notesin (1987; in prep) thatDefinition 7 does not cover somespecial

casesof topic-focus articulation that hecalls “split semantemes”.Thetopic-focus

articulation of a sentenceis representedat the level of linguistic meaning, andat

that level we do not have separatenodesfor function wordsor evenmorelocal as-

pectsof form. A sentence’s linguistic meaningonly hasnodesthat representwhat

in FGD arecalled auto-semanticunits or semantemes.However, from the view-

point of a sentence’s topic-focusarticulation it is not only the whole semanteme

assuchthat canbe determinedaseithercontextually boundor contextually non-

bound. Petkevic illustratestheneedfor a morerefinedassignedby examples like

(63).

(63) English

a. I SHALL do it, not thatI HAVE already done it.

b. I saw not only a single mousethere but severalMICE.


For example,Petkevic arguesthatin (63a)thespecificationsof theverbal Tense

of both occurrences of do belong to the focus, whereasboth occurrencesof the

headdo belongto thetopic. A similar picturearisesfrom (63b), only thenfor the

specification of number.

Over time, several proposalshave beenmadehow to formalize FGD’s theory

of TFA. In general, theseproposalseither focus on the (truth-theoretic) interpre-

tation of a sentence’s topic-focusarticulation, or have as their main concern the

grammar’s representation of a topic-focus articulation.

Both representrather long traditions. FGD received its first formalization in

Sgall et al’s (1969), wherethe authors wereconcernedwith providing a “math-

ematically -thus linguistically- interesting description of (linguistic) meaning.”8

Sgall(1980) presentsthefirst formalizationof FGD’sTFA. Sgallfirst constructsan

automaton(roughly a complex pushdown store automaton) that is ableto generate

representationsof asentence’s linguistic meaning,includingmarking of contextual

boundness. Subsequently, a transduceris given that completesthe representation

-asit were-by deriving thesentence’stopic-focusarticulation,based onthecontex-

tual boundnessmarking. Petkevic extendsthis type of description in (1987; 1995;

in prep). Petkevic’s formalization is couchedin a larger reformulation of FGD’s

generative description of linguistic meaning, and includessolutions to several of

theproblemsnoted on thepreviouspage.

After Sgall et al argued the importanceof distinguishing a sentence’s topic-

focus articulation for the felicity of its linguistic meaning in a givencontext, vari-

ousattemptshavebeenmadetowardstheclarification of thisview in logical terms.

Onegroup of such contributions wascarried out within the framework of an in-

tensional logic, namelyTichy’s transparent intensional logic. The basic issues

involved in formulating TFA in transparent intensional logic were discussedby

Materna andSgall (1980) andby Materna,SgallandHajicova (1987). Vlk (1988)

provideda procedure for translating the tectogrammatical representations gener-

atedby FGDinto Maternaet al’s logical representationsof transparentintensional

logic.

Other, more recentdevelopmentsare based on Partee’s tripartite structures

or on a logical dynamic perspective as arising from dynamic semantics. (See

(Muskenset al., 1996) for a general description of logical dynamics and its use

in describing natural languageinterpretation.)

8The kind of grammarthat Sgall et al presentin (1969) still employs phrasestructure-basednotions,contraryto thelaterwork (Sgalletal., 1986).


Peregrin (1995) is the first attemptto construct a more dynamicaccount of

TFA. Following anapproachthatessentially goesbackto Jackendoff (1972), Pere-

grin formalizesthe intuition that the focus says something about the topic as aÞ-term. The topic is modeled asan abstraction, to which the focus-termthencan

beapplied.

To provideanaccount of thesemantic effectsof information structure, Peregrin

providesanextensionaltheory of thetruth of a sentence’s topic-focusarticulation.

In this theory, ßPßáà ßPß stands for the extension of an expression ‘ à ’, wherebyßPß"à ßPß is a truth value if ‘ à ’ is a sentence,an individual if ‘ à ’ is a term,anda

classof individualsif ‘ à ’ is a unary predicate. Then,a proposition whoseexten-

sion is denoted by ßTà ß is associatedwith every expression à (understood asa

presupposition associatedwith à ) asgivenin (64).

(64)

ß�àâß = ßPß�àãßPß if X is a sentence

= ßPß<ä�å Ü åçæNàèßPß if X is a term

= ßPß<ä�å Ü à�é�å�×êßPß if X is a unary predicate

The semantics of a formula ë�ÓGìíÔ , asthe predication of ë corresponding to

the focus-part over a sentence’s topic-part ì , is definedin (65), cf. (Peregrin,

1995)(p.240). Notethat ë£é�ì^× is (the î -normalization of) thestandardapplication

of ë to ì .

(65)

ßPß�ë±ÓGìCÔ±ßPß = true iff ß�ìïß = true & ßPß�ëðé�ìª×êßPßræ true

= false iff ß�ìñß = true & ßPß�ë£é�ìª×êßPß = false

= false iff ß�ìñß = false

Therather simpleexamplesin (66) illustratethebasicidea.

(66) a. JohnWALKS: Walk Ó John Ôb. JOHN walks:

ÞJò Ü ò (John) Ó Walk ÔPeregrin works out an extensional account of negation, basicquantification,

and focus asexhaustive listing. On the basis of the definitions in (64) and (65)

Peregrin definesamoredynamicaccount of Ó<óVÔ . Dynamically, a predication ô£é9õö×is true canbe modeled asa statementsaying that there exists an assignmentof a

valueto a variable ÷ such that ô£é�÷T×öøù÷úæûõ is true. A similar construction can

bedefinedfor Peregrin’s new modeof predication, Ó<óVÔ . Givena concatenator Ô!ø ,ìüÔ!øüë hasatruthvalueif andonly if ì hasatruth value,andit is trueif andonlyìýøNë is true(in thesenseof ôCøMõ asabove).


As Peregrin observeshimself, the definition he gives for the truth of a state-

ment ìþÔ!øþë cannotbeappliedrecursively. Kruijf f-KorbayovaextendsPeregrin’s

proposal to an intensional approach in (1998), andprovidesdefinitions that can

be applied recursively (seeher p.78ff). Kruijf f-Korbayova weavesan intensional

(typed)theory of TFA into a discourserepresentation theory to createTF-DRT. In

Chapter 6 I discussKruijf f-Korbayova’s TF-DRT in moredetail, andI showhow

particular technical problemswith TF-DRT canbesolvedby usinghybrid logic.

Besides a dynamic account, Peregrin also briefly discussesthe possibility to

modelTFA in termsof tripartite structures. The idea of using tripartite structures

wasfirst put forwardby Parteein (1991), andis substantiatedto a larger degreein

Hajicova et al’s (1998). In the latter work, the authors discussin Chapter 2 how

a tripartite structureconstisting of anOperator, a Restrictor, anda NuclearScope

could modela sentence’s informationstructurewhenit involvesa focus-sensitive

operator.9

Many subtletieshave beenglossedover in the above discussion of TFA. For

more thorough exposesseeSgall et al’s discussionin Chapter3 of (1986), and

Hajicova et al’s discussion in (1998). Throughout thenext chapters I devote more

attention to therelation betweeninformation structurein theabovePraguian sense,

in particular to contextualboundnessandits realizationusingwordorderandtune.

Whereappropriate the relevant Praguian referencesare given there. Finally, in

Chapter 6 I discussa model-theoretic account of the discourseinterpretation of

informationstructure,basedon a reworked version of TF-DRT.

2.3 STEEDMAN’ S THEME/RHEME

Steedman(1996; 2000c; 2000a) develops a theory of grammarin which syntax,

information structure, and intonational prosody are integrated into one system.

Steedman’s main aim is to provide an information structure-sensitive composi-

tional analysisof English phrasedasa Combinatory Categorial Grammar.There-

fore, this system is monostratal: the only proper representation of a sentence is

the representation of its linguistic meaning: “... a theory of grammarin which

phrasal intonation and informationstructure arereunited with formal syntaxand

semantics is not only possible, but muchsimpler thanonein which they aresepa-

rated.”(Steedman,2000a)(p.653)

9BecauseI donotdiscussfocalizersin thisdissertation,I omit furtherdiscussion.Seefor example(Hajicova et al., 1998)(p.39)for a fully workedout exampleof this approach.


Steedmanrecognizes two independent dimensions of information structure,

both of which arerelevant to its realization (Steedman, 2000a)(p.655). The first

dimensiondefinesapartitioning into aThemeandRheme. Thisdistinction is simi-

lar to theoneproposedby Mathesius,thePraguian topic-focusarticulation,andthe

Relatum/Attributumcharacterization I gaveearlier- thus, Steedman’sTheme/Rheme

indicate how, informally put, theutterancerelatesto theprecedingdiscoursecon-

text.10

Steedmanalsodefinesa second dimension of informationstructure. This di-

mensionfirst of all partitions theRhemeinto a focusanda background. Thefocus

of a Rhemeis that ‘inf ormation’ that is marked in the surface form, whereasthe

backgroundof theRhemeis its unmarkedpart. In English, this correspondsto the

focusbeingmarkedby a pitch accent, whereasthebackground is unmarked by ei-

ther a pitch or a boundary. In a similar move Steedmandividesthe Themeinto a

focusanda background, with thatdifferenceto theRhemethat theTheme’s focus

is optional. Therecan,but neednot, bea marked element in theTheme’s surface

realization.

This partitioning is related to Halliday’s Given-New dichotomy(1985), andto

thePraguiandivisionof contextual boundnessinto contextually bound/contextually

nonbound. It concernsthedistinction betweenelements in thesentence’s meaning

which contribute to distinguishing the Themeand the Rhemefrom other alter-

natives that the context makes available, in the senseof Rooth’s alternative sets

(Steedman,2000a)(p.656).

Theexamplesbelow illustrateSteedman’scharacterization of information struc-

ture in more detail. Steedmanformalizesthe Themeof a sentence as aÞ-term

involving a functional abstraction, like Jackendoff or Peregrin. The Rhemeis a

term that canbe applied to that abstraction, after which we obtain a proposition.

As CCG is a categorial grammarcombining aÞ-calculus to represent linguistic

meaning, this proposition hasthe samepredicate-argumentstructure asthe com-

position of the canonical sentencewould have resulted in. For example, consider

theexample in (67a) andtherepresentation of its Themein (67b).

(67) English

a. (Whatdid Kathy prove?)

(Kathy proved× É4ÿ�Æ Ë�Æ (P=NP × Ígÿ�Æ Ë�Æ .10It shouldbe observed thoughthat his notion of Themeis not similar to Halliday’s useof that

term- inspiteof Steedman’s criticismof Halliday. For Halliday Themerelatesto thematicstructure,not to theinformationstructureof anindividual sentence.


b.Þ ÷ Ü �� ÷ ��å

Because thefunctional abstractionis closely relatedto theexistentialoperatorä , thecontext of (67a) could instantiatetheexistential asin (68).

(68)

� prove’ undecidability’ Kathy’,

prove’ canonicity’ Kathy’,

prove’ infatomability’ Kathy’

prove’ P=NP’ Kathy’

�The set in (68) is an alternative set, i.e. a setof potential alternative instan-

tiations. Steedmancalls it the rhemealternative set, andit holdsthat the Theme

presupposestherhemealternativesetwhereastheRhemerestricts it.11 Thedistinc-

tion of a focus anda background in theRheme,andpossibly in theTheme,helps

to setit apartfrom otheralternativesavailablein thecontext. In particular, wehave

thatthefocuswithin theRhemerestrictstheRhemealternative setpresupposedby

theTheme.

Furthermore,wecanconsiderthesituationin whichaThemeindeeddoeshave

a focus,realized by a markedform. Steedmangivesin (2000a)(p.659) the follow-

ing example, (69).

(69) English

(I knowthatMarcel likesthemanwho wrotesthemuscial.

But who does heADMIRE?)é MarcelÁ ÂEÃ ÄÏ0È Ø�� Í��dÊ Û�� ADMIRESÁ ÂEÃ Ä� � Ø Ê��Á ÂEÃ ÄÚ ÿ�Æ Ë�Æ×Eé the womanwhoÁ ÂGÃ ÄÏ0È Ø�� Í��dÊ Û�� DIRECTEDÁ ÂEÃ Ä� � Ø Ê�� themusicalÁ ÂEÃ ÄÏ0È Ø�� Í��,Ê Û��Á ÂEÃ ÄÅ�ÿ�Æ Ë�Æ

×

Steedmanargues that the significanceof having a pitch accent on “admire”

seemsto be in the context offering alternativesthat only differ in the relation be-

tweenMarceland ÷ . A marked Themeis representedasin (70).

(70) ä7÷ Ü�� ! #"%$ �&��'� ÷(")� �&*��,+-The utteranceof (69) would be infelicitous if the context would not contain

an alternative, like the ä7÷ Ü + $/. ��'0 ÷�")� �&*��,+- we have here. The setof alternative

Themesprovidedby thecontext of (69) is givenin (71).11As Steedmannoteshimself,for examplesin (2000a)(p.10),alternative setsareusedfor reasons

of expositionratherthanpresentingtheonly possiblemeansof formalization.For example,it is notdifficult to seehow alternative setsin asense‘extensionalize’accessibilityin a modallogic’s frame.


(71)

� ä7÷ Ü �! #"%$ �#��', ÷�")� �&*��,+- ,ä7÷ Ü + $/. ��', ÷1")� ��*��2+3 �The kind of alternative set given in (71) is what Steedmancalls the Theme

alternative set. TheThemepresupposes alsothis set,andit is the Theme’s focus

thatrestrictsit.

Although Steedman doesnotdiscussrecursivity of focusandbackground, they

appear to berecursive in thesamesenseasFGD’scontextually bound/contextually

nonbounddistinction. For example,consider (72)

(72) English

(“Do you seethatold boatnext to theAmsterdam?”)

I canseea VERY old SHIP next to theAmsterdam.

OnepossibleSteedman-style analysisof (72) is given in (73). Like in (60) or

(61), theRhemeis modifiesa headthat is itself partof theTheme.

(73)I can see a4 576 89;:7<>=0?�@BA/CED2F4 5�6 8GH�I�JKI

VERY

H*4 5�6 8L1A/<MC�N old4 5�6 89;:7<>=0?�@0AOCED2F4 5�6 8PQHEI>JRITALLSHIP

L+H*4 576 8L1AB<MC�N next to the Amsterdam4 576 89 :S<>=0?�@BA/CED2F4 576 8GH�I�JKIIn (1996; 2000c) and in (2000a) Steedmanelaboratesa grammarthat shows

how the above kinds of information structure-enriched representations of a sen-

tence’s linguistic meaningare related to English tune. Hoffman worked out in

(1995b; 1995a) a version of CCGthat modelsTurkish freeword order. Hoffman

coupledthat to aslightly different theoryof information structurethatstandsinbe-

tweenSteedman’s account andVallduvı’s informationpackaging. In Chapter 3 I

devotemoreattention to Hoffman’sproposalfor modeling freewordorder in acat-

egorial grammar,whereasin Chapter5 I return to Steedman’s account of English,

focusing in particularon his modelof tune.

2.4 INFORMATION PACKAGING

Startingwith Vallduvı (1990), variouspeople have contributedto a perspective on

information structurecalled informationpackaging, bothin its aspectsof discourse

interpretation andgrammatical realization. Thebasicidea of informationpackag-

ing canbetracedbackto Chafe’s (1976), wherehe introduced the termexplicitly

asfollows (p.28):


“I have beenusingthe termpackaging to referto thekind of phenomenaat

issuehere,with theideathatthey haveto doprimarily with how themessage

is sentandonly secondarily with the messageitself, just as the packaging

of toothpastecanaffect salesin partial independenceof the quality of the

toothpasteinside.”

Vallduvı definesinformationpackagingin (1990) as“a smallsetof instructions

with which the heareris instructedby thespeaker to retrieve the information car-

ried by thesentenceandenterit into her/his knowledge store.” (p.66) To work out

theperspective emanating from this definition,Vallduvı employs thefile metaphor

from Heim’s File-Change Semantics(1982), constructing a theory of how infor-

mationstructureis interpreted in the larger context of a discourse. Vallduvı’s use

of the file metaphor in (1990; 1994) hasbeencriticized by Dekker andHendriks

in their (1994) andin (Hendriks andDekker, 1995); seealsoKubon’s (1998). It

is for this reason that I devote relatively little attention to how Vallduvı’s infor-

mationpackagingguidesdiscourseinterpretation. Instead, I focus on Vallduvı’s

basic proposal for characterizing informationstructureasa tripartitedivisionof a

sentence’s surfaceform. Cross-linguistic justification for this characterizationhas

beenarguedfor by Vallduvı in (1990) andtogetherwith Engdahl in (1994; 1996).

(Engdahl andVallduvı, 1994; Manandhar, 1994) discussintegration of information

packaginginto HPSG, andHendriks presentsa proposalfor including information

packaginginto a Lambek-style categorial grammar,(1994; 1996; 1997).

Vallduvı reflects in Chapter 3 of his (1990) on various approaches to whathecalls

‘info rmational articulation’. Vallduvı divides theseapproachesinto topic/comment

approaches and focus/ground approaches. Both (typesof) approachessplit a sen-

tence, or rather its meaning, in two parts. The topic/commentapproachsplits the

meaning into a part that thesentenceis about, which is usually realizedsentence-

initi ally, anda comment.To follow Halliday, this ‘topic’ is thepoint of departure

for whatthesentenceconveys.12

According to what Vallduvı termsthe focus/ground approaches, the sentence

is divided into ‘focus’ anda ‘ground’, with the ‘focus’ being the informative part

of the sentence’s meaning. The ground anchors the sentence’s meaning to what

the speaker believes the heareralready knows. The ‘focus’ expresseswhat the

speaker believes to contributes to the hearer’s knowledge. The ‘ground’ is also

knownas‘presupposition’ or ‘open proposition’ - the latter beingexplainable,at

12NotethatHalliday (1985) callsthis ‘topic’ theTheme,(Halliday, 1985)(p.59).


leastformally, by Jackendoff’sÞ-termrepresentation mentionedearlier.

Vallduvı arguesthatboth traditionssuffer from various problems. Asidefrom

terminological confusion, bothtraditionssuffer from thefundamentalproblem(ac-

cording to Vallduvı) that they are incompletein their empirical coverage, neces-

sarily sobecause“a binomial informational division of thesentenceis simply not

enough.” (1990)(p.54) For example,consider the examplein (74) adapted from

Dahl (1974).

(74) a. WhataboutJohn? Whatdoes hedo?ÉT�MUGÎ ØÃ ÄEÁ ÂJohnÁ ÂEÃ Ä� Í0�dÊ Û�� Ø �,Ë2Ë2Æ Û ÉÃ ÄGÁ Â

drinks beerÁ ÂGÃ Ä� � Ø Ê��b. WhataboutJohn? Whatdoes hedrink?ÉT�-U�Î ØÃ ÄEÁ Â

John

Ø �dË Ë�Æ Û ÉÃ ÄEÁ Âdrinksbeer

JohndrinksÁ ÂEÃ Ä� Í��dÊ Û�� beerÁ!ÂEÃ!Ä� � Ø Ê��The fact that the two perspectivespartition (74b) differently is taken to show

that“neitherof themis by itself capable of capturing all the informational distinc-

tionspresent in thesentence”(Hendriks,1994)(p.93). Vallduvı noticesthat thereis

acertain overlapin how thetwo perspectivesdivide(74b),andproposesto conflate

thetwo perspectivesinto a single, hierarchically structuredtrichotomy.

Vallduvı’s trichotomyof a sentence’s surface form is centeredaround a binary

division accordinginformativity, in thesenseof the‘focus/ground’ tradition. There

is a ground, thatanchorsthesentence’s meaninginto thepreceding discourse,and

a focus that specifies the ‘new’ information. In addition, the ground is further

divided into a link anda tail. According to Vallduvı, the link specifieswhere to

anchor the information specified by the focus, and the tail indicateshow it fits

there(1994)(p.5). Unlike is thecasewith FGD’s contextually bound/contextually

nonbound-distinctionor Steedman’sfocus/background,Vallduvı’sprimary notions

arenot (entirely) recursive. For example, we do have an information packaging

analysis(75) for (61), with V indicatingthelink and ë thefocus.

(75)ÖYesterdayI mettheteacher Ù W Ö

of CHEMISTRY.Ù�ÝHowever, becauseinformationpackaging partitions a sentence’s surfaceform

(rather thanits linguistic meaning), we have to consider British in (76) ashaving

thesameinformativestatusasits head– see(Vallduvı andZacharski, 1994) for the

argument.


(76) English

(Your system doesnot includeanAMPL IFIER.)

TheBRITISH amplifiercomesHIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

(Prevost, 1995)(ex.5)

(77)ÖTheBRITISH amplifier Ù W Ö

comesHIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Ù ÝVallduvı cited examplesfrom various languagesin (1990), andpresentedto-

getherwith Engdahl in (1996) anindepth study of how alargenumberof languages

may employ different strategiesto realize informationpackaging.13 Consider the

following examples for CatalanandEnglish (78)-(80), cf. (Vallduvı andEngdahl,

1996)(p.42), which illustratethefour abstractrealizations of information structure

thatVallduvı distinguishes.

(78) Link-focus sentences: typical topic-commentstructures, predicate-focus

structures,categorical judgments.

a. ThepresidentÖ Ý hates CHOCOLATE].

El presidentX Ö Ý odiala XOCOLATA �SX ].

b. ThepresidentÖ Ý CALLED].

El presidentX Ö Ý haTRUCAT �YX ].

c. ThepresidentX Ö Ý (I) wouldn’t BOTHER ��X ].

El presidentX Ö Ý no l’ EMPRENYARIA �YX pro ].

(79) All-focus sentences: (a) neutral descriptions, news sentences, sentence-

focus structures,thetic judgments;(b) there-sentences; (c) predicate-focus

sentenceswherethelocusof update is inherited.

a.Ö Ý ThePRESIDENT called].Ö Ý Ha trucat el PRESIDENT ].

b.Ö Ý Thereareprotests in theSTREETS.]Ö Ý Hi haprotestesalsCARRERS.]

c.Ö Ý (He) HATES (it).]Ö Ý L Z ’ ODIA eZ pro.]

(80) Link-focus-tail sentencesandfocus-tail sentences:narrow focus,constituent

focus, typical open-proposition structures.

13Vallduvı andEngdahl illustrate information packagingon English,German,Dutch, Swedish,Catalan,Hungarian,Turkish,and-for completeness’sake- Japanese.


SS IS

LF

PF

DS

Figure2.1: Vallduvi’s grammararchitectureincorporating informationstructure

a. ThepresidentÖ Ý HATES ] chocolate.

El presidentX Ö Ý l Z ’ ODIA t Z t X ,] la xocolataZb. Thepresidenthates

Ö Ý CHOCOLATE.]

El presidentÖ Ý t [ la XOCOLATA t X ,] odia[ .

Originally, Vallduvı (1990) proposedto integrateinformationpackaging into

a GB-stylearchitecture, with informationstructureasa autonomous stratum, next

to deepstructure (DS), logical form (LF), phonological form (PF), and surface

structure(SS).

In (1994), Engdahl and Vallduvı elaboratea different approach,making use

of HPSG. The basic idea is to expand the CONTEXT field with a feature INFO-

STRUCT, asshownin (81).

(81) \]]]]^ CONTEXT

\]]]]^ INFO-STRUCT

\]]]^ FOCUS ...

GROUND\^ LINK ...

TAIL ..._` _baaa` _baaaa` _baaaaÌn addition, the PHON field is expanded to specify accent aswell. Following

Jackendoff, EngdahlandVallduvı representthepossiblechoicesof accent asA,B,

or unmarked(u).

(82) a. Word c d \^ PHON—ACCENT A

INFO-STRUCT—FOCUSd _`

b. Word c d \^ PHON—ACCENT B

INFO-STRUCT—L INKd _`

c. Word c \^ PHON—ACCENT u

INFO-STRUCT—FOCUS [] _`


Naturaly, the accent-assignments in (82) are for English. The assignmentof

an accent to a particular structure (not necessarily a word, or a constituent in

the phrase-structure grammarsense) imposes a constraint on how that structure

is (to be) interpreted informatively. Thesespecifications get instantiated, and in-

herited,by meansof a rule schemathat operatesnext to PollardandSag’s Head-

ComplementSchemaandHead-Subject Schema, cf. (Pollard andSag,1993)(p.402).14.

In addition to satisfying these schemas,phrasal signshave to satisfy the INFO-

STRUCT instantiationsgivenby therulein (83), cf. (EngdahlandVallduvı, 1994)(p.58).

(83) INFO-STRUCT instantiation principles for English:

Either (i) if a DAUGHTER’s INFO-STRUCT is instantiated,thenthemother

inherits this instantiation (for narrow foci, links andtails),

or (ii) if the most oblique DAUGHTER’s FOCUS is instantiated, then the

FOCUS of themotheris thesignitself (widefocus).

Usingthis rule,EngdahlandVallduvı illustratehow various informationstruc-

ture patternscan be analyzed, like object NP focus, VP focus, and verb focus.

An advantageousaspectof their proposalis that the informationstructurecancut

acrossstandardphrases:subject/verbfocuscanalsobeanalyzed,i.e. thenotion of

constituency with respectto informationpackaging is flexible.

Vallduvı’s theory of information packaging hasfound its way primarily into

HPSG,dueto (Engdahl andVallduvı, 1994) – for example, see(Kolliakou, 1998;

Alexopoulou, 1999). Hendriks proposesin (1994; 1996; 1997) a categorial gram-

marsystem, based on MoortgatandMorrill’ s D calculus(1991), in which hetries

to capture various insightsof informationpackaging.

2.5 REFLECTIONS

At various occassions people have compared FGD’s theory of TFA, Vallduvı’s

information packaging, and Steedman’s Theme/Rheme-basedinformation struc-

ture. Vallduvı presentsin (1990) adiscussionof variousapproaches,amongwhich

Praguian proposals, anda more recentdiscussion canbe found in (Vallduvı and

Engdahl, 1996). Hajicova andKruijf f-Korbayova comparein (1999) FGD’s topic-

focus articulation to all of the approaches discussedin this chapter, andconclude

that the Praguian viewpoint presents various advantagesover the approachesre-

flectedon there. Finally, Kruijf f-Korbayova and Webberfocus in a number of14From the viewpoint of dependency grammar,it is interestingto observe that thesetwo HPSG

schemataareID schemata- they concernimmediatedominance,not linearization.


paperson CzechandEnglish andrely on a symbiosisof FGD’s topic-focusarticu-

lation andon Steedman’s theory, cf. (2000).

What all the approachesI discussedhere have in commonis that they con-

ceive of grammaras the appropriate place to describe information structure and

its realization. Thereare several interesting consequences that follow from that

perspective.

First of all, the interpretation of informationstructure belongsto the level of

discourse. Hence,the ‘proposition’ expressedby a sentence’s linguistic meaning,

including informationstructure,cannot beassigneda truth-value in thesystemof

grammarfor it doesnotproperly needto expressone.15 Thisobviously goesagainst

the views advancedby Montague Grammarand categorial grammarapproaches

thatarebasedon it, like Morrill’ s (1994). But it is for this reason thatHajicova et

al speak of a “Post-MG” semanticsin (1998), following insightsthatwerealready

present in earlier work like (Sgallet al., 1986).

We cancarrytheconsequencesof this viewpoint further. For one,thecrispdi-

vision of thelanguagesystem into -roughly- syntax,semantics andpragmaticscan

no longer bemaintained,sinceinformationstructuredissolvestheclearborderline

betweenwhatMorris andCarnapconsideredto be“semantics” and“pragmatics”.

This is whatPeregrin calls in (1999) thepragmatization of semantics. Themean-

ing expressedby a sentenceassuchis no longer context-independent,asCarnap

assumed. Thesentence’s linguistic meaning with is informationstructuresignifies

a dependenceon thelarger context in which thesentenceis uttered.

At thesametime,informationstructureis aproperty thatbelongsto thelevel of

individualsentences– it hasno referenceto theorthogonaldimensionof thematic

structure that deals with textual organization. It is to this larger organization that

Halliday’s Themecontributes,independently of the local sentential organization.

Thereis a close relation between informationstructure andthematic structure,as

arguedfor by for exampleHallidayandby Danes,but theirstrategieshavedifferent

aims.16

15I deliberatelyputproposition inbetweenquoteshere,asI donotmeanany moretechnicalnotionby it than“a statementthat hasa truth-value”. Differenttheoriesmay formalizethe meaningof asentencedifferentlyat thelevel of grammar;I amnot concernedwith thosedifferenceshere.

16Considerthe following descriptionof the relationbetweenTheme/Rheme,andHalliday’s in-formationstructure,from (Halliday, 1985)(pp.299-300):“There is a closesemanticrelationshipbe-tweeninformationstructureand thematicstructure(...). Other thingsbeing equal,a speaker willchoosethe Themefrom within what is Given andlocatethe focus, the climax of the New, some-wherewithin theRheme.But althoughthey arerelated,Given+ New andTheme+ Rhemearenotthe samething. The Themeis what I, the speaker, chooseto take asmy point of departure.TheGiven is what you, the listener, alreadyknow aboutor have accessibleto you. Theme+ Rhemeis


Steedman’suseof thetermThememustthereforebedistinguishedfrom Halli-

day’s,asSteedmandoesacknowledgein (2000a).Steedman’sdefinition of Theme

diverges from Halliday’s Themefor examplein that Steedman’s Theme(i) does

nothave to besentence-initial, but canbeorderedeither beforeor aftertheRheme;

(ii) the Themecancontain multiple experiental elements(for example, multiple

circumstantial modifiers,but alsomultiple participants, aswell asthemainverb),

and(iii) disjoint partsof a sentencemight belong to theTheme,cf. (2000a)(p.7).

However, whereas Steedmanthusplaceshis Themesquarely within therealm

of information structure, Vallduvı arguesthat the description of a sentence’s role

in thematic structure andits informationstructure should be conflated into a sin-

gle construct, namelyhis focus/ground. According to Vallduvı, the link-part of

the ground corresponds to Halliday’s Theme(cf. (1990; 1994), seealso (Hen-

driks, 1994)) andarguably “providestheexplanation for sentence-initial topiclike

phrases.” (1990)(p.54)However, to begin with it is notclear how Vallduvı provides

amodelof what,in Halliday’s terms,wouldbethefirst experiental element, which

neednot bethefirst phrase(84a), if it is a phraseat all (84b-c).

(84) English

a. Now, ... (Bateman,p.c.)

b.Ö Ú ÿ�Æ Ë�Æ Fromhouse to house] I wendmy way.

(Halliday, 1985)(p.40)

c.Ö Ú ÿ�Æ Ë�Æ On theground or in theair ] smallcreatureslive andbreathe.

(Halliday, 1985)(p.40)

But, worse, Vallduvı’s argumentfor theneed for sucha conflation is far from

convincing. Therearealternative waysof explaining topic-initial phrases,without

having any direct recourseto Halliday’s Theme,andby obliterating the distinc-

tion betweenthetwo orthogonal dimensionsof thematic structureandinformation

structureVallduvı’s focus/ground in fact no longer enablesus to explain phenom-

enathatarepossible exactly becauseof theabovementionedorthogonality.

For example,Halliday givesin (1985) various examplesof sentencesin which

the Themeis actually locatedin the New information. In (85a), “seen” is used

contrastively, so it cannot be Vallduvı’s link, whereas(85b) purportedly can be

analyzedasan all-focussentence. Finally, example(85c) comesfrom Steedman,

andhasonereading in whichHalliday’sThemecorrespondsto Steedman’sRheme

focus

speaker-oriented,while Given+ New is listener-oriented.”


(85) English

a.Ö e Æ/f Ö Ú ÿ�Æ Ë�Æ I ] haven’t SEEN] you for ages.

(Halliday, 1985)(p.301)

b.Ö e Æ/f Ö Ú ÿ�Æ Ë�Æ Theboy] stoodon theburning DECK.]

(Halliday, 1985)(p.297)

c.Ö Ú ÿ�Æ Ë�Æ NIXON] died.

cf. (Steedman,2000c)(p.119)

Vallduvı doesaddress‘focus-preposing’ (or focalfronting)constructions,which

couldbetakento indicatetheproblemsnotedabove. Basedon Catalandata,Vall-

duvı arguesthat an analysis canbe given whereby the focusdoesremainclause-

final (Vallduvı, 1990)(p.132) becauseanemptycategoryis retained.Thus,Vallduvı

wouldhaveit, noproblemsarisewith focal fronting sincethegeneralinformational

articulation of thesentence(86) canbemaintained.

(86)Ö g7h

linkÖ gSh Ö g7h

focus] tail ]]

(Vallduvı, 1990)(p.132)

However, it canbe seriously doubted whether Vallduvı’s analysis still stands

any groundgiventherejectionnowadaysof emptycategories,arejection prevalent

in HPSG aswell. Moreover, Vallduvı’s argumentstill leaves the issue outstand-

ing thatdistinguishing a sentence’s informationstructurefrom its role in thelarger

thematicstructure doesnot indicatea redundancy, but is an essential difference

betweentwo opposite perspectives. Vallduvı’s strategy of imploding thesetwo

perspectivesinto a single characterization givesrise to morequestions thanit an-

swers.

And, asevenVallduvı pointsouthimself, therearealternativewaysof explain-

ing the relation between thematic structure and information structure. Vallduvı

indicatesthatthePraguian scaleof communicativedynamismcould possibly over-

comethenoted‘f ailure’ to explainsentence-initial topics(1990)(p.55).17. Hajicova

andKruijf f-Korbayova voicethesameopinion in (1999)(p.229).

Anotherconsequenceof placing informationstructure in grammar is that its de-

scription thus getsplaced in the larger context of explaining the (grammatical)17Interestinglyenough,Vallduvı saysthat“it mustbepointedoutthatit [discerningcommunicative

dynamismwithin informationstructure,GJMK] violatesany autonomy-of-levels hypothesis,sinceit bringsalonga direct interactionat th esamelevel betweenthematicandinformationalconsider-ations.” (1990)(p.55) Although I do believe thatVallduvı hasa point here,the commentis slightlysurprisingin thelight of thediscussionabove.


systemof natural language.Oneissuethat thuscomesinto view is that of cross-

linguistic realization of informationstructure. In theapproaches I discussedabove

we can find for exampleMathesius’s early work on English and Czech(1936),

Sgallet al’s contrastive studiesin (1986) and(Hajicova et al., 1998), andVallduvı

andEngdahl’s (1996) andHendriks’ (1994).

However, at least from a functionalist perspective, onewould like to seethis

cross-linguistic study takenfurther: Namely, to thepoint wherea grammarwould

describe informationstructure cross-linguistically in the senseof how languages

differ in realizing information structure and what they have in commonin their

strategies.Thecross-linguistic studiesobserve, but hardlypredict - andprediction

is whatany propertheory should do,including onedescribinginformationstructure

andits realization.

In a certainsenseHendriks thus missesthe point when he states that gram-

mar frameworks need to be powerful enough to describe the different strategies

languagesemploy in realizing information structure (1994; 1997). A grammar

framework, incorporating a cross-linguistically adequatedescription of informa-

tion structure,mustbe powerful enough to explain why languagesdiffer in their

strategies,andpredict what they may have in common. Obviously, this in a step

further from simply realizing that therearedifferent strategiesandthatwe should

beableto modelthem.

All of theapproachesI discussedabove distinguishthemselvesfrom other ap-

proachesby actually explicitly discussing the corefunction grammarperformsin

explaining informationstructure.They do soin differentways,though.

In the above we already arguedthat informationpackaging shows shortcom-

ings on various points. First, its argumentsfor collapsing of thematic structure

and informationstructure aredisputable. Second,its characterization of the pri-

marynotionsof groundandfocus aspartitionsof a sentence’s surfaceform leads

to problemswith recursivity, andappears at oddswith thegenerally acceptedidea

of informationstructurebeing anaspect of linguisticmeaning. Third, Engdahl and

Vallduvı do present in (1994) a proposal for how to integrateinformation pack-

aging into HPSGandrelate it to a modelof tune,but the model remains -as the

authors admit- simple. Neitherdo Engdahl andVallduvı, or Manandhar for that

matter, showhow onecould explain word order asa strategy for realizing word

order. (Kolliakou, 1998) and(Alexopoulou, 1999)do elaboratethe HPSG-based

approachin that direction. However, they do so using purely syntactic devices.

Finally, going back to the Government& Binding modelproposedin (Vallduvı,


1990), or usingSelkirk’s prosody model(cf. (Steedman, 2000a)),would not over-

comeany of theseproblems.In any of these models,predicate-argument structure

and informationstructure areseparated. Steedmanconvincingly arguesthat this

separation is wrong. Also in FGD’s stratificational model, cf. Sgallet al’s (1986)

and Petkevic’s (1995), whereinformation structure is an ingerent component of

linguistic meaning, wedonotfind aseparationof levelsthatareresponsiblefor re-

alizing information structure,apart from othersthatwouldcarefor realizing “bare”

linguistic meaning. Fromtheperspective of FGD, including the larger (Praguian)

viewpoint that surfacesyntactic phenomenalike word order interact with tuneto

realize informationstructure,sucha separationwould go against the fundamental

relation between linguistic meaning andits topic-focusarticulation.

This thenleadsusto considerSteedman’sapproach,andFGD.Regarding their

views on information structure, both place it at the level of linguistic meaning.

They bothemploy primitivenotionsthatarerecursive(CB/NB, focus/background).

Also, they allow for amoderateform of recursivity whereit concernsTheme/Rheme

or topic/focus: informationstructurescanbeembeddedwhenit concernsembed-

dedclauses(Hajicovaetal.,1998)(p.160), (Steedman,2000c)( Ð 5.7.2).18 Finally, it

seemsplausible to consider the contrastive topic marker * (Hajicova et al., 1998)

asthe counterpartof Steedman’s Theme-focus,andthe focus proper asthecoun-

terpart of Steedman’s Rheme-focus.

Hence,at the level of informationstructure thereappear to be variouscorre-

spondencesbetweenSteedman’sapproachandFGD.However, they differ substan-

tially whereit concernsthe underlying views on grammar. Steedmandevelops a

monostratalformalism(CCG)in whichsurfaceform andunderlying meaning(with

information structure)arecompositionally related, (Steedman,2000a; Steedman,

2000c).

FGD,ontheotherhand, proposesastratificationalapproach(Sgalletal.,1986;

Petkevic, 1995; Petkevic, in prep). (Sgall,1980)specifies transducers that gener-

ateasurfaceform givenatopic-focusarticulation,and(Petkevic, in prep)develops

themathematical devices to generaterepresentationsof sentential linguistic mean-

ing with topic-focusarticulation. FGD lacksfurther specifications of transducers

to turn Petkevic’s representations into surface forms, which is an acknowledged

shortcoming(Sgall,p.c.).Furthermore,thereappearsto beaproblematicdifference

betweenthe linguistic view on the grammatical phenomenainvolved in realizing

information structure, andtheir possible technical implementation in a stratifica-

18For anearlierdiscussionof recursivity of TFA in FGD,see(Sgallet al., 1986)(i 3.11).


tional framework. For example,wealready notedearlier thatinformation structure

is oftenrealizedusinga combination of variousmeanslike tune,morphology and

word order. On a stratificational approach,one is -normally- technically forced

to assumethat thereis a relation between thesedifferentmeanswhereword order

restricts morphology, andmorphology restricts tune. However, this seemsimplau-

sible. Thereratherappearsto bean interaction in which differentlinguistic means

mutually restrict oneanother to constructa well-formedsurface realizationof the

underlying informationstructure. We understand(Sgall et al., 1986) to argue for

this interaction linguistically, but without furtherimplementation of theframework

it is difficult to judgewhether this view could bemaintained technically.

Steedman’s CCG providesa grammarformalism in which informationstruc-

tureis compositionally relatedto ananalysisof asurfaceform. (Steedman,2000a)

focusesontuneasastructural indication of informativity, thoughit wouldbeincor-

rectto claim thatSteedman’s theory of information structureis reducedto prosody

asdonein (Hendriks, 1997). Thevariation in focus/background thatSteedman ex-

plainsusingmarkednesscanberelatedits realizationaspitchaccents,but neednot

be. Thefocus/background distinction canbeapplied to explain variationsin word

order realizationaswell, asKruijf f-Korbayova andWebberdo. Kruijf f-Korbayova

andWebber’s approachis purely semantic though, without any referenceto gram-

mar.

CCGhasbeenextended to cover free word order. Hoffman (1995a)presents

multiset combinatory categorial grammar(MCCG), which relates an account of

Turkish word order to an information packaging-inspired theory of information

structure. MCCG is a grammarframework that hasa greater generative strength

thanCCG.Baldridge(1998; 1999)presents Set-CCG,a moreconservative exten-

sionof CCGthat is capable of explaining freeword order(including Turkish)but

which has the sameformal and computational properties as CCG. What CCG,

multiset combinatory categorial grammar,and Set-CCGall have in commonis

Steedman’s Principle of Adjacency, (Steedman,2000c). According to this princi-

plecombinatoryrulesmayonly apply to finitely many phonologically realizedand

string-adjacententities. Theemphasizedphraseis important. As is obvious from

MCCG andSet-CCG,thePrinciple of Adjacency meansthatonemodelsvariabil-

ity of wordorder directly in thelexicon. TheMCCGor Set-CCGlexical categories

imposelessrestrictionson thedirectionality in which argumentsneed to becom-

bined with, andmodelvariability in thatway.

But what doesthat meanfor modeling the effect of word order variability -


namely, its useasastructuralindicationof informativity? AsHoffman(1995a)(p.151ff)

observes,all thepossibleordersthataparticular categoryallows for could becom-

piled out, andthe informationstructureof eachof theseorderscould thusbecap-

tured lexically. However, sucha formalism would not be able to capture the in-

terpretation of adjunctions in different word ordersor with long-distance scram-

bling. To overcomethis problem,Hoffmanproposesto split thegrammarinto two

components: Lexical (linguistic) categories and combinatory rules to derive the

predicate-argument structureof a sentence,andso-calledOrdering categories to-

gether with application rules(andidentity) to derive theinformationstructureof a

sentence.

Essentially, Ordering categories aretemplatesof surfacerealizationsof infor-

mation structure, specifying wherethe focus, topic, and ground componentsof

Hoffman’s informationstructure needto befoundin thesurfaceform. Every word

in thesentenceis associated with a lexical category, which is then associatedwith

anorderingcategory. Thegrammatical analysisof thesentenceis aninferenceover

lexical categories using MCCG’s combinatory rules, andcompositionally builds

the underlying argumentstructure. In parallel to this inference,we have infer-

enceover theorderingcategories(associated to words)thatcompositionally builds

thesentence’s underlying information structure. Hoffmandefines hersystemsuch

thatthegrammaticalinferenceandtheinformationstructureinferencecontrol each

other:Composition in oneinferencecanonly bedone iff it is possible in theother

inference. It is in this way, Hoffman argues,that “syntactic andpragmatic con-

straints work together to determine the surfacestructure and word order of the

sentence.” (1995a)(p.160)

However, compiling outpossible informationstructureinto Orderingcategories

is a rather“extensional” approachto explaining word orderasa structural indica-

tion of informativity –necessitated by CCG’s Principle of Adjacency– andraises

doubts about the possibility of having multiple levels of linguistic information

interact in realizing information structure. For example, Hoffman doesdiscuss

examplesthat illustrate how tune andword order interact to realize information

structure,andshowshow shecanrepresent these informationstructures,yet there

is no formulationof theactual inferencemechanismsthatwould leadto these rep-

resentations. Hoffman refers to Steedman’s earlier work on tune, andarguesthat

herapproachis similar to his. Comparing (Hoffman,1995a) to Steedman’s recent

(2000a) revealsthat there is a substantial difference,though, nowadays. Steed-

manconsidersseparateprosodic categories and lexical categories, but the effect


of the prosodic categoriesis a specification of an INFORMATION feature on lexi-

cal categories. Hence, Steedmancanusea singular setof inferencerules that lets

informationstructurereflectdirectly in thepredicate-argumentstructures.19

As with any suchextensional approach,it canbedoubtedthat this would pro-

vide uswith a flexible enough setting to capturecomplex phenomena.And, aside

from the issuewhetherit is technically elegant to discern separatecategoriesfor

different levels of linguistic information,it doesnot seemto lend itself very well

to cross-linguistic generalizations. In CCG, it is the combinatory rules that help

us specify cross-linguistic patterns, not the categories (Steedman, 2000c; Kruijf f

andBaldridge,2000) - but in theonly existing combinatoryaccount of word order

and information structure (Hoffman, 1995a) the description of the realizationof

informationstructureis decoupled from thesyntactic inference.

To recapitulate, the notionsof informationstructure that FGD andSteedman

proposearesimilar, andarenot subject to theproblemswe cannotefor informa-

tion packaging. FGD andSteedmandiffer in the way they describe information

structureand its realization. Theoretically, FGD canbe understoodto argue for

therealization of informationstructureasan interactionbetweendifferentmeans,

like tuneandword order. They areall parametersin the realization– though we

canquestion in how far it is possible to achieve this interaction technically in a

transformationalapproach.Thecombinatory tradition hasyieldedvariousformal-

izations that showhow either word order (Hoffman, 1995a) or tune (Steedman,

2000a; Steedman, 2000c) canbe related to information structure. However, we

canquestion whetherthe theoretical backgroundleads to descriptionsof informa-

tion structure andits realization that are linguistically intuitive andgeneralizable

acrossdifferenttypesof languages.CCG’sPrincipleof Adjacency seemsto neces-

sitate a formal dissociation of the description of word order from the description

of information structure,which breaks with thegeneral linguistic intuition behind

word orderasa structural indicationof informativity.

2.6 INFORMATION STRUCTURE IN DGL

DGL combinesthebestof two worlds- FGD’s view on informationstructureand

its realization as an interaction betweendifferent means,and the categorial ap-

19Considerthough that the effect of a prosodic Theme category on a lexical category likejlkQm-nYoqprm-s>t�mToupis just thespecificationof theinformationfeaturev to “Theme”

jTwEs, i.e. thelexical

category becomesjlk!m-nSoupKxSs>tSxSoup

. “Unification” of a lexical category with anorderingcategory,if onewereto go thatway, is anentirelydifferentissuethanjust a specificationof features.


proach to formalizing therelation between surfaceform andunderlying linguistic

meaning. However, unlike CCG we take adjacency to be a parameter(Moortgat

andOehrle,1994) – aparameterdeterminedfor animportant partby its purposeas

astructuralindicationof informativity. Chapter4 showshow thisleadsnotonly to a

direct (ratherthandissociated) explanationof word order asa structural indication

of informativity, but alsoto an approachthat is generalizable cross-linguistically.

Chapter5 proposesareformulationof (part of) Steedman’sdescription of tune, and

shows how it canbesmoothly integratedinto theaccount of word order– without

any needfor distinguishing additional levelsof categories. In theremainder of this

chapter we present thebasicdefinitionsfor representing andinterpreting informa-

tion structure.

Definition 8 (Representingcontextualboundness).DGL distinguishesfour types

of contextualboundness: CB andNB, CB* andNB*. CB* correspondsto (Hajicova

etal., 1998)’s y marker or Steedman’s Theme-focus.NB* correspondsto thefocus

proper (Sgall etal., 1986)or Steedman’sRheme-focus. Thesetypesarerepresented

at thelevel of linguistic meaningas zb{ | unary operators,andare reflectedas }&~�� incategories. Formally, they are specificationsof an underspecifiedfeature inf. �Remark 7. A lexical category usually only specifiestheinformativity of theword

as�� . Its informativity featuregetsspecifiedin theprocessof derivation,thebasic

mechanismsof which we already discussedin Chapter 1. Due to the correspon-

dencebetween operationsoncategorial featuresandtheir reflection in theunderly-

ing linguistic meaning,determination of a feature dueto its occurrencein a struc-

tural configuration (e.g.word order, tune) meansthatthis is noted in thelinguistic

meaningaswell. For example,Chapter 4 showshow wecanderiveafull y specified

structure �� Honza�M��q�� snedl�� 0� � koblihu �>��u��} ~ ��7� , given lexical entries

that just specify �� like snedl ��}�~�� Y�R�� ÉT�B �¡ ��¢�� K£ ÈÉ � Æ � É>¡ � . The

corresponding linguistic meaningis ¤ ¥�¦/§ NB ¨M¦l©uª¬«�#®�¯!ª°§ CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦´³Rª¶µ ·!¸�¹�º¯!ª°§ NB ¨M± PATIENT ²7¦3»Kª¬¼�·!¸¾½1®�¯O¯ .�Definition 9 (Topic/focusarti culation in DGL). Like in FGD,a sentence’s topic-

focusarticulation is derivedrecursively fromtheindicationof informativityof the

individual nodes in that sentence’s linguistic meaning. To establish the topic and

thefocusof a sentence, weuserules that rewrite a logical formula just indicating

contextualboundnessto a logical formulaincludinga topic/focuspartition ¿ÁÀÃÂ(Kruijf f-Korbayova, 1998). Theideaof using rewriting stemsfromOehrle(1999),

70Ä Theoriesof InformationStructure

but therecursiontherules implementis essentially Sgalletal’sprocedure(cf. page

47) with theamendmentsof (Hajicova et al., 1998)(p.164).

Formally, we represent a topic/focuspartition as Å�Æ�3ÇÈÀÊÉË� . Ç and É are

conjunctionsof terms,whereby Ç maybe empty(in which casewe write Ì ). By

definition, É mustnot beempty;if at onepoint weobtain anemptyfocus, wewrite

that Í , andtry to find a deeper embeddedNB element to serve asfocus. A rewrite

rule is statedas Î��Ï�ÐÑÓÒÔ� , rewriting Ï into Ò . Notethat containmentÕ�zb{ | is not

recursivehere, but only to thecurrentlevel of conjunction.

(87) If a verbal head of theclauseis CB, thenit belongsto thetopic.ÎÖ��ÅuÆQ��z CB |/�-×ÁØÙÏ;�ÚØÁÛÔ��ÐÑ Å¶ÆQ��z CB |/�-×ÜØÙÏ;��ÀÝÛÞ��(88) If a verbal head of theclauseis NB, thenit belongsto thefocus.ÎÖ��ÅuÆQ��z NB |/�-×ßØÙÏ;�àØÜÛÞ�ÖÐÑ Å¶ÆQ��ÌáÀâz NB |/�-×ßØãÏ;�äØÊÛÞ��(89) If a dependent å of a verbal head is CB, then å belongs to the topic (in-

cluding anynodesit governs).ÎÖ��ÅuÆQ�-ÛæÀçz CB |3åèØÁéq�ÖÐÑ Å¶ÆQ��z CB |3åèØÜÛêÀÝéq��(90) If a dependent å of a verbal headis NB, then å belongsto the focus (in-

cluding anynodesit governs).ÎÖ��ÅuÆQ�-ÛæÀçz NB |3åèØÁéq�ÖÐÑ Å¬ÆQ�-ÛæÀëéìØíz NB |3å��(91) If a CB dependentof type å is anembeddedclause, thenit should beplaced

first (topic proper).ÎÖ��ÅuÆQ�-Ûqzîz CB |/�>å��E�Mï°zî�-×ÚØñð��O|-�O|(Àãéq�àÐÑ Å¶Æ¾��z CB |/�>å��E�Mï(zî�-×äØòð��O|-� Ø°ÛíÀÙéq�(92) If a NB dependentof type å is anembeddedclause, thenit should beplaced

last (focus proper).ÎÖ��ÅuÆQ�-ÛíÀóéËzîz NB |/�>å��E�Mï°zî�-×àØñð��O|-�O|-�äÐÑ Å¬Æ¾�-ÛíÀÙéôØõz NB |/�>å��E�Mï(zî�-×äØòð��O|-��(93) Embeddedfocus: If in ö÷Àìø , ø contains no inner participants ( åúùû

ACTOR, PATIENT, ADDRESSEE, EFFECT, ORIGIN ü ) whereas ö does,

thena NB modification of a CB dependent is part of thefocus:ÎÖ��ÅuÆQ�-Ûqzîz CB |/�>å��E�Mï°zîz NB |/�>å�ýl�E�MþÿØ��ñ�O|-�O|�ÀÃéq�ÖÐÑÐÑ ÅuÆQ�-Û zîz CB |/�>å��E�Mï(z |-�O|�À z CB |/�>å��Ez NB |/�>å ý �E�MþÿØ��ñ�ÚØÁéq��A valid topic-focusarticulation is a structure ö À ø to which we can no

longer applyanyof therewrite rulesgiven in (87) through(93),andwhere ø�� Í .�Remark 8 (The structur eof information structur e). Whatkindsof structuresdo

we obtain using Definition 9? Abstractly, whatwe obtain is a relational structure


wheretherelate maybedistributed acrossthe À operator, while maintaining their

mutualrelationsthrough nominal reference.

Applying therules givenin Definition 9, we obtain thetopic/focusbipartition-

ing aspresentedin (94).

(94) English

Thecatatea SAUSAGE.

i. ¤Ô¥º¦O§ NB ¨>¦T©¶ª¶«�&®E¯ºª°§ CB ¨>± ACTOR ²7¦��ª��2&®�¯ºªò§ NB ¨>± PATIENT ²S¦� ª��#½�Y� º«&¯O¯ii. (88), ¤ ¥ ¦��ß§ NB ¨M¦l©qª¶«�&®�¯!ª°§ CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦��;ª��2&®�¯!ª°§ NB ¨M± PATIENT ²7¦��ª�Y�½�� !«�¯/¯iii. (89),¤ ¥�¦/§ CB ¨M± ACTOR ²S¦�� ª��2&®�¯��ß§ NB ¨>¦T©uª¶«�&®E¯!ª°§ NB ¨>± PATIENT ²7¦� ª��#½�� !«&¯O¯�

Wealsoobtainthedesired topic-focusarticulation for examples like (95):

(95) English

I mettheteacherof CHEMISTRY.

i. ¤Ô¥º¦O§ CB ¨>¦T©ÿª��)«�«�®S¯ ª § CB ¨M± ACTOR ²7¦��¶ª��S¯ªò§ CB ¨>± PATIENT ²S¦��ºªu®�«��Eµ�«��ª°§ NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²7¦��ª��µ «��Y® �"!1¯/¯O¯ii. (87), ¤ ¥º¦O§ CB ¨>¦T©ÿª��)«�«�®S¯#� § CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦��¶ª$�S¯ªò§ CB ¨>± PATIENT ²S¦��ºªu®�«��Eµ�«��ª°§ NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²7¦��ª��µ «��Y® �"!1¯/¯O¯iii. (89), ¤ ¥ ¦O§ CB ¨M¦l©ÿª��)«�«�®S¯ ª § CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦��¬ª��S¯�ß§ CB ¨M± PATIENT ²S¦��ºª¶®Y«��Eµ�«��ªò§ NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²S¦��ª%��µ «��Y® �"!�¯/¯O¯iv. (89), ¤ ¥ ¦O§ CB ¨>¦T© ª$�)«�«�®S¯ ª § CB ¨M± ACTOR ²7¦��uª$�S¯§ CB ¨>± PATIENT ²7¦��ºªu®�«��µ «��ª°§ NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²7¦��ª��Eµ «��&��Y® �"!�¯O¯'�)(Ô¯v. (93), ¤ ¥ ¦O§ CB ¨>¦T© ª$�)«�«�®S¯ ª § CB ¨M± ACTOR ²7¦��uª$�S¯§ CB ¨>± PATIENT ²7¦��ºªu®�«��µ «��2¯'�Ü§ CB ¨M± PATIENT ²S§ NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²7¦�� ª��Eµ�«��S®*�"!�¯O¯�

The rewriting in (95) reliescrucially on the rule that handles embeddedfoci,

(93). The formulation of this rule is ’different’ from (Sgall et al., 1986), in the

sensethatit is ageneralization similar to proposalsin Koktova (1995). Therewrite

rule (93) enablesusto dealproperly with exampleslike (96),which areanswers to

so-called double-focus questions.

(96) English

(Whomdid you give whatbook?)

I gave thebookon SYNTAX to KATHY.


(97) i. ¤ ¥ ¦O§ CB ¨M¦l©ÿª$ +��,º«�¯ ª § CB ¨M± ACTOR ²7¦��¶ª��S¯ª § CB ¨>± PATIENT ²S¦�-òª/.�·Q·10 ª § NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�äª� !Q¸®�32 ¯/¯ª § NB ¨M± ADDRESSEE ²7¦�4ôª�5°&®Yµ6! ¯O¯ii. (87), ¤ ¥ ¦/§ CB ¨M¦l©ÿª$ 1��,º«&¯7� § CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦��¶ª$�S¯ª § CB ¨>± PATIENT ²S¦�-òª/.�·Q·10 ª § NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�äª� !Q¸®�32 ¯/¯ª § NB ¨M± ADDRESSEE ²7¦�4ôª�5°&®Yµ6! ¯O¯iii. (89), ¤ ¥�¦/§ CB ¨>¦T© ª$ +��,!«&¯¬ª § CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦��¶ª��S¯� § CB ¨>± PATIENT ²7¦�-òª/.�·Q·10 ª § NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²7¦�àª$*!Q¸®Y�2�¯O¯ª § NB ¨M± ADDRESSEE ²7¦�4ôª�5°&®Yµ6! ¯O¯iv. (89), ¤ ¥#¦/§ CB ¨M¦l©ÿª$ 1��,º«&¯¬ª § CB ¨M± ACTOR ²7¦��¬ª��S¯ª § CB ¨>± PATIENT ²S¦�-òª/.�·Q·10 ª § NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�äª� !Q¸®�32 ¯/¯� § NB ¨M± ADDRESSEE ²7¦�4Ãª/5°#®Yµ6! ¯O¯v. (93), ¤ ¥ ¦/§ CB ¨M¦l©ÿª$ 1��,º«&¯¬ª § CB ¨M± ACTOR ²7¦��¬ª��S¯ª°§ CB ¨>± PATIENT ²7¦�-1ª8.�·1·�01¯��ß§ CB ¨M± PATIENT ²7§ NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²7¦� ª�*!Q¸®Y32�¯ª § NB ¨M± ADDRESSEE ²7¦�4ôª�5°&®Yµ6! ¯O¯�

Moreover, we can combine examples like (95) and (97) to form (98). Also

(99) canbe analyzed,in a straightforward way. Note that informationpackaging

doesnot seem to be ableto analyze (98). It is not entirely clearwhatSteedman’s

treatmentof (98) would belike.

(98) English

(Which teacherdid you give whatbook?)

I gave thebookon SYNTAX to theteacher of ENGLISH.

(99) i. ¤ ¥ ¦O§ CB ¨M¦l©ÿª$ +��,º«�¯ ª § CB ¨M± ACTOR ²7¦��¶ª��S¯ª § CB ¨>± PATIENT ²S¦�-òª/.�·Q·10 ª § NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�äª� !Q¸®�32 ¯/¯ª°§ CB ¨>± ADDRESSEE ²S¦��ºªu®�«��Eµ�«��ª°§ NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²7¦��ª�9Þ¸� 1:��µ�¯O¯/¯ii. (87), ¤ ¥ ¦O§ CB ¨M¦l©ÿª$ +��,º«�¯7�í§ CB ¨M± ACTOR ²7¦��¶ª$�S¯ª § CB ¨>± PATIENT ²S¦�-òª/.�·Q·10 ª § NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�äª� !Q¸®�32 ¯/¯ª°§ CB ¨>± ADDRESSEE ²S¦��ºªu®�«��Eµ�«��ª°§ NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²7¦��ª�9Þ¸� 1:��µ�¯O¯/¯iii. (89), ¤ ¥ ¦/§ CB ¨>¦T© ª$ 1��,º«&¯¬ª § CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦��¬ª��S¯� § CB ¨>± PATIENT ²7¦�-òª/.�·Q·10 ª § NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²7¦�àª$*!Q¸®Y�2�¯O¯ª°§ CB ¨>± ADDRESSEE ²S¦��ºªu®�«��Eµ�«��ª°§ NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²7¦��ª�9Þ¸� 1:��µ�¯O¯/¯


iv. (89), ¤ ¥ ¦O§ CB ¨>¦T© ª$ +��,!«�¯ ª § CB ¨>± ACTOR ²7¦��¬ª/�Y¯ª § CB ¨M± PATIENT ²7¦�-°ª�.�·Q·�0 ª § NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�äª$*!Q¸®Y32�¯/¯�ß§ CB ¨M± ADDRESSEE ²7¦��!ªu®Y«��Eµ «;��ª°§ NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�� ª%9Þ¸� +:��Yµ1¯/¯O¯v. (89), ¤ ¥ ¦O§ CB ¨>¦T© ª$ +��,!«�¯ ª § CB ¨>± ACTOR ²7¦��¬ª/�Y¯ª § CB ¨M± PATIENT ²7¦�-°ª�.�·Q·�0 ª § NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�äª$*!Q¸®Y32�¯/¯§ CB ¨>± ADDRESSEE ²S¦��ºªu®�«��Eµ�«��ª°§ NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²7¦�� ª%9�¸� 1:��µ1¯O¯'�)(Ô¯vi. (93), ¤ ¥º¦O§ CB ¨>¦T©qª% 1��,º«&¯ºªò§ CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦��ª��S¯!ª°§ CB ¨M± PATIENT ²7¦�-1ª8.�·1·�0Q¯§ CB ¨>± ADDRESSEE ²S¦��ªä®�«��Eµ�«�� ª § NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²7¦��ª<9Þ¸� +:��Yµ�¯O¯�í§ CB ¨M± PATIENT ²S§ NB ¨M± APPURTENANCE ²S¦�Úª$ !Q¸®�32�¯/¯vii. (93), ¤ ¥º¦O§ CB ¨>¦T©¶ª� 1��,º«�¯ºªñ§ CB ¨>± ACTOR ²S¦��ª��S¯ª°§ CB ¨>± PATIENT ²7¦�-1ª8.�·1·�01¯§ CB ¨>± ADDRESSEE ²S¦��ºªu®�«��Eµ�«��¯��ß§ CB ¨M± PATIENT ²7§ NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²7¦� ª� !Q¸®�32�¯ª § CB ¨M± ADDRESSEE ²7§ NB ¨>± APPURTENANCE ²7¦��ñª�9�¸� 1:��µ1¯O¯�

To recapitulate, the topic/focus structureswe obtain in DGL are -still- rela-

tional structures. Nominals ensure that dependents and heads remainproperly

linked - which is exactly theheartof theproblemin atypedapproachlike (Kruijf f-

Korbayova, 1998) whenwe get to very complex structureslike (99). Like in TF-

DRT, though,weconnect thesentence’s topic andfocususingthe À -operator. Fol-

lowing dynamicapproachesto interpretationof information structure(likeKruijf f-

Korbayova’s,Peregrin’s or Steedman’s), the À -operatorcontrols how thesentence

is interpretedin context givenits informationstructure.Givenahybrid logical for-

mulaof theform Ç ÀèÉ , we interprettheformulaby first evaluating Ç against the

current (discourse)model.Only if Ç canbeinterpreted, we interpret É . Chapter6

discussesthis in moredetail, providingmodel-theoretic interpretationsof CB,CB*,

NB, andNB* andthedescribeddynamiceffect of À . �Remark 9 (The relation to FGD). In thelight of theabove discussion, how does

DGL’s account of informationstructure relateto FGD’s topic-focus articulation?

Like I already pointed out at various points in the discussion, the account given

herestaysclose to FGD, elaborating it whereneeded. The main differencewith

FGD is that in DGL the nodes in a linguistic meaningarenot ordered according

to communicative dynamism. Sgall et al (1986)(p.220ff) discusstheir interpreta-

tion of Firbas’s notion of communicative dynamism, andargue for the semantic

relevanceof communicative dynamism. Communicative dynamism canberelated

to degreesof salience, and is thusarguably relevant for contextual interpretation

in general the interpretation of quantifier scopein particular (cf. also(Hajicova et


al., 1998)(pp.158-159)). BecauseI dealneitherwith quantifiers nor focalizers,and

becausethe notion of communicative dynamism is still in needof further devel-

opment (Hajicova et al., 1998), I have not includedit in DGL. At the sametime,

that is not to say that DGL could not provide the basis for a formal account of

communicative dynamism.

Theideaof communicativedynamismasanordering over thenodesin arepre-

sentationof sentential linguistic meaning could beincorporated in DGL alongthe

following lines. In theeliminationof aslashor aproduct,a Ø is introducedinto the

linguisticmeaning to combinethefunction andtheargument.Wecanfirst of all re-

fine this by saying thattheelimination ofû �>=�? ¢ =�?*@;= ü introducesaconnective Ø = .

Furthermore, following Sgall et al’s proposals,we canrelatesurface word order

to the ordering of nodes in theunderlying linguistic meaning. This we caneasily

obtain, by first letting theunderlying order mirror finally obtainedorder, andthen

ensuring thatcliti csandtopical/focal embeddedclausesareproperly ordered.The

latter orderingwecanachievebecauseconstructionsinvolving cliti csor embedded

clausesareindicatedby theuseof particular modes,andthesemodesarereflected

on the Ø ’s.�SUMMARY

In thischapter I discussedFGD’s theory of topic-focusarticulation, Vallduvı’s information

packaging, andSteedman’s Theme/Rheme-basedtheory. All thesetheorieshave in com-

monthat they describe informationstructurein termsof its realization(“syntax”) aswell

asits interpretation(“semantics”)– contrary to many otherapproachesthatconsiderjust

oneor the other. In reflectionon thesetheories,I notedseveral problems. I argued that

informationpackagingis mistakenin its conflationof thematicstructure andinformation

structure,showing examplesthat it cannotsatisfactorily explain. Furthermore,its charac-

terizationof theprimary notions of ground andfocusaspartitionsof a sentence’s surface

form leadsto problemswith recursivity, andappears at odds with thegenerally accepted

ideaof informationstructurebeinganaspectof linguistic meaning. Finally, its relationto

a concretegrammar framework is underdeveloped.It is not clearhow theGB architecture

of (Vallduvı, 1990) or HPSG(EngdahlandVallduvı, 1994) couldbeextendedto explain

wordorder, tuneandtheir interaction asmeansto realizeto informationstructure.

For FGD andCCGweobserved thattheirnotionsof informationstructureareclosely

related.However, they differ substantiallyin their viewsof grammar. FGD adopts a trans-

formationalapproachto explainhow informationstructureactsasaparameterdetermining

wordorder andintonation.CCGis amonostratalformalismin whichsufraceform andun-


derlying meaning (with information structure)are compositionally related. For FGD I

notedthat a transformationalaccount cannot give a principled account of how different

strategies(like tune,word order, morphology) can interact to realizeinformationstruc-

ture.CCGhasbeenextendedto cover tuneandvariability in wordorder, but I arguedthat

CCG’s Principleof Adjacency seemsto necessitatea formal dissociationof the descrip-

tionsof word orderandof informationstructure. This breaks with the general linguistic

intuition of wordorderasa structural indicationof informativity.

Alik e CCG,DGL is a monostratal,compositionalapproach. In DGL we operateon

multidimensionalsignsthatrepresentdifferentlevelsof linguistic information,andthereis

noproblemin lettingdifferentlevelsinteractsimultaneously(like in atransformationalap-

proach).LikeFGD,I considerinformationstructure asanimportant factorin determining

surfacerealization, andI arguedhow we canformalize thatview in DGL’s parametrized

setting(usingmodesandstructural rules). I endedthechapterwith discussinghow infor-

mationstructureis representedat the level of linguistic meaningin DGL. Basedon the

proposalsof (Sgallet al., 1986; Heycock, 1993; Hajicova et al., 1998; Steedman, 2000c)

I considera moderate form of recursivity of information structure.I explained how that

enablesusto cover complex examplesinvolving double foci or embeddedfoci which e.g.

informationpackaging is unable to explain.


CHAPTER 3

THE CATEGORY OF INFORMATIVITY

Information structurecanbe realizedusingvariousmeans- but whenandwhy can(or does)a

languageavail itself of thesemeans?In thischapterI discussabasictypological characterization

of whenlanguagesusevariability in word orderor tuneasstrategiesto realize informativity, i.e.

indications of contextual boundness. The characterization is basedon empirical datafrom a

variety of typologically differentlanguages,anda new typology of variabili ty in word order.

Theresultsof this chapterareasetof typological hypothesespredicting whethera languagehas

rigid, mixed,or freeword order,aninformativity markednessprinciple,anda setof hypotheses

thatpredict whenlanguagesusewordorder, tuneor acombinationthereof to realize information

structure. Thesetwo setsof hypothesesform thetypologicalbasisfor thegrammararchitectures

to bepresented in thenext two chapters.

Thedoctrineseemsto bethatwe derive aesthetic

pleasurein comprehendingsomethingasa unified

structure,in finding thata complex of disparate

phenomenacanbeexperiencedasa unifiedwhole.

– ChristopherHookway

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Thegoal in this chapter is to formulateasmallsetof hypothesesthatpredict when

a languagemightuseparticular strategiesto realizeinformationstructure,thustry-

ing to characterizecontextualboundnessasatypological categoryof informativity.

Thesehypothesesarebasedon empirical datafrom a variety of typologically dif-

ferentlanguages,andtake tuneandvariability in word order into account.1 These

hypothesesform thetypological basisfor thegrammararchitecturesto bepresented

in thenext two chapters.

In thischapterwebegin by discussingatypological perspectiveonwordorder.

We start with basicor dominant word order in A 3.2. Thereare two reasons for

doing that. Firstly, variability in word order is variation on dominant word order.1We areawareof thefactthattherearemoremeansthanvariability in word orderandtune.The

hypotheseswe presenthereprovide a basis. We do not claim they arecomplete- they needto betestedonalargeramountof data,andelaboratedwhereneededto covermoreof themeansmentionedin theintroductionto Chapter2.

77

78Ä Thecategory of informativity

Secondly, in a Lambek-stylecategorial grammar,any account of word orderstarts

in thelexicon with assigningcategoriesthatmodeldominant wordorder.2 Because

work in typology hasmainly focusedon dominant word order, like Greenberg

(1966) or Hawkins (1983), we canreadily make useof their findings to formulate

a cross-linguistic procedure to construct lexical categories for basicword classes.

In other words, the typological perspective on word orderstarts in the lexicon, as

onewould expect in a categorial approach.

Subsequently, we turn to variability in word order in A 3.3. Naturally, to be

able to predict when a languagecan usevariability in word order to realize in-

formation structure, we need to know to what extent that languagecan vary its

word order. Unfortunately, thereappears to be no typological account explaining

whena languagecandisplay a particular degreeof variability in word order, cf.

(Croft, 1990;Lehmann, 1993; RamatandRamat,1998). Steele(1978) discusses

different degreesof word order (rigid, mixed and free) but providesno typolog-

ical hierarchy on which one degreeor another would be implied by somebasic

facts about the language. Skalicka’s work does discussa typological characteri-

zation but only distinguishesbetween whatSteelewould termrigid andfreeword

order, cf. (Skalicka andSgall,1994;Sgall,1995). Herewe combine Steele’s char-

acterization, Skalicka’s typology of languages, and observations on a variety of

typologically different languagesto construct an initial proposalfor a typological

characterizationof rigid, mixed,andfreeword ordervariability . We needat least

a three-way distinction of variability to be able to explain the different levels of

interaction betweentune andword order to realize information structure, as ob-

servablein languages like English (rigid), Dutch andGerman(mixed), or Czech

andTurkish(free).

Finally, we proposeseveral hypothesesthat predict, for a languageof a given

type, whatstrategiesit will useto realize information structure. Thestrategieswe

discussherearebased on word order, tuneandtheir interaction. The hypotheses

elaboratevariouspredictionsadvancedby Sgalletal. (1986), andareillustrated on

a numberof typologically different languages.Following practice in languagety-

pology, we conceive of these hypothesesas(initial) explanations of how strategies

like word order or tunerealize a category of informativity. In the next chapters,

we formulate grammararchitecturesthat modelthese strategies– the hypotheses

formulatedherecontrol theaccessibility of the rule packagesmodeling particular

2Unlike thecombinatory tradition,wherelexical categoriesnot only modeldominant word orderbut alsopossiblevariability (Hoffman,1995a;Baldridge,1998).

Thecategory of informativity /79

strategies.

3.2 BASIC WORD ORDER

Thegoalof thissectionis to constructarepresentationatypological modelof basic

word order in DGL. By “basic word order” we understand theplacementof mod-

ifiers relative to their heads - subjectandobject asmodifiersof a verbalhead, and

mostnominal headmodifiers. For example, if we look at theplacementof subject,

object, andverbin variouslanguages,we canobserve distinct orders. Threecom-

monly found orders areSOV, SVO, andVSO, illustrated here in examples (100)

through (102) respectively.3

(100) SOV (e.g.Japanese)

Taroo-gaTaroo-NOM

ringo-oapple-ACC

tabetaate

“Tarooat anapple.”

(101) SVO (e.g.English)

Elijah reada book

(102) VSO(e.g.Welsh)

Lladdoddkill ed

ythe

ddraigdragon

ythe

dynman

“The dragon killed theman.” (Comrie,(Hawkins,1983)(p.1))

Besidesadifferentiation in how a languageordersaverbandits complements,

we canalsoobserve variation in otherorderings. For example,whereasJapanese

usespostpositionslike kooen-made(English “ to thepark”), Englishuses preposi-

tions.4 Similarly, languagesvary in wherethey placenominal modifierslikeadjec-3Thenotionsof ‘Subject’and‘object’ asgrammaticalrolesneedto bespecified,astheiruseis oc-

casionallyconfusing. Here,weadhereto theunderstandingproposedin Manning (1996)andKroeger(1993),goingbackto Dixons’ notionof “pivot”. Both ManningandKroegerusea characterizationthat appliesto ergative languagesaswell, andargue that -even there-we canbroadly understandthenominative verbalargumentto be thesubject.Kroeger discussesseveral teststhatconfirmthis,thesetestsbeingapplicableonly to nominative arguments:Raising,ConjunctionReduction,Pos-sessorAscension,secondary predication,obviation, andnumber agreement (1993)(p.55). For morediscussion,see(Manning, 1996)and(Kroeger, 1993).

4Languagesneednot strictly useeitherprepositionsor postpositions.For example,Dutch andGermanuseboth pre- andpostpositions:German dasHausgegenuber (English “oppositeto thehouse”),versusGerman auf demHaus (English “on the house”). If a language allows for twootherwise“opposite” orderings,it canbe saidto be doubling (Hawkins, 1983). Doubling is oftenunderstoodin termsof languagechange,with onestrategy becomingoutdatedandmakingplacefora new, dominantstrategy.

80Ä Thecategory of informativity

tivals, genitives,or relativeclauses.As Hawkinsremarksin (1983)(p.2),despite all

this variation clearpatternscanbe discerned.Nineteen- andearly-twentieth cen-

tury Germanscholarswerepossibly the first to draw attention to them(Hawkins;

cf. also(Sgall, 1995)(p.52)), andthe work by for exampleGreenberg, Lehmann,

Venneman, andHawkins canbeseenasa continuation of their work.

In thenext sectionwepresent thetwo hierarchiesthatHawkinsproposesto ex-

plain thebasicword order of nounsandtheir modifiers. Thesehierarchiesemploy

standardconnectivesfrom propositional logic to combine implicational universals

into aconcisestatement of theinterrelationsbetweendifferentfactorsdetermining

basic word order. Thenoun/modifierhierarchiescanbecombined with universals

describing thebasic wordorderof theverbandits complements(primarily, subject

and object), to cover the patterns leading to the 24 languagetypes proposedby

Greenberg andfurther exploredby Hawkins andcolleagues.

3.2.1 HAWKINS’ TYPOLOGY OF BASIC WORD ORDER

Hawkins (1983) advancesa typological modelof basic word order that is based

on the rich setof Greenberg’s universalsandwhich sharesVenneman’s concern

with thehead-dependentasymmetry.5 ThereareseveralpointsonwhichHawkins’

modeldistinguishesitself, though.

For one, Hawkins argues that statistical implicational universals should be

avoided,asthey are“theoretically undesirable” (p.60). Instead,nonstatistical im-

plicational universalsshould be used,which areexceptionless. To showthat one

actually can construct an account of basic word order in termsof implicational

universals,Hawkinsbuildshisonavery largecollectionof data. Heusesasastart-

ing point Greenberg’s 30-language sample, andthe sampleof 142 languagesthat

Greenberg usedfor certain (limited) co-occurrencesof basicword order. Hawkins

(andcolleagues) extended the second sample to cover about 350 languages,and

his typology of basic word orderis basedon thedatapresentedby thatsample.

Anotherpoint thatdistinguishesHawkins from GreenbergandVennemancon-

cerns the notion of “word order type”. In Hawkins’ typology, the notion of a

word order type no longer meansa uniform linearization for all different kinds

of head/dependent constructions onemight distinguish in a language. Instead, a

“word order type” is definedas a specificpattern of co-occurrence possibilities

5Greenberg (1966) alsonotesthat the distinctionbetweenheadsandmodifiersis importanttofind an answerto why languagesselectoneparticularbasicword orderover another, but doesnotaddresstheissuein detail.


permitted by theimplicational universalsthatHawkins defines.Eachof thesepat-

ternscontains a commonshared property, like ‘prepositions’, functioning as the

typologicalindicator(1983)(pp.114-115). Wordordertypesarethusno longer tied

to either XV or VX, since correlations to only these word order patterns do not

alwaysgiveriseto explanationswhyotherregularitiesdooccur. Ratherthantaking

XV or VX (or Greenberg’s VOS,SVO, SOV), theentire patterndefinesthe word

ordertype. And, becausethepattern is considered asa whole,it is possibleto say

whatparts, whatparticular co-occurrences, make it unique. Obviously, this leads

to moreprecise generalizations.

Against this background6, Hawkins presents a set of basic word order uni-

versalsthat extends Greenberg’s original classification. From theseuniversals,

Hawkinsderivestwo hierarchiesfor nounmodifiers- thePrepositionalNounMod-

ifier Hierarchy (103),andthe Postpositional NounModifier Hierarchy (104). ( Bindicatesthenominal head, C theadjective, D thegenitive.)

(103) Universal XIV, Prepositional NounModifier Hierarchy

Prep E ((NDem F NNum E NA) & (NA E NG) & (NG E NRel))

(104) Universal XVIII, Postpositional NounModifier Hierarchy

Postp G ((AN H RelN G DemN& NumN)& (DemN H NumN G GN))

Thesehierarchies can be combined with universalson the relation between

noun-modifier word order and the basic word order of the verb and its comple-

ments(primarily, subjectandobject) to explain thepatternsleading to the24 lan-

guagetypesproposedby Greenberg (and further explored by Hawkins and col-

leagues). We will not discussthe full setof basicword order types discussedin

(Greenberg, 1966; Hawkins, 1983). Instead,we briefly point out how we canuse

thesebasicword order types to construct lexical categories. Thatway, westartour

cross-linguistic account of word orderalready in the lexicon, asappropriate for a

lexicalizedapproachlike categorial grammar.

3.2.2 A TYPOLOGICAL MODEL OF BASIC WORD ORDER IN DGL

Theaim in the current section is to relate Hawkins’ typology of basicword order

to a grammar framework like DGL. BecauseDGL is a categorial grammar,this

6For completeness,we shouldalsomentionthat Hawkins introducestwo competingprinciplesto explain the basicword orderof nounsand their modifiers. Theseprinciplesare the HeavinessHierarchyandtheMobility Principle.As thediscussionof theseprinciplesis not directly relevanttoour argumenthere,we refertheinterestedreaderto (Hawkins,1983).

82I Thecategory of informativity

is relatively simple: The ordering given by the typology translatesmore or less

directly into the directionality of the slashesthat we usein categories assigned to

differentword classesin thelexicon.

Theapproachis simple,but notsimplistic: It is simplebecauseof thecategorial

nature of the approach. The approachis far from simplistic since in a categorial

grammarthe grammar is for a fundamentalpart constitutedby the lexicon. The

predictionsthatthetypologymakescanthusbecouchedin termsof cross-linguistic

(architecturesfor) grammarfragments. In relation to thediscussion in Chapter1,

we extendthemapping S in DGL’s linking theory, Definition 4 on page27.7

To reflectthedistinctions that Hawkins’ typology of basic word ordermakes,

wedistinguishdifferent modes. Therelevant modesaregivenin (105-107).Modes

may be headed, as indicated. As we explained in Chapter 1, following (Hep-

ple, 1997), a headed modeexplicitly indicateswherethe head of the construc-

tion is. Thus, in CKJMLONQP mode R is a headed mode,with the arrow S point-

ing to the dependent P away from the head C . Logically, this meansthat a

headed mode R hasassociated to it two products: TUR VXW�JZY[L]\*^�Y[L�\*_�Y[L�ànd RaSbVcW�J LON \*^ LMN \*_ LON ` .

(105) VERBAL MODIFIERS:Name Form App. Description

Subject dfe Verb Marksthesubjectposition.

Directcomplement ghe Verb Marksthedirectcomplementposition.

Indirectcomplement i�ghe Verb Markstheindirectcomplementposition.

Complement e Verb,Noun Compositionwith acomplement.

Temporaladjunct j�kml Verb,Noun Compositionwith a temp.adj.

Spatialadjunct don�l Verb,Noun Compositionwith aspatialadj.,headed

(106) NOMINAL MODIFIERS:

7Again, theproposalheredoesnotpretendto beempiricallycomplete.Thepoint hereis to showthat we canusethe findingsof language typology in a (categorial) grammarframework – in spiritsimilarto (Venneman,1977), but significantlyimproving onhisproposalby makinguseof (Hawkins,1983). Becauseweareinterestedin therealizationof informationstructure,wepaymoreattentiontovariability in wordorderratherthanbasicwordorder.Thediscussionof basicwordorderis providedto starta cross-linguisticdiscussionof word orderin (for categorial grammar)theproperplace– thelexicon.


Name Form App. Description

Adjectival lpg�q Adjective Compositionof nounwith adjective.

Genitival rtsvu Noun Compositionof nounwith genitival.

Complement e Verb,Noun Compositionwith a complement.

Temporaladjunct j�kml Verb,Noun Compositionwith a temp.adj.

Spatialadjunct don�l Verb,Noun Compositionwith a spatialadj.,headed

Demonstrative gpsvk Noun Compositionof nounwith demonstrative,headed

Article ltwvj Noun Compositionof nounwith article.

(107) ADJECTIVAL /ADVERBIAL MODIFIERS:Name Form App. Description

Adjectival lpg�q Adjective Compositionof nounwith adjective.

Adverbial lpghx Adverbial Marksconstructionwith adverbial.

In (108)wedefinethecategoriesfor transitiveverbs,for activevoice.Weleaveout

intransitive andditransitive verbs, asthecategoriesfor theseverbscanbeimmedi-

atelyderivedfrom thespecifications in (108).

(108) VERB, SUBJECT, OBJECT (ACTIVE VOICE):

Verbcategory =

yzz{ zz|}�~�� 3�>�� I��6� �Z}�~h�v��7��t��}�~v�*�f��7��O�}�~�� 3�>��p��}�~ � ��o�#�� }�~"� ��o�#�X�b��}�~�� 3�>�� I�� f}�~��*�f��#� I�� f}�~"�v��7��

Next, (111) and(112) specify thecategoriesfor adjectival andgeneral geniti-

val modifiersof nominal heads, respectively. Thegenitival categoriesaregeneral

in thatthey only hold for whatcould becalledbare genitival structures,beingcon-

structions that arenot construedusinga function word. An exampleof what we

understandby suchbareconstructions are given in (109), with “non-bare” con-

structionsillustratedin (110).

(109) English

(Kathy’s�>��v��v [¡*�>¢ book

(110) English

thebook (of thelecturer� ¡ �>¢(111) ADJECTIVE, NOMINAL HEAD MODIFICATION:

Adjectivecategory =

y{ | ��%� � � �¤£ �7�¦¥§�� I � �¤£v��#�¨�©¥(112) GENITIVE, NOMINAL HEAD MODIFICATION:

Genitivecategory =

y{ | �� 1ªv«�¬ �7�¦�� I ªv«�¬ � �7�¨�©


(113) DEMONSTRATIVE, NOMINAL HEAD MODIFICATION:

Demonstrativecategory =

y{ | ��%� � � «�® �7�¦¯%°�±]�� I � «�® ��7�¨�©¯%°�±(114) Hypothesis:Prep & DemN E ArtN

(115) ARTICLE, NOMINAL HEAD MODIFICATION:

Article category =

yzzzzz{ zzzzz|�o}�~"� «>² �%� � ��³��}�~h� « ��7� ¯�°"´+µo¶�µo·�°�¸�¹"·�µ�ºv»�°�¼Z¯%°�±]��o}�~"� «>² � I ��³��o��}�~"� « ��7� ¯�°"´+µo¶�µo·�°�¸�¹"·�µ�ºv»�°�¼Z�©¯%°�±�o}�~�½ ¬ � «�² �%� � ��³��}�~"� « ��7�¿¾;¶[À�°"´+µo¶�µo·�°�¸�¹"·�µ�ºv»�°�¼Z¯%°�±]��o}�~�½ ¬ � «�² � I ��³��o��}�~�� « ��7�¨¾;¶[À�°"´+µo¶�µo·�°�¸�¹"·�µ�ºv»�°�¼Z�©¯%°�±

In the next section I look at variability in basicword order- thus,what possi-

bilit ies areavailable in a languageto alter the dominant word order specified by

lexical categories.

3.3 VARIABIL ITY IN (BASIC) WORD ORDERING

In this section a preliminary account of variability in word orderis presented.Us-

ing a datasample of 22 languages,I try to establish hypothesesthat take theform

“If a languageL hascharacteristics C,C’,... then it hasa rigid/mixed/freeword

order.” Becausethedatasampleis rather small,I donotclaimthehypothesesto be

anything morethan just that- hypothetical explanationsthatarehopefully verified

(with minimal adaptation) in thelong run.

Thetypological literatureis rather sparseonaccountsof whylanguagesvary in

word order flexibil ity. In theliterature(e.g. (Croft, 1990)), Steele’s (1978) is cited

asthe referenceon variation in word order,focusing on word orderof the matrix

clause.8 Steeleproposesa distinctionof threedegrees of word order freedom,be-

ing rigid, mixed and free, but does not present a typological characterization of

whenoneof these degreesis available in a language.Within thePrague School of

Linguistics,Skalicka’s account of languagetypes (cf. Skalicka andSgall’s (1994),

Sgall’s (1995) for a recent formulation) discussesthe relation between morphol-

ogy andvariability in word order in moredetail than found elsewhere, but only

considerstheopposition betweenrigid andfreeword order.

The account I present is based on Steele’s characterization of variation (i.e.

whena language’s word order is rigid, mixed,or free)and,for an important part,8As we alreadysaw above, Greenberg (1966)andHawkins (1983) focusratheron basicword

orderratherthanon variation. Most later typologicaldiscussionsdo not discussvariationof wordorderin any deptheither- cf. (RamatandRamat,1998), (Lehmann,1993).


on Skalicka’s insights. Particularly, the initi al datagathering wasdonewith the

following null hypothesisin mind:

(116) WORD ORDER NULL HYPOTHESIS: Themorea languageallowsfor the

foll owing phenomenato occur grammatically, the higher the likelihood

that the languagehasa relatively free word order: frequent useof null

anaphora, lack of expletive pronouns,a rich casesystem,complex verbal

morphology.

This null hypothesisfoll ows from Skalicka’s work on languagetypes, Sgall

et al.’s commentsin (1986), andfrom work by Hale andby Speasasreferred to

in (Kroeger, 1993)(p.113). The hypothesesI formulateon the basisof the data

work out the null hypothesisin moredetail. The intention with thesehypotheses

is to cometo a characterizationof variability in word orderon thebasisof formal

aspects of a language. At leastto the extent allowed by the relatively small and

eclectic samplewe present here, the hypothesespurport to explain why eachof

theselanguagesdisplaysa particular (in)flexibility in word order.9

For 20 languages I gathered dataabout the following aspects.10 The table in

Figure3.1(page 87) presents thedata.

Word order type: TheGreenberg/Hawkinscharacterizationof thelanguagein

termsof therelativeordering of verb,subjectandobject; genitives(G) andnominal

heads(N); adjectives (A) and nominal heads(N); and whetherthe language is

prepositional (Pr) or postpositional (Po).

Variation: The characterization of a language’s word order (matrix clauses,

dependentclauses)asrigid, mixedor free. To determinevariation,we useSteele’s

proposal as in (1978): Of the constraintsgiven below, if a languagebreaks con-9A null hypothesislike (116) is by no meansuniversallyacceptedasa goodgroundfor trying to

explainwhenvariability in wordorderis possibleatall (andcouldthusbeusedto realizeinformationstructure).For example,Steeleseeksto explicitly rebuke suchnull hypotheses,andtriesto correlateword order freedomwith person-agreementbetweenthe subjectand the verb. However, it is notclearin how far this would besupportedby ergative languages. Moreover, if we want to extent theaccountof word orderfreedomto embedded clauses,Steele’s suggestionis falsifiedby Turkish. As(Hoffman,1995a)pointsout, thereis no agreementbetweentheverbandits subjectof anembeddedclause.

10In alphabetical order, the datacomprisestheselanguages: Biblical Hebrew (Ofir Zussman),BrazilianPortuguese(FernandaAranha,JasonBaldridge),Czech(IvanaKruijf f-Korbayova), Dutch(author),English(author, Mark Steedman),French(author, Mark Steedman),German(author, Ju-lia Hockenmaier),Modern Greek(Nikiforos Karamanis),Modern Hebrew (Ofir Zussman,NissimFrancez,Shuly Winter), Hindi (Shravan Vasishth),Italian (Malvina Nissim),Japanese(TomotsugoKondo, Shravan Vasishth),Korean(Kihwang Lee), Mandarin(Julia Hockenmaier), Russian(So-fya Malamud),Swedish(ElisabetEngdahl,NataliaModjeska-Nygren),Tagalog(JasonBaldridge),Turkish(Hoffman,1995a).


straint A (andhenceA’), andB, thenits word order is free,whereasits word order

is rigid if nonearebroken. If somebut notall constraintsarebroken,wordorder is

mixed.

A. A variation on thebasicword order in which theverboccurs in other thanits

position in thebasicword order is to beavoided.11

A’. A variation on the basicword order in which the verb occurs either initial

or final to the clause is to be avoided, if the verb wasneither initi al nor final

respectively in thebasic order.

B. A variation on thebasic word orderin which theobjectprecedestheverband

thesubject follows theverbis to beavoided.

Casestrategies: Following Croft’s discussion of morphological strategies in

(1990) (cf. also Chapter 1), a specification of the strategies usedfor grammati-

cal roles (primarily, subject anddirect object) andfor nominal modifiers. In the

table in Figure 3.1, the columns5-7 labelled Case, Pos, Tune relate to morpho-

logical strategiesfor verbal arguments,andcolumns8-17relate to morphological

strategiesfor nominalmodifiers.

Article s,expletives,andpro-drop: Inspiredby Haleandby Speas(cf. (Kroeger,

1993)(p.113)), Skalicka (Skalicka and Sgall, 1994), and Sgall et al.’s remarks

in (1986), we checkwhether a languagehasboth definite and indefinite articles,

whether it hasexpletives, and whether it allows the subject (and possibly other

modifiers) to be dropped. Thebasic hypothesisis that the absence of articlesand

expletives, and the possibilit y to drop subjects, are all indicative of a rich case

system,which usually enablesa relatively freeword order, cf. (Sgall,1995).

Verbal morphology: Skalicka’s languagetypesrelatea rich verbal morphol-

ogy to freerwordorder. Here,weindicatewhataspectsof verbal morphology (like

tense,aspect, modality, etc.) aremarked on theverbitself. Theremaining aspects

areusually realized usingauxiliaries(if atall present; e.g.Tagalogappearsto miss

tense,cf. (Kroeger, 1993)).

Agreement: In keeping with Steele’s suggestionthat thereis a relation be-

tweenfreeword orderandPerson-agreementbetween subject andverb,we check

whata verbcan(or does) agreewith in eachlanguage.

To explain the variation in word orderwe observed in the datain Figure3.1, we

formulatea setof variation hypotheses. The variation hypothesesareformulated11We understand“to be avoided” to meanthat if the orderwould be grammaticallypossible, it

would behighly marked.

Thecategory of informativity /87L

an

gu

ag

eW

Oty

pe

G/H

Var.

Ca

sePo

sTu

ne

Ca

seC

om

pJu

xA

gr

Su

pA

dp

Ln

kL

+A

dS

+A

dA

fxA

rt.

Exp

l.D

rop

Verb

.A

gr.

Bib

l.H

ebre

wV

SO

/Pr/N

G/N

A1

R/R

Acc

+-

--

-+

-+

--

-+

def

-+

PG

N/T

Abs

:STa

galo

gV

1/P

r/NG

/NA

1F

/?+

--

+-

--

--

+-

--

+-

+P

l/VA

Erg

:AV

1/P

r/NG

/AN

2A

bs:S

Fre

nch

SV

O/P

r/NG

/NA

9R

/R-

+-

--

-+

++

--

--

++

-P

GN

/TA

Abs

:SM

.H

ebre

wS

VO

/Pr/N

G/N

A9

R/R

Acc

+-

--

-+

-+

--

-+

def

-+

PG

N/T

Abs

:SIta

lian

SV

O/P

r/NG

/NA

9R

/R-

+-

--

-+

++

--

--

+-

+N

/TA

bs:S

Eng

lish

SV

O/P

r/NG

/AN

10R

/R-

+-

--

--

++

++

+-

++

-N

/Pst

Abs

:SS

VO

/Pr/G

N/A

N11

Abs

:SM

anda

rinS

VO

/Pr/G

N/A

N11

R/R

Acc

+-

--

--

-+

--

--

+-

--

-S

wed

ish

SV

O/P

r/GN

/AN

11R

(V2)

/R-

+-

--

-+

++

++

-+

++

-N

G/P

stA

bs:S

Dut

chS

VO

/Pr/N

G/A

N10

M(V

2)/R

-+

--

--

-+

++

-+

-+

+-

N/P

stA

bs:S

Ger

man

SV

O/P

r/NG

/AN

10M

(V2)

/M+

+-

+-

-+

++

+-

+-

++

-N

/Pst

Abs

:S

Inui

tE

rgA

bsV

/Po/

?F

/M+

--

+-

--

--

--

--

--

+P

N/T

ME

rg:A

GN

/AN

Abs

:S

Cze

chS

VO

/Pr/N

G/A

N10

F/F

+-

-+

--

+-

+-

--

--

-+

PN

G/T

AA

bs:S

Rus

sian

SV

O/P

r/NG

/AN

10F

/F+

--

+-

-+

-+

--

--

--

+P

NG

/TA

Abs

:SM

.G

reek

SV

O/P

r/NG

/NA

9F

/F+

--

+-

-+

--

--

--

+-

+N

P/P

stA

Abs

:SB

r.Por

tugu

ese

SV

O/P

r/NG

/NA

9F

/FA

gr+

+-

--

++

+-

-+

-+

-+

PG

N/T

AV

Abs

:SH

indi

SO

V/P

o/G

N/A

N23

F/F

+-

--

-+

++

--

--

--

-+

NG

/Fut

Erg

:AH

unga

rian

SO

V/P

o/G

N/A

N23

F/F

+-

--

++

+-

--

--

-+

-+

NP

/TM

Abs

:SJa

pane

seS

OV

/Po/

GN

/AN

23M

/R+

--

--

--

-+

--

-+

--

+T

(Hon

)K

orea

nS

OV

/Po/

GN

/AN

23F

/F+

--

++

--

--

--

--

--

+-/

TAM

Abs

:ST

urki

shS

OV

/Po/

GN

/AN

23F

/F+

--

+-

--

--

--

--

ind

-+

PN

/TV

MA

bs:S

Exp

lana

tion.

“WO

type

”sta

ndsf

orth

ela

ngua

ge’s

wor

dor

dert

ype,

aspe

rGre

enbe

rg/H

awki

ns,w

ith“G

/H”

the

rele

vant

inde

xin

Gre

enbe

rg’s

App

endi

xII.

The

“Var

”co

lum

nin

dica

tesv

aria

tion,

for

mat

rixcl

ause

/depe

nden

tcla

uses

;“F”

stan

dsfo

rfr

ee,“

M”

for

mix

ed,a

nd“R

”fo

rrig

id.

The

next

thre

ecol

umns

prov

ide

info

rmat

ion

onho

wsu

bjec

tsan

dob

ject

sare

dist

ingu

ishe

d:by

“Cas

e”(p

ossi

bly

just

byA

ccus

ative

mar

king

onth

eob

ject

),po

sitio

ning

(“P

os”)

,orb

yT

une.

The

colu

mns

ther

eafte

rrega

rdm

odifi

ersi

nge

neral

,and

the

mor

phol

ogic

alst

rateg

iesa

vaila

ble

ina

lang

uage

for

real

izin

gth

em(C

roft,

1990

):“C

ase”

case

mar

king,

“Com

p”co

mpo

undin

g,“J

ux”

juxt

apos

ition

,“A

gr”

agre

emen

t,“S

up”

supp

letio

n,“A

dp”

adpo

sitio

n,“L

nk”

linke

r,“L

+A

d”lin

ker+

adpo

sitio

n,“S

+A

d”su

pple

tion+

adpo

sitio

n,an

d“A

fx”

affix

atio

n.T

hene

xtth

reec

olum

nssp

ecify

whe

ther

the

lang

uage

has“

Art

”ar

ticle

s(or

just

one,

orno

ne),

“Exp

l”ex

plet

ives

,and

whe

ther

ital

low

sfo

r“D

rop”

drop

ping

(usu

ally

ofth

esu

bjec

t).T

hefin

altw

oco

lum

nssp

ecify

verb

alm

orph

olog

y.“V

erb.”

give

sm

ore

info

rmat

ion

onve

rbal

form

:whe

ther

ther

eis

any

indi

catio

nof

“P”

pers

on,“

N”

num

ber,

or“G

”ge

nder,

and

“T”

tens

e(po

ssib

lyon

ly“P

st”

past

,“Pre

s”pr

esen

t,or

“Fut

”fu

ture

),“A

”as

pect

,“V”

voic

e,or

“M”

mod

ality

.If

a“T

”,“M

”,“V

”or

“A”

isab

sent

itis

real

ized

usin

gan

auxi

liary

.The

last

colu

mn

indi

cate

swhe

ther

the

verb

agre

esw

ithan

yof

itsco

mple

men

ts,a

ndif

so,w

ithw

hat:

“Abs

:S”a

bsol

utive

subj

ect,“

Erg

:A”

erga

tive

Act

or.

Figure3.1: Word orderdata


like implicational universals,with theexception that they usetheconnective Á to

indicatethat the implication is hypothetical, andnot universal. Furthermore,we

definethe logical relations between free, mixed,andrigid word order asfollows:Â free Ã rigid F mixed, Â mixed Ã rigid F free, and Â rigid Ã mixed F free.12

To make the representation of variation hypothesesmore compact, we usea

few useful abbreviations. Strat(X,Y) indicatesthatstrategy Ä is usedto realize Å .

For example,Strat(SubjObj,Pos) meansthat positioning is usedasa strategy to

indicatethesubjectandtheobject of a verb. VerbForm(X) meansthat theverbal

form inflects for Å , Art(K) indicatesanarticle of type Æ , andAgr(X,Y) indicates

agreementbetween Å and Ä . Otherwise,we directly usethecharacteristics men-

tioned in the tablein Figure3.1. Negatinga characteristic meansit is not present

(-), e.g. Â Drop meansa languageis not pro-drop.

Then,on thebasisof thedatafor OV languagesin Figure3.1(i.e. Hindi, Hun-

garian, Japanese,Korean,andTurkish)we canformulate thevariation hypotheses

asin (117). Thesevariation hypothesesspecify whena languagewith OV ordering

(at someclauselevel) hasrigid, mixed,or freeword order.

(117) VARIATION HYPOTHESES FOR OV WORD ORDER

a. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS OV-1:

OV & Strat(SubjObj,Case) & ((Agr(ErgActor,Verb) & Drop) F(Agr(AbsSubj,Verb) & (VerbForm(Tense & (Aspect F Mood FVoice))))) Á free

b. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS OV-2:

OV & Strat(SubjObj,Case) & ( Â Agr(Subj,Verb) F Â Drop) Á mixed

c. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS OV-3:

OV & Â Strat(SubjObj,Case) & Â Drop & Â Agr(Subj,Verb) Á rigid

Looking at thedata,weseethat Hindi, Hungarian,KoreanandTurkishall have

a fairly rich verbal and nominal morphology. From Skalicka’s typology it then

follows that these languageshave a relatively freeword order,which they indeed

do. On theotherhand, Japanesedoeshave a nominal casesystem,but verbs only

inflect for tenseandhave no agreementwith thesubject.13 We understandthat its

mixedword order arisesfrom this combination of the presenceof a nominal case

system and the lack of a rich verbal morphology. This is confirmedby German12In the long run, we expect there to be more of a scaleof variability, rather than a discrete

tripartition into rigid, mixed,andfree.13Unlessoneconsidershonorificationasa kind of agreement.


dependentclausewordorder, which is mixed(aslong asthere is nomorphological

ambiguity; otherwiseit rigidifies).

Finally, the hypothesesalso explain the rigid ordering in Dutch dependent

clauses. The presenceof casemarking is significant to the explanation of why

Dutchdiffers from Germanwith respectto dependent clausewordorder. If it were

not, we couldpossibly obtain a mixedword orderby usingprepositions to realize

Case.However, astheexamplesin (118)illustrate, we cannot.

(118) a. Dutch

...

...dethe

manman

wienswhose

fotophoto

KathyKathy

aanto

ElijahElijah

gaf.gave.

“The manwhosephotoKathy gave to Elijah.”

b. * demanwiensfoto aanElijah Marie gaf.

(119) FURTHER HYPOTHESES ON THE BASIS OF OV DATA

a. ARTICLES:

OV & free Á Â (Art(def) Ç Art(indef)), or

OV & (Art(def) & Art(indef)) Á Â free

b. USE OF CASE:

Strat(NounModif,Case) Á Strat(SubjObj,Case)

c. EXPLETIVES:

Agr(AbsSubj,Verb) & (VerbForm(Tense & (Aspect F Mood F Voice)))Á Â Expl

d. PRO-DROP:

Agr(AbsSubj,Verb) & (VerbForm(Tense & (Aspect F Mood F Voice)))Á Drop

It is hardly surprising that for SVO word order we cangive hypothesesthat

aresimilar to (117). Using the datafor Czech,Dutch, English,French,German,

Hebrew, Italian, Mandarin, Brazilian Portuguese,andSwedish,we formulatethe

variation hypothesesin (120).

(120) VARIATION HYPOTHESES FOR SVO WORD ORDER

a. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS SVO-1:

SVO & Strat(SubjObj,Case) & (VerbForm(Tense & (Aspect FMood))) Á free


b. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS SVO-1’ :

VerbForm(Tense & Aspect & Voice & Mood) Á free

c. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS SVO-2:

SVO & Strat(SubjObj,Case) &

(VerbForm(Tense & Â (Aspect F Mood))) Á mixed

d. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS SVO-3:

SVO & Â Strat(SubjObj,Case) & (VerbForm(Tense & Â Mood)) Árigid

Again, thereis aninterestinginteractionbetween nominal andverbal morphol-

ogy. If a languagehasboth a rich verbalanda rich nominal morphology, thenit

hasfreewordorder– confirmingSkalicka’spredictions.Straight examplesof such

languagesin the dataareCzech,Greek,andRussian, with Brazilian Portuguese

presentingan interestingexception. Although native informants judge word order

in BrazilianPortugueseasfree(in thesenseusedhere), it only shareswith theother

freeSVO languages that it hasa rich verbal morphology. Thereis no rich nominal

morphology, andthe subject andobject areindicated using eitheragreement,po-

sitioning, or tune, rather thancase.ThevariationhypothesisSVO-1’ capturesthe

ideathat if we have a very rich verbal morphology in anSVO language,thenthis

sufficesto concludethelanguagehasfreeword order.

Mixedword order in SVO languagesseemsto beprimarily determinedby the

presenceof a rich nominal morphology, as in the caseof German. Verbalmor-

phology appears to belessimportant here. Frenchhasa richer verbal morphology

thanGerman,but lacksanominal casesystemand–accordingly– hasarigid rather

thanamixedwordorder. Observe thatthis providesaninterestingsimilarity to the

OV-case. The datashows that mixed word order is possible with a rich nominal

morphology, eventhough theverbmayonly show tense– cf. Japanese.

In general, rigid SVO word order appears to ensueassoonasthere is no rich

nominal morphology nor a rich verbalmorphology. Thereis at least onenotable

exception - Dutch.Dutchdoesnothaveacasesystem14 norarich verbalmorphol-

ogy, andyet it doeshaveamixedwordorderlikeGerman(andcontraryto English).

Thedatapresentedin thetablein Figure3.1shows usonly that,if we restrict our-

selvesto TypeX languages,thenwhatdistinguishesDutch (mixed) from English

(rigid) is theabsenceof theLinker+Adpositionstrategy. Thisstrategy for realizing

14Dutchdoesnot have a nominalcasesystemanymore – therearestill variousremnantsof casesthough.


nonpronominal possessorgenitival constructions is secondary in English (Croft,

1990)(p.34ff). However, it may indicatea positional fixation of what languages

with anominal casesystemwould simply usemorphology for. Thisview seemsto

besupportedby the typological characterization of English. Englishis both Type

X andType XI, due to its positional fixation of the different basic strategies for

realizing genitives(Linker: GN, Adposition: NG). Hence,I proposeto reformu-

latevariation hypothesisSVO-2 (120c) into (121) below, to cover (at least)Dutch

mixedword order. Thehypothesisexplains themixedword orderof Dutchon the

basisof Dutchbeing lesspositional thanEnglish(andthusmorelikeGerman,even

though Dutchhasno “overt” nominal casesystem).

(121) REVISED VARIATION HYPOTHESIS SVO-2:

SVO & (Strat(SubjObj,Case) F (NG & Â Strat(NomMod,L+Ad)) &

(VerbForm(Tense & Â (Aspect F Mood)))) Á mixed

(122) FURTHER HYPOTHESES ON THE BASIS OF SVO DATA

a. ARTICLES:

SVO & free Á Â (Art(def) Ç Art(indef)), or

SVO & (Art(def) & Art(indef)) Á Â free,

SVO & (rigid F mixed) Á (Art(def) & Art(indef))

b. USE OF CASE:

Strat(NounModif,Case) Á Strat(SubjObj,Case)

c. PRO-DROP:

free Á Drop, rigid F mixed Á Â Drop

Finally, for OV I lack sufficient datato cometo a proper characterization. To

cover thedatain Figure3.1,I proposethehypothesesin (123).

(123) VARIATION HYPOTHESES FOR VO WORD ORDER

a. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS VO-1:

VO & Strat(SubjObj,Case) & VerbForm(Aspect & Mood) Á free

b. VARIATION HYPOTHESIS VO-2:

VO & Â Strat(SubjObj,Case) & VerbForm(Tense & Â (Aspect &Mood))Á rigid


To recapitulate,I presentedSteele’s characterization of (in)variability in word or-

der as either rigid, mixed, or free. Basedon empirical datafrom typologically

different languages,I formulatedseveralhypothesesthat predict whena language

hasrigid, mixed,or freeword order(thusimproving on (Steele,1978)). Theem-

pirical findings underlying the hypothesesconfirmedto an important degreethe

predictions madeby Skalicka’s (morphological) typology of languages(Skalicka

andSgall, 1994; Sgall, 1995), in showing the interrelation betweenmorphology

andvariability . The proposal advancedheredistinguishesitself from Skalicka in

discerningmixed word orderbesidesrigid andfree word order, andcovering its

predictability. This finer distinction is not vacuous. Mixed word order languages

may realize information structure differently than either rigid or free languages.

Unlike rigid languages,mixedlanguagescanusewordorderto realize information

structure,but not to the degree that free languagescan. Oneconsequence is that

mixed languages have a morecomplex interaction betweentuneandword order

thaneither rigid or free languages. On the otherhand, whereasfree word order

languagesusually lack articles,mixed do have themandarethusableto indicate

contextual boundness thatway.

3.4 THE CATEGORY OF INFORMATIVITY

As I alreadynotedin the introduction to this chapter, we know from variouscon-

trastive studiesthat languagesmayrealizeinformationstructure in differentways.

For many differentframeworks it hasalsobeenarguedhow they areableto repre-

sentinformation structure,taking into account suchcross-linguistic variation. The

aimin thissection is to advanceseveralhypothesesthatpredict whenalanguageof

a given typeavails itself of particularstructural indicationsof informativity, elab-

orating on (Sgall et al., 1986). I restrict myself to the useof just word order and

tune, the relation betweenwhich I assumeto be oneof relative opposition: If a

languagedoesnot useword order, it uses tune.

Below I start in È 3.4.1with a null hypothesisderivedfrom (Sgallet al., 1986),

working towardsa setof hypothesesthat predict what a language’s ‘prefered’ or

canonical focus position is. By a language’s canonical focus position (or CFPfor

short) I understandtheposition in a sentencewherewe would expecttheinforma-

tion structure’s focus (focusproper) to berealized,given anunmarked,canonical

word order or an unmarked intonation pattern. Variousauthors have associated

theCFPwith sentence-finality, for SVO languageslike Czechor English (Sgallet


al., 1986; Vallduvı andEngdahl, 1996) but also for SOV languageslike Sinhala

or Tamil (Herring andPaolillo, 1995). Here, I examinedatafrom VX, XV and

SVO languages, andpresentin È 3.4.2asetof hypothesesthat effectuatessentence-

finality but doesnot by definition imply it.

Naturally, a focusneedsnot alwaysberealizedin thecanonical focusposition.

Theremaybevarious reasonsfor doing so.Thethematicstructureof a text andits

overallorganizationmayfor exampleplayarole,andanobviousfactor is theinfor-

mationstructureto berealized. For example, consider(124). Without any further

indications, people understand“Christopherreada book yesterday” to meanthat

yesterday is the focus proper, andthe focus may extendto any point leftwards.15

Theother sentencesrealizedifferentinformationstructures.In (124b-d) thewords

afterthepitch accent realize(part of) thetopic.

(124) English

Christopherreada bookyesterday.

a. Christopherreada book YESTERDAY.

b. ChristopherreadA BOOK yesterday.

c. ChristopherREAD a bookyesterday.

d. CHRISTOPHER reada book yesterday.

Thus, two questions arisehere: How does a focusproject, andwhendoes a

languageusewhat meansto realize an information structure focus in a position

different from theCFP?I addressfocusprojection in È 3.4.3, primarily on thebasis

of thedatapresentedin (Vallduvı andEngdahl, 1996). Subsequently, I present inÈ 3.4.4a setof hypothesesthat predict whenlanguages useword order, tuneor a

combination thereof to realizefoci in other thanthecanonical focusposition.

3.4.1 THE NULL HYPOTHESIS

To start,we canproposean initial version of a very general hypothesisabouthow

the build-up of a sentencemay reflect its information structure asrepresentedin

theunderlying linguistic meaning, (125).

(125) INFORMATIVITY HYPOTHESIS I (INITIAL VERSION)

In the unmarked case(unmarked mixed, free word order or unmarked15With an unmarked tune,or just an H* pitch accenton “yesterday”, (124) canbe an answerto

“What happened?”.


tune), languagestendto realize(verbal) contextually bound dependents/heads

before contextually nonbound ones, and contextually nonbound depen-

dents in canonical/systemic ordering.

The formulation of INFHYP1 is nothing new. In different guisesit appears

throughout work in thePragueSchoolof Linguistics,notably in FGD’s topic-focus

articulation (Sgall et al., 1986; Hajicova et al., 1995; Hajicova, 1993) andits use

of Firbas’s communicative dynamism(Firbas,1992).

Despite its simplicity, INFHYP1 holdsacrossa surprisingly largerangeof lan-

guage types. For example, it holds for mostof the OV languageswe have con-

sidered so far. In rigidly verb-final languages like Japaneseor Tamil, the focus

proper occupies the immediately preverbal position. In non-rigid verb-final lan-

guageslike Sinhalathefocusproper canalsobethepostverbaldependent(Herring

andPaolillo, 1995). And, INFHYP1 holds also for German,which hasa mixed

OV word order at thesubordinate clauselevel, wherethepreverbal position (right

before the verbal cluster) is usually considered to be the preferedposition for the

informational focus.

(126) Japanese

Taroo-waTaro-TOPIC É susi-oÊ¤Ë

susi-ACCtabeta.eat-PAST

“TarooatetheSUSHI.”

(127) Tamil

antathat

natt-ilcountry-LOC É oru aracan

¯Ê Ë

onekingiru-nt-an

¯be-PAST

“In thatcountry, there wasA KING.” (Herring andPaolillo, 1995)(p.182)

(128) Sinhala

oyathat

kaelaeae-weforest-LOC

hit.iyaalive-PAST É nariy-ek Ê¤Ë .

jackal- INDEF

“In thatforest livedA JACKAL .” (HerringandPaolillo, 1995)(p.170)

Similarly, wefind thattheSVO languageswehaveconsideredall tendto prefer

to place the focus at the end of the clause (in the unmarked case). This holds

particularly for theSVO languageswith mixedword order, like Dutchor German,

or freeword order, like Czech,Greekor Russian.


However, the initial version of INFHYP1 is not obeyed by freeOV languages

(notably, type XXIII). For example,Hindi, HungarianandTurkishappear to form

acounter-exampleto theiniti al formulation of INFHYP1 (Hoffman,1995a),(Vall-

duvı andEngdahl, 1996), (Vasishth,p.c.). Theselanguagesprefer to placethe in-

formational focus directly before the verb - wherever the verb is placed. In other

words,sentence-finality is notacriterion for theplacementof focus(proper). Con-

sider for example (129), cited in (Vallduvı andEngdahl, 1996), and(130), from

Hoffman(1995a)(p.106).

(129) Hungarian

MariMary

JANOST

John-Acclatta.see-Past

“Mary saw JOHN”

(130) Turkish

a. EsraEsra

kitab-ıbook-ACC

okuyorread-PRESPROG

“Esrais reading theBOOK.”

b. Kitab-ıbook-ACC

EsraEsra

okuyorread-PRESPROG

“As for thebook, it is Esrawho is reading it.”

Only if we leave theverb in final position, like in (129)or (130), INFHYP1 is

obeyed. Changingthewordorderof (129)to (131) meansthatINFHYP1 no longer

applies,eventhoughtheword order assuchis unmarked.

(131) Hungarian

MariMary

lattasee-Past

Janost.John-Acc

“MARY saw John”

3.4.2 PREDICTING A LANGUAGE’ S CANONICAL FOCUS POSITION

Thus,leavingmarkedwordorderconstructionslike “subjectiveordering” (Sgallet

al., 1986) or focal fronting aside, INFHYP1 appears to cover (most)non-canonical

ordersin mixed OV andmixed or free SVO languages,but seemsto fail on free

OV languages.Canwefind a certain systemin theseobservations?TheproposalI

advance hereinvolvesfour aspects:


1. thedominant wordorder (XV/VX/SVO), aspertheGreenberg/Hawkins typol-

ogy;

2. thedegree of variability (rigid/mixed/free),asimplied by the hypothesespre-

sented earlier in this chapter;

3. thepresenceor absenceof a productive prosodic system(tune) andits interac-

tion with thedegree of variability ; and,

4. Venneman’s idea of category consistency (cf. (Venneman, 1977; Hawkins,

1983)).

To start with the last, Venneman’s ideaof category consistency is embodied

in his “Natural Serialization Principle”. This principle states that languageslin-

earize all their operator-operandpairs consistently, thus either (strictly) operator

before operand,or operandafter operator. Hawkins (1983) convincingly argues

that Venneman’s principle as such cannot be usedasan adequateexplanation of

word ordertypology. But the ideathat thereis a certain consistency in lineariza-

tion is perhapsnot entirely without merit. Namely, it doesseemthat languages

tendto havea canonical focusposition relative to theverbalheadthatis consistent

with its dominantword order. This leads to (132).

(132) a. OV Á immediate preverbal position

b. VO Á postverbal position

Subsequently, let usbring tune into thepicture. Languagesusetuneandword

order (amongother means)to relative degrees. This is a perspective already ad-

vanced by Sgall et al. in (1986) andlater work. As saidearlier, we consider the

following -initial- relation betweenvariability in word orderandtune.

(133) (OV F VO F SVO) & rigid Á tune

In otherwords,if a languagehasrigid word order, it is predicted to rely pre-

dominantly on tune,(at least for theunmarked case(s) realizing informationstruc-

ture).

Next, SVO behaveslike OV assoonasverbsecondnessis involved,sinceverb

secondness often leadsto theformation of a clause-finalverbal cluster. Similarly,

the following holds: if we have SVO but no verb secondness, thenSVO behaves

like VO. Fromthese observationsand(132a) we predict that thedefault focus po-

sition canbefound towards theendof thesentencein rigid, mixedandfreeSVO.


(134) a. ((rigid F mixed F free) & SVO & (V2 E VFinal) Á OV)Á immediate preverbal position

b. ((rigid F mixed F free) & SVO & Â (V2 E VFinal) Á VO)Á postverbal position

Basedontheaboveobservations(andtheimplicationsrelating them),wearrive

at the following formulationof our first (proper)hypothesisregarding therealiza-

tion of information structure. The hypothesisreformulates(125), anddetermines

whereweshould expect thecanonical focusposition in aparticular language,given

its type.

(135) INFORMATION STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS 1 (CANONICAL FOCUS POSI-

TION):

Thecanonical focus position (CFP)is determinedby either of the follow-

ing hierarchies,depending on thelanguage’s type:

a. OV/SVO-UFP-hierarchy:

immediate preverbal position Ì(rigid F mixed F free) & SVO & (V2 E VFinal)F(rigid F mixed F free) & Â tune & OV

b. VO/SVO-UFP-hierarchy:

postverbal position Ì(rigid F mixed F free) & SVO & Â (V2 E VFinal)F(rigid F mixed F free) & Â tune & VO

Remark 10 (Pre-/post-verbal positioning ÍÎ sentence-finality). Therearea few

remarksthatwe should make aboutINFHYP1, (135). First of all, although actual

constructions may give the impression that a preverbalor postverbalposition co-

incides with sentence-finality, we do not imply this. Thehypothesisis deliberately

statedin termsof (immediate)pre-andpostverbalpositioning, on thebasisof the

consistency noted in (132). Sentence-finality is effectuated,in other words, but

it is not defining. And exactly becausewe perceive of it that way, we canrelate

in a coherentway thesuperficially different CFPs of for example SVO languages

like DutchandGerman(behavingclosely like OV in morecomplex matrix clause

constructions)andOV languageslike Hungarian or Turkish.


Secondly, the dataabout VO languages andtheir informationstructure is too

scarce to make any genuine predictions about their structure. We return to this

point againbelow. Ï3.4.3 FOCUS PROJECTION

By focus projection we understand the phenomenonwheremorewordgroupsare

interpreted asrealizing partof thefocusthanjust thewordgrouprealizing thefocus

proper. For example, take theEnglish sentencesin (136) below.

(136) English

a. Elijah left his cowboy-boots É on theTABLE Ê Ë .

b. Elijah left É his cowboy-boots É on theTABLE Ê Ë Ê Ë .

c. Elijah É left É his cowboy-boots É on theTABLE Ê Ë Ê Ë Ê Ë .

Here,“on thetable” realizesthefocusproper. In (136a) theboundarybetween

thefocusandthetopic is directly before thefocusproper. In (136b,c) we“project”

thatboundaryfurtherleftwards,understanding morewordgroupsasrealizing parts

of thefocus. Thesameholdsfor examplefor DutchandGerman,bothatthematrix

clauselevel (SVO) andthesubordinate clause level (SOV) astheexamplesbelow

(for Dutch)illustrate.

(137) Dutch

a. Elijah heeftzijn cowboy-laarzen É op deTAFEL Ê Ë latenstaan.

b. Elijah heeft É zijn cowboy-laarzen É op deTAFEL Ê Ë Ê Ë latenstaan.

(138) a. ...omdatElijah É zijn COWBOY-LAARZEN Ê Ë op de tafel heeft laten

staan.

b. ...omdatÉ Elijah É zijn COWBOY-LAARZEN Ê�Ë#Ê�Ë opdetafel heeftlaten

staan.

All theexamplesabove realizedifferentinformationstructures.They illustrate

the point indicatedearlier, namelythat focus projection or the possibilit y thereof

maybeimportant factor in how to realizeinformationstructureunambiguously.

Interestingly, languagesmayproject foci into different directions. For example,

Hungarianallowsfor rightwards focusprojection if the verbaldependents areall

orderedcanonically (i.e. according systemicordering). Thesentencesin (139)ex-

emplify this (Komlosy, cited by Vallduvı & Engdahl). Vallduvı & Engdahl indicate

thatfocus projection in Hungarian canalsobe leftwards.


(139) Hungarian

a. MariMary É+É+É almat Ê Ë eszik Ê Ë a kertben Ê Ë .

apple-ACC eatthegarden-IN

“Mary eatsapplesin thegarden.”

b. MariMary É+É+É beteg Ê Ë volt Ê Ë a tegnapÊ Ë .

sick be-PAST yesterday

“Mary wassick yesterday.”

The tendency to project a focus rightwardsstands in an interesting contrast

to focusprojection in mostother OV andSVO languages(which tendto behave

OV-lik e in the Mittel- andNachfeld - cf. Dutch, German). Most OV andSVO

languagesappear to project strictly towardsthe left from the focus and the nu-

clearstressit carries. On the otherhand, the requirementsfor focus projection in

Hungarianarepurely word order-related, relying as they do on the presence(or

absence)of a canonical order.

Thattunedoesnotplayasignificantrole in therealizationof informationstruc-

ture in Hungarian at all alsoseemsto be indicated by the following contrastbe-

tweenTurkishandHindi on theonehand, andHungarian ontheother. As Vallduvı

& Engdahl report, thefocusmustbepreverbal in Hungarian (unlesstheverbal head

is thefocus proper, in which caseit is placedclause-initial). If thefocusis formed

by a dependentwhosecanonical position is not immediately preverbal, thenit has

to be“moved” there. Becauseof theminimal role thattune seemsto play, we can-

not leave the dependentin situ andstress it - asthe minimal pair in (140) briefly

illustrate,(Vallduvı andEngdahl, 1996).

(140) Hungarian

a. * AttilaAttila

feltfear-PAST É a FOLDRENGESTOL Ê Ë .

theearthquake

“Attila feared theEARTHQUAKE.”

b. Attila É a FOLDRENGESTOL Ê Ë felt.

Turkish andHindi differ from Hungarian in this respect. There,we canleave

a dependent in situ andusea marked tuneto realize it as(part of) the focus. The

examplesin (141)form a minimal pair illustratingtheTurkish situation.

(141) Turkish


a. Bira

hizmełciservant

masa-nıntable-GEN

uzer-i-netop-POSS-DAT

not-unote-ACC

É YEMEK-tenonceÊÐËmeal-ABL before

bırak-tı.leave-PAST

“A servantput thenoteon thetablebefore lunch.”

b. Bir hizmełci É YEMEK-tenonceÊÑË masa-nınuzer-i-nenot-ubırak-tı.

We would like to proposethe following observations. First of all, thereis the

main point that the possibility of focusprojection influences how a sentencemay

be interpreted asrealizing a particular information structure. We thusregardit as

animportant factor in determining thechoiceof structural indicationsof informa-

tivity.

Secondly, a focuscanbeprojectedover wordgroups(dependents) thatareor-

deredaccordingto systemicordering. Thisalsofollows from (Sgalletal.,1986)(p.194ff),

whereNB elements by definition have to appear in systemic ordering. Here,we

observed this phenomenon for Hungarian (Vallduvı andEngdahl, 1996), andwe

canalsoillustrateon theEnglishexamples in (142).

(142) English

a. Christophergave a book Ò to KATHY ÓÕÔ .

b. Christophergave Kathy Ò a BOOK ÓÖÔ .

Arguably, the focus in (142a) can be projected further leftwards, but not in

(142b) becauseof thedative-shiftedBeneficiary. Otherexamplescanbefound in

(Sgallet al., 1986)(p.194ff).

Thirdly, focus projection can in principle be either leftwards or rightwards.

Given the Hungarian data, and the contrastingdatafrom Hindi andTurkish, the

direction in which a focus mayprojectover verbsandsystemically orderedword-

groupsseemsat leastto dependon theproductivity of tune in thegivenlanguage.

3.4.4 CHANGING FOCUS

In this section we have a look at constructions that realize information structure

wherethe focus proper appears in a position otherthanthe canonical focusposi-

tion. Like we saidearlier, there maybevarious reasonsfor doing so,arising from

the information structure and possible focus projections, thematic structure, etc.

Bearing (132) in mind, having the focus proper in a non-canonical position can

meantwo things. Eitherthefocuselement appears in aposition otherthantheCFP


but thatposition is still consistentwith (132), or it is in aposition thatis neitherthe

CFPnor consistentwith (132).

For example, in anOV languagethefocus could bepreverbal but not immedi-

ately preverbal,in which caseconsistency would be maintained. However, if the

focuswouldnotbeimmediately preverbalnor preverbalatall, thenbothINFHYP1

(describing the unmarked or canonical case) andconsistency would be violated.

Naturally, other factors in a languagesystem determine whether we can obtain

thesedifferent marked casesat all - for example, in a rigidly verb-final OV lan-

guageit is hardly likely thata postverbalfocal elementwould befound.

From a viewpoint of economy, like Sgall et al. discuss in (1986) for de-

pendency grammarin general, we could set up the following INFORMATIVITY

MARKEDNESS PRINCIPLE. We useCC for category consistency, andFP for fo-

cusposition.

(143) INFORMATIVITY MARKEDNESS PRINCIPLE:×CC & UFP ØÙÛÚ Ü ×

CC & NON-CANONICAL FP ØÙÛÚ Ü ×NON-CC & NON-CANONICAL FPØ

In words,theleast markedconstruction is onein which thefocusproper is re-

alizedin the canonical focusposition. A moremarked construction is onewhere

the focus proper is realizedin a non-canonical focus position, but still consistent

with thegeneral operator-operand direction. Moremarkedthaneitherof theprevi-

ousconstructions is onewherethe focusproper is not realized in canonical focus

position,nor category consistency is obeyed.

Intuitively, if we would follow out economy, thenwe would alsoget the pre-

diction that a languagewould first tend to theuseits predominant strategy for re-

alizing informationstructure,to obtain a moremarkedfocus position CC & NON-

CANONICAL FP, (unless the construction would be ambiguous betweena focus

proper realizedin CFPandamarkedFP).To obtaina really marked focusposition

NON-CC & NON-CANONICAL FP the languagewould resortto a different strat-

egy, possibly in combinationwith its predominant strategy. Notethattheremaybe

different strategies for mixedandfreeword orderlanguages.For example, mixed

languageshave articles at their disposal to realize contextual boundness, whereas

free(in general)do not.

For example, take againOV languages. An OV languagelike Sinhalahas

mixedword order, andis non-rigid in its verb-finality. INFHYP1 predicts that the

102Ý Thecategory of informativity

unmarked focusposition is immediately preverbal. Subsequently, we predict that

moremarkedfocuspositionswould eitherbeobtainableusingword order,placing

it towardsthebeginningof thesentence(consistently preverbal), or using tune(and

word order)to place thefocusafter theverb. As it turnsout, this is indeedthecase

- cf. Herring& Paolillo (1995).

Similar observations, consistent with the above proposal, can be madefor

Japanese.Although Japaneseis rigidly verb-final andhasanimmediately preverbal

unmarkedfocusposition (144a),wecanobtainamoremarked focusby ordering it

at thebeginningof thesentence(144b) without having to useany marked tune.16

(144) “What did Taroeat?”

a. Japanese

Taroo-gaTaro-NOM

susi-osushi-ACC

tabeta.eat-PAST

“TaroateSUSHI.”

b. Susi-oTaroo-gatabeta.

Theproposalalsoholds for freeOV languageslike Turkishor Hindi, cf. (Vall-

duvı andEngdahl, 1996) for Turkish.17 Furthermore,wecanobserve this behavior

in mixed SVO languages (V2-case) like Dutch andGerman, andfor a free SVO

languagelike Czechwe already illustratedthis.

On the basis of theseobservations, we formulate the following hypothesis,

INFHYP2. INFHYP2 concerns realizations of informationstructure that aremore

marked dueto their realization of the focus proper in other thanthe canonical fo-

cusposition. We use“ambiguous” to indicatewhethera construction (sentence)

would be ‘ambiguous’ betweena canonical and a non-canonical focus position

16Having saidthat,native speakersmaypreferto put somestresson themarkedfocus,evenwhena -wa particleis usedto indicateexplicitly the topic. Note that the ÞQßpà particledoesnot needtoindicatefocus,cf. (Heycock, 1993).

17At thesametime, the datais slightly inconclusive aboutHungarian.Obviously, becauseHun-gariandoesnot have a particularlyproductive tune,we would not predict to observe a post-verbalmarked focus. Moreover, the constraintthat the focus position has to be immediatelypreverbalwould seemto contradictthepossibilityto obtaina (preverbal) markedfocususingword orderonly,in Hungarian.In the light of thescarcetyof thedataavailableto us,we leave Hungarianout of theequationfor themoment.It maymeanthatwe will have to make a morefine-grainedpredictionona futureoccasion, but thatdoesnot invalidatetheapproachassuch.


without any further structural indicationlike tune.

(145) INFORMATION STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS 2 (MARKED REAL IZATION)

a. (CC & á UFP & á ambigous)â ((mixed ã free) â word order) & (rigid â tune)

b. ( á CC & á UFP & (ambiguous ãäá ambigous))â ((rigid ã mixed ã free) â word order & tune)

Remark 11 (Mark ed realization has to be grammatical). Quite naturally, the

implications of INFHYP2 all are,ultimately, constrained by what is well-formed

in a particular language. If a languagedoesnot have a very productive word order

system,INFHYP2 should not be interpretedto state that there is onenevertheless.

But, within these limits, INFHYP2 seemsto cover eventherareconstructions like

Y-movementin English. åTo recapitulate,wehave INFHYP1 whichpredictsthattheunmarkedfocusposition

is consistent with thedirectionality of thedominantwordorder(OV/VO,with SVO

split into differentcases). Furthermore, INFHYP2 predicts thatmoremarkedfocus

positions can be obtained using either word order or both word order and tune,

dependingonhow marked(with respectto theInformativity MarkednessPrinciple)

the construction would be and whether it by formal structure alone it would be

ambiguousbetween a canonical anda non-canonical focus position.

Specifically, for VO languages, thehypothesespredict thefollowing structural

indicationsof informativity in OV languages.

(146) Structural indicationsof informativity in OV:

a. Rigidly andnon-rigidly verb-first OV languageshave an immediately

post-verbalunmarkedfocusposition.

b. Rigid VOrealizeinformationstructureusingpredominantly tune;mixed

andfreeVO languages usepredominantlyword order.

c. Non-rigidly verb-initial OV languagescanhaveamarkedimmediately

preverbal focus.

d. Rigidly andnon-rigidly verb-initial OV languageswith mixed or free

wordorder canhavemarked focusposition towardstheendof thesen-

tence,using just word orderunlessthestructureassuchwould beam-

biguousbetweena CFPconstruction.


Because dataabout structural indications of informativity in languages with

VO word order is very scarce, it is hard to verify the above predictions. Kroeger

(1993) briefly discussesthe realization of information structure in Tagalog,and

an informal inspection of Biblical Hebrew only revealsa partial picture of what

appearsto bearathercomplex situation. Inspectingwordorder variationin Biblical

Hebrew in context (i.e. in the bible) appearsto indicatethat it hasa rathermixed

word order, andthat it placespronominalcliti csdirectly after theverb (Zussman,

p.c.). It uses word order as its primary structural indicationsof informativity, in

other words. With regardto theunmarkedfocusposition, Biblical Hebrew indeed

seemsto prefer theimmediately postverbalposition. Furthermore,it allows for an

SVO variation, in which thepreverbal dependent in fact realizesa (marked) focus.

Whether thereis any particular tune associated to this fronting is not clear, and

requiresfurther research.

The situation in Tagalogis more complex, due to its rich voice system, and

theinfluenceof adependent’sdefinitenessonwhetherit canactually berealized in

nominative case.In theexamplesbelow, all from (Kroeger, 1993)p.62ff, thegloss

AV meansactive voice,OV objective voice, andIV “indi rectobjective” voice.

(147) Tagalog

AnoWhat

angNOM

kinainPERF.OV-eat

mo?2.SG.GEN

“What did you eat?”

(148) a. KinainPERF.OV-eat

ko1.SG.GEN

Ò ang-isda ÓÐÔNOM-fish

“I atethefish”

b. KumainPERF.AV-eat

ako1.SG.NOM

Ò ng-isda Ó ÔGEN-fish

“I ate(some)fish.”

Thequestion in (147) is formulatedin objective voice (OV). In (148a) wehave

thesamevoice,with aPatient thatis in nominativecaseand(necessarily) definite.

(148b) usesactive voice, makingit impossible for the object to be in nominative

caseandto bedefinite.

(149) Tagalog

AnoWhat

baQUES

angNOM

biniliPERF.OV-buy

mo2.SG.GEN

sa-pamilihan?DAT-market


“What did youbuy at themarket?”

(150) a. BiniliPERF.OV-buy

ko1.SG.GEN

Ò ito-ng damit ÓÐÔ .NOM-this-L INK dress

“I bought this dress.”

b. Ò Ito-ng Ó¤Ô damitangbinili ko.

Now, let usconsideraquestion with theverbin activevoice(rather thanobjec-

tive voice,asabove).

(151) Tagalog

Sinowho

angNOM

gumawaAV.PERF-make

ng-sapatosGEN-shoe

naL INK

iyon?that

“Who madethoseshoes?”

(152) a. ?GinawaOV.PERF-make

Ò ni-Bing ÓæÔGEN-Bing

“Bing made(them).”

b. Ò Si-Bing Ó ÔNOM-Bing

angNOM

gumawaAV.PERF-make

ng-sapatosGEN-shoe

naL INK

iyon.that

“Bing is theonewho madethose shoes.”

Theanswerin (152b) is thepreferredanswerhere,cf. (Kroeger, 1993)(p.63).

Thus,we seethatTagalogcan-in principle- placeits focuseither preverballyand

postverbally. Therebywe might understand the postverbalposition to be the un-

marked one, based on the observation that topicalization using the ay-inversion

construction placesanelementin thepreverbal position,cf. (Kroeger, 1993)(p.67)

SUMMARY

Basedonempirical data,wepresenteda typologicalcharacterisation of variability in word

order,andasetof hypothesesthatpredictwhen(andwhy) languagesmakeuseof strategies

like word orderor tuneto realizeinformation structure. The first hypothesis,INFHYP1,

predicts thatthecanonical focuspositionis theimmediatelypreverbalpositionin OV lan-

guages,andin SVO constructionsthathaveaclause-finalverbal cluster. For VO languages

andSVO constructionswithoutverb-secondness,INFHYP1 predicts thatthecanonicalfo-

cusposition is post-verbal. We observed that sentence-finality may be effectuated,but

that it is not defining. This enablesus to relatethecanonical focuspositionof (complex)

DutchandGermanclausesto therealizationof informationstructure in OV languageslike

Hungarianor Turkish.


The secondhypothesis,INFHYP2, predicts how more marked realizations are real-

ized. We notedthat thematicstructure and the possibility of focus projection may de-

terminehow informationstructure is to be realized,andthat only through more marked

constructionssuchrealizationcansometimesbeachieved (e.g. to avoid ambiguity). For

example, INFHYP2 makesthefollowing predictionsaboutrealizingthefocusproper in a

non-canonical focus position. As long astheconstruction cannotbeunderstoodto realize

a focusin thecanonical focuspositionandthenon-canonical focuspositionis placedrel-

ative to the canonical focuspositioncategory consistently, thenword ordercanbe used.

Otherwise,aninteractionbetweentuneandwordorderis predicted.

With respectto thehypotheses,we notedthat thereis a differencein theuseof these

strategiesamong languageswith rigid, mixedandfreeword order, andthatstrategiesare

usedto a relativeratherthananabsolute degree.

Thediscussionin thischapterconfirmedvarious of theprincipal hypothesesadvanced

in thePrague Schoolof Linguistics,andmostrecentlyin FGD, about language typology

(SkalickaandSgall,1994; Sgall,1995) andtherealizationof informationstructure(Sgall

et al., 1986; Hajicova, 1993). Even though we looked at a relatively small number of

languages,the hypotheseshave beenformulatedagainstdatathat is typologically more

diversethanis usuallyconsideredin theliterature.

In subsequent chapterswe look in moredetailat how we canformalize the ideathat

informationstructure is a fundamentalparameter in determining the realizationof a sen-

tence.Chapter4presentsdetailedarchitecturesmodellingrigid, mixedandfreewordorder

andtheuseof word orderto realizeinformationstructure.Chapter5 extendsthe formal

modelsto cover tuneandits useasa structural indicationof informativity (both aloneand

in interactionwith wordorder).

CHAPTER 4

A FORMAL MODEL OF WORD ORDER AS

STRUCTURAL INDICATION OF INFORMATIVITY

In this chapter we develop grammararchitecturesthatmodeltheuseof word orderasstructural

indicationof informativity on thebasisof thedistinctionsof rigid, mixedandfreewordorderas

discussedin Chapter 3. Principal to our formal account is the view of adjacency asparameter

(Moortgat and Oehrle, 1994). The results of this chapter are grammararchitecturesof basic

strategies to realize information structure in VX, XV, andSVO languages,controlled by the

informativity hypotheses. The coreof thesearchitectures is formedby architecturesof rigid,

mixedandfreeword order,controlled by thevariation hypotheses.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Thecross-linguistic perspective on word order thatwe developedin thepreceding

chapter hasbeenformulated independent of any particular grammarframework.

In principal onecould thustake theframework of one’s liking to implement these

ideas. Here,we naturally focus on we could useDGL. The goal of this chapter

is to modelword orderasa structural indicationof informativity. To that end I

provide grammararchitecturesthatdescribebasic formsof variability in word or-

der,andshow how information structurecancontrol word ordervariation. Theac-

countis basedontherelation betweencontextualboundnessandsystemicordering

(Chapter2), andexploits the view of adjacency asa parameter (with information

structure/contextual boundness asanimportant factor besideswell-formedness).

Below I first provide a brief survey of proposalsfor using categorial grammar

to modelword order phenomenaup to freeword order. As we already pointed out

earlier in Chapter 2, thecombinatorytradition adheresto aPrincipleof Adjacency –

only string-adjacentwordscanbecombined.A direct consequenceof thisprinciple

is that variability must to be modelled in the lexicon. To model variability we

have to usecategoriesthat lexically defineflexibili ty to the directions in which

argumentsaretaken.

107

108Ý A formal model of wordorder asstructural indication of informativity

Thecombinatoryapproachdiffers in this from the logical tradition, wherewe

conceive of adjacency asa parameter. Lexical categoriesdefinecanonical word

order. Variability in word order is achieved through the application of structural

rules that have the possibility to alter the tree-structure. Theapplication of struc-

tural rules is controledby theconfiguration of the tree-structure,andpossibly any

features that individual nodes carry. For one, that enables us to create a very

fine-grainedaccount wherepossible variation in word order can be conditioned

on contexts thatarelarger thanindividual words.Anotherconsequenceis thatwe

canusecontextual boundness asa parameterto control structural rulesmodelling

word order, and have the relation between surfaceform andunderlying linguis-

tic meaning/informationstructure definedcompositionally by the Curry-Howard

correspondencethatholdsfor thecalculus in general.

In ç 4.3 I work out a proposal for capturing word order in DGL. We present

modelsof word order-based strategiesfor realizing information structure,aspre-

dicted by the informativity hypothesespresented in Chapter3. Thesestrategies

structurally control morefundamentalgrammararchitectures thatmodelthebasics

of rigid, mixed, andfree word order in VX, XV, andSVO languages.1 In other

words,thestructural control formally implements theview thatvariability in word

order is paramatrizedby theinformationstructureto berealized.

4.2 MODELS OF FLEXIBLE WORD ORDER IN CATEGORIAL GRAMMAR

The purposeof the current section is to provide a brief survey of proposalsfor

using categorial grammarto modelword orderphenomenaup to freeword order.

What the categorial grammarproposalsdiscussedhere,andthe DGL proposalinç 4.3, have in commonis that they employ a flexible notion of surfacestructure in

a setting thathasa generative power strongerthancontext-freeness.It needslittl e

argumentation thatclassical (context-free) phrase-structuregrammaris wholly in-

adequateto explain variation in wordorder. To ‘all ow’ for variation, alternaterules

would have to begiven that describe the other possible orders. However, assoon

asvariation involvesdiscontinuity (of any type)thereis noway to describe it since

we cannot relate thedisplacedelements to thesitewherethey would normally be

located. Finally, any generalization we canmake over possible orderscannot be

expressedin a phrase-structuregrammar.

1For reasonsof conciseness,we presenttheformulationof thesemodelswithout the è�é�êÖë"ì fea-ture. In theunderlyingarchitectureusedfor theinformationstructurearchitecturesthis featureis ofcoursepresent,andusedfor controllingword order.

A formalmodelof wordorderasstructuralindicationof informativity /109

Below westartwith proposalsthathavebeendevelopedin thecombinatorytra-

dition in categorial grammar:Steedman’s CCG(1996; 2000c), Hoffman’s MCCG

(1995b; 1995a), and Baldridge’s Set-CCG(1998; 1999) and modalized CCG,

(2000). Thereafter, webriefly addressvariousdiscussionsof wordorder by Moort-

gat& Oehrle, setin categorial typelogic.2

4.2.1 STEEDMAN’ S CCG

Combinatory Categorial Grammar(CCG)wasfirst introducedby AdesandSteed-

manin (1982) asa generalization of theearlier categorial grammarframeworksof

AdjukiewiczandBar-Hillel , andwaslatergreatly expandedby Steedmanin for ex-

ample(1996; 2000c). At theheart of CCGwefind asetof combinators thatdefine

composition. In CCG,the combinators areperceived of as rule schemata whose

instantiation canbefine-tunedto thesetting of aparticular language,but whichare

otherwise thesolemeansby which we can-or needto- modelcomposition across

languages.Theschematathushave a certain cross-linguistic flavor, andSteedman

hasgone to greatlengthsshowing thatonecanindeedemploy thecombinatorsto

modela varietyof languages.Thevariation in theinstantiationsof theschematais

thenexplainable with referenceto languagetypology. An interesting exampleof

suchexplanationis Steedman’s (2000c) discussionof the treatmentof dependent

clauseword order in Dutch,German,andEnglish.3

CCG’s combinatorsarebasedon the work of Curry andFeys, andwereorig-

inally intendedfor to modelthe í -calculus. A crucial differencebetween CCG’s

combinatorsandtheir original counterparts is, though, thatthe(recursive) applica-

tion of theformerarerestricted.This limits thepower of CCGpur sangandis the

main reason why Vijayashanker andWeir areableto show in (1994) that CCGis

mildly context-sensitive andparseable in polynomial time.4

Moreprecisely, wecandefineCCG’scombinatorsasfollows (Steedman, 2000c).

2We do not discussHepple’s (1990) proposalas it got superceded by his own later work onhead/dependentasymmetriesin categorialtypelogic (1994; 1996; 1997), whichwediscussedalreadyin Chapter1.

3Furthermore,see(Kruijf f andBaldridge,2000)for abrief cross-linguisticcomparisonregardingtheavailability of particularcombinators in Dutch,English,German,andPortuguese.

4As such,CCGcould be setapartfrom categorial type logics. The latterareTuring Complete,asCarpentershowed in (1995), if they are not restricted. Like CCG’s restrictionleadsto its moreconstrainedbehavior, sothereexiststhepossibilityto restrictcategorialtypelogic though.Weprovedin (Kruijf f andBaldridge,2000) thatwe canconstruct a formal bisimulationof CCGin a categorialtypelogic fragment,with thefragmenthaving a (weak)equivalenceto CCG.Conversely, thearticleshows thata logical interpretationof CCG is possible,counteringfor exampleMorrill’ s criticism in(1994).


CCG extends the Adjukiewicz-Bar-Hill el calculus (AB) by adding rules of syn-

tactic combinationwhich correspond to directionally specific forms of Curry and

Feys’ composition (B), type-raising (T), andsubstitution (S) combinators. These

combinatorsaredefinedby thefollowing equivalencesonpredicate-argumentstruc-

tures:

(153) a. B î�ïñðòí�óõôÖî÷ö�ï�ó�øb. T óùðòíúî�ôÖî�óc. Sî�ïñðXí[ó�ôÖî�óûö�ï�ó�ø

Definition 10 (Combinatory rules for CCG). CCG extends its rule setbeyond

thefunction applicationrulesof AB asfollows:

(154) Rulescorresponding to ü .

a. ý�ü�þ ÿ �� þ�� þ � � ÿ �� þ1í��ô �÷ö��Õó�øb. ý�ü�� þ ÿ �� þ�� þ �� ÿ �� þ1í��ô �÷ö� � ó�øc. ��ü�þ �� þ ÿ �� þ�� ÿ �� þ1í��ô �÷ö� � ó�ød. ��ü�� þ �� þ ÿ �� þ�� ÿ �� þ1í��ô �÷ö��Õó�ø

(155) Rulescorresponding to � .

a. ý��ùþ ÿ þ�� ö �� ÿ ø þ1í��õô ��b. ��ùþ ÿ þ�� ö �� ÿ ø þ1í��õô ��

(156) Rulescorresponding to � .

a. ý�� þ ÿ �� þ�� þ ��! ÿ �� þ+í��ô �"�õö� � ó�øb. ý��#� þ ÿ �� þ�� þ �$! ÿ �� þ6í��ô �%� ö� � ó�øc. �� þ �� þ ÿ �� þ�� ! ÿ �� þ+í��ô �"�õö� � ó�ød. ��#� þ �� þ& ÿ �� þ�� $! ÿ �� þ6í��ô �%� ö��Õó�ø

CCG as suchcannot be usedto model free word order,and exactly for that

reason offspringsasMCCGandSet-CCGhave beenintroduced. Yet,CCGcanbe

successfully applied to modelphenomenafound in mixed word order languages,

likecross-serial dependenciesin Dutch,cf. (Steedman,2000c), Chapter 6 for more

detail.5

5TherearefundamentaldifferencesbetweenSteedman’s account andhow we modelcross-serialdependenciesin DGL. Steedmanassumesthatthebasicword orderof Dutchmatrixclausesis VSO,andthatof dependentclausesSOV. Accordingly, verbsareassigneddifferentlexical categoriesforusein matrix anddependentclauses.On the contrary, in DGL we first of all assumethat Dutchmatrixclauseword orderis SVO. Furthermore,thereis noneedto haveseverallexical categoriesfora verbto mirror its useat differentclauselevels.


4.2.2 HOFFMAN’ S MULTISET-CCG

In (1995a;1995b) Hoffman introducesmultisetcombinatory categorial grammar

(MCCG),anextension of CCGto dealwith freewordorder. Thebasic ideabehind

MCCG is to relax the subcategorization requirementsof a verb such that it no

longer needsto specify the linear order in which the argumentshave to occur.

Rather, a verb is assigneda function category that takesa multiset of arguments6

which arenot necessarily assignedany directionality. For example, in MCCG we

specify the category of a transitive verb as '�( ×�)+*-,/.102)43�565 Ø . The verb takes a

subject) *-,/.

anda direct object) 37565

, in any order, resulting in a construction

of category ' (sentence).

To beable to combinea function andits argumentin any order, MCCGcannot

employ thestandardrulesfor functional application. Instead,we have (157).

(157) a. Forward application ( ý ):8 (¤ö:9�;�ï&<>= ×�? Ø�ø ? � 8 ( 9@;;ïA<b. Backward application ( � ):? 8 (¤ö:9�;�ï&<>= ×�? Ø�øB� 8 ( 9@;;ïA<

With the rules as in (157), we cancombinea verb and its arguments in any

order. To obtain a semantics, MCCG co-indexes the category’s argumentswith

the argumentsin the predicatestructure. Thereason being that we canno longer

useordinary í -calculus due to the insensitivity to the order in which arguments

aretaken. For example,thecategory for a transitive verb like readwould become

' þ�;�C�D&E�ö F 0 G ø�( ×�) *#,/. þ F 02) 3�5H5 þ G Ø .For composition ( ü ) wecandefinerulesasin (158), using set-theoretic opera-

tions.

(158) a. Forward composition ( ýMü ):8 (¤ö:9�;�ï&<�IJ= ×�? Ø�ø ? ( 9�;�ï&<LKM� 8 (¤ö:9@;�ï&<�IN=O9@;�ï&<LK§øb. Backward composition ( �Mü ):? ( 9@;;ïA<�K 8 (¤ö:9@;;ïA<�IJ= ×�? Ø�øB� 8 (¤ö:9@;�ï&<�IN=O9@;�ï&<LK§ø

With these composition rules,MCCGcanhandle for example freeword order

of sentential adjuncts( '�( × ' Ø ). Also, by allowingmultiple verbsto composeusingü , MCCGcananalyzecomplex sentenceswith embeddedclauses.

6Multiset: a category of thesametypemayoccurmorethanoncein thesameset.


Quite naturally, the question ariseshow all this freedom canbecontrolled, or

restricted. For example, Japaneseallows for a free ordering of argumentsbut is

otherwiserigidly verb-final. Wecanrepresentthis in MCCGby attachinga“direc-

tional feature” to arguments: '�( ×"PRQ) 56SUTHV%WX*-,Y. 0ZPRQ) 56SZTYV%W[3�565 Ø . To make composition

sensitive to these directional features,we require that in× � 0 �Mü#Ø the

?argument

of8

is markedasPRQ?

, andthat in× ý 0 ýMü#Ø it is markedas

Q\ ?. It remains anopen

issue, though, whether morefine-grainedrestrictions canbe captured in this way

aswell - for example,theoccurrenceof Czechclitics in theWackernagelposition,

a criticism mentionedin (Kruijf f, 1999a). Furthermore, there aresubstantialdiffi-

cultieswith the relation betweeninformationstructureandword orderin MCCG.

As I already mentionedin Chapter 2 (p.66ff.), the Principle of Adjacency forces

oneto modelnot only variability of word orderbut alsoits effect asstructural in-

dication of informativity elsewhere thanin therule component. Variability canbe

modelled in the lexicon, but the effect of word orderasa structural indicationof

informativity cannot. In MCCG, thiseventually leadsmoreor lessto adissociation

of information structurefrom word order,contrary to general linguistic intuitions.

4.2.3 BALDRIDGE’ S SET-CCG, MODALIZED CCG

Baldridge presents in (1998; 1999) a framework that incorporates ideasfound in

Hoffman’s MCCG but thatat thesametime retains the formal andcomputational

strengths of CCG. Next to Set-CCG,Baldridge proposesin (2000) a version of

CCG that distinguishesdifferent modesof composition like categorial type logic

does, basedon (Kruijf f andBaldridge,2000). Here,we present bothSet-CCGand

modalizedCCG.Thereason for discussing modalizedCCGis that,dueits affinity

with categorial typelogic, it seemsenvisionableto extent modalizedCCGto cover

Set-CCGandthenusethis “modal-Set-CCG”to overcometheproblemsnotedfor

multiset combinatorycategorial grammar.

JustlikeMCCG,Set-CCGenablesoneto expressthatparticularargumentscan

becombinedwith in any order. However, unlikeMCCG, Set-CCGcategoriesretain

thespecification of directionality (unlike MCCG’s ( ) sothatSet-CCG’s categories

in general look a lot more like the original CCG categories. For example, the

category for a transitive verb (with basicSOV order) is ' ��×�)�]^,Y._02)`SZ565 Ø . Then,

occurring left of the head,both argumentscanbecombined in any orderusing �(Definition 11).

Definition 11 (Set-CCG). Therule schematafor the combinators are defined in


Set-CCGasfollows.

(159) a. Backward application( � ):? 8 � ö�a�b ×�? Ø�øB� 8 � ab. Forward application:( ý ):8 � ö�a�b ×�? Ø�ø ? � 8 � a

(160) a. Backward composition:?c� öedObgfQø 8 � ö�a�b ×�?h� d÷Ø�øB� 8 � a � fb. Forward composition:8 � ö�a�b ×�?i� d÷Ø�ø ?j� öedkblfQøB� 8 � a � f

(161) a. Backward type-raising:8 � m ��× m ��× 8 Ø3Øb. Forward type-raising:8 � m ��× m ��× 8 Ø3Ø

Remark 12 (Rigidificati on and Set-CCG’s power). An important point to note

aboutSet-CCGis its rigidification of slash-directionality. For thepurposeof econ-

omy, we areallowed to usethe “up-down” slash ( to specify categories, but once

oneargumentfrom a ( ’d bagis taken in a particular direction, thenall arguments

have to be combined with in that direction. Thus, '�( ×�)1T�02)`, Ø can take either

take its argumentsall to the right, in any order, so that we get a rigid head-initial

structure.Or, we cancombine with all argumentsto theleft.

In otherwords,Set-CCGallows for scrambling of the arguments, but not of

theheaditself. Theheadremainsin afixedposition, andit is this rigidification that

makesit possiblefor Set-CCGto havethesamegenerativestrenghtandparseability

asCCG.åBesidesSet-CCG,BaldridgehasalsoproposedmodalizedCCG, based(Krui-

jf f and Baldridge, 2000). Below, we first briefly describe the intentions behind

(Kruijf f andBaldridge,2000), andthenexplain how Baldridgeemploys it to create

modalizedCCG.

Our goal in (Kruij ff and Baldridge, 2000) is twofold. Firstly, we try to es-

tablish a fragmentin categorial type logic thataccepts exactly thesamestructures

asCCGcanallow for. The fragmentcanthusserve asa logical interpretation of

CCG,countering Morrill ’s criticism levelled against CCGin (1994)(for example,


cf. p.257).Secondly, by proving that the fragmentis anexactsimulation of CCG,

we alsoobtain a (weak)generative equivalenceto CCG’s mild context-sensitivity

andthe possibility to parse with the fragment in polynomial time (Vijayashanker

andWeir, 1994). Hence,the fragment illustrateshow onecanemploy a restricted

form of commutativity that does not lead to a collapse,and which gives rise to

a linguistically interestinggenerative strength. Concisely, the simulation canbe

definedasfollows.

Definition 12 (A simulation of CCG). TheCCG-equivalent fragment definedby

(Kruijf f and Baldridge, 2000) usesmodalities n�o 02pAq , thebasestandard logic NL,

and the following structural rules for simulating application ( � 0 ý ), composition

(B), andtyperaising (T).

(162) Right Associativity:rtsvuwrtxzyj{�|Y|7}@~�� j�rHr�sMu�x�|�yj{�|7}@~��

(163) Left Associativity:rHr�sMu�x�|�yj{�|7}@~�� rtsvuwrtxzyj{�|Y|7}@~��

(164) Right Commutativity:rHr�s�y�x�|��{�|[}@~�� rHr�s��i{�|�y-x�|[}@~��

(165) Left Commutativity:rts�y�r�x>�i{�|H|[}@~�� rtxz��r�s�yi{�|H|[}@~��

The baselogic naturally models �� . The rules for associativity enable us to

simulate ��g�� , whereasweneedtheadditional, limited form of commutativity

to handle �i�l��k� . Wedonotneedanyotherrules,astyperaisingis a theorem

of NL already (Oehrle, 1994). �Todefinethemodalizedversion of Combinatory Categorial Grammar,Baldridge

redefines the rules of CCG (Definition 10) to respect the modal behaviorof the

rules which we useto simulatethem. Furthermore,Baldridgedefinesthe setof

modalitiesto be nZ�[�2o�� pAq andusestwo variable modesn��&�%� q , where �h�wnZ�X�2o�� p&qand �l�Bn�o�� p&q .


Definition 13 (Modalized CCG). Therules for modalizedCCG are as follows.

Notethat the semantics of the rules are the sameas givenin (153) for pure CCG

andare thusomitted.

(166) TheCCG’base logic’.

a. �%��- �¡�¢ �£ £�¤ ¡b. �%��- £ ¡�¥ �£�¤ ¡

(167) Composition

a. �%��h�� ¡�¢ ��£ £ ¢ p7¦ ¤ § ¡j¢ p�¦b. �%��h�� £ ¥ o ¦ ¡�¥ ��£ ¤ § ¡j¥ o ¦

(168) Crossing composition

a. �%��k�X�- ¡�¢ p £ £ ¥ o ¦ ¤ § ¡�¥ o ¦b. �%�� - £ ¢ p�¦ ¡�¥ o&£ ¤ § ¡�¢ p�¦

(169) Type-raising

a. �%��¨©�j �¡ ¤«ªg£ ¢ � � £ ¥ � ¡j�b. �%��¨©�j �¡ ¤ ª £ ¥ � � £ ¢ � ¡j�

Assaid,type-raising is a theoremof NL, but weneedto explicitly state it for Com-

binatory Categorial Grammar. We permit any modality to decorate the slashes

which are created in order to mimicthebehavior of NL. �4.2.4 MODELS OF WORD ORDER IN CTL

Over time, there have beenvariousproposals for dealing with word order-related

phenomenain theLambektradition. With therealizationthatacontext-freeframe-

work doesnotsufficeto explain for examplediscontinuousconstructionslike long-

distancedependencies,people turned their attention to theLambek-Van Benthem

calculus LP. LP is a calculus that is fully associative andcommutative - thusal-

lowing for a muchfreerordering.

Worse,LP actually allows for any ordering. Thus,obviously, this calculus is

too strongand,dueto its context freeness,the original Lambekcalculus L (Lam-

bek, 1958) is too weak. An intermediate position betweenL and LP would be

ideal. Justadding commutativity to L precipitatesa collapseto LP, asMoortgat

(1988) shows. Control thusturns out to bethekeyword.

116¬ A formal model of wordorder asstructural indication of informativity

Early proposalsfor structural control involved theuseof unarymodalopera-

tors like , ® , or ¯ - for example,seeMoortgat’s (1988; 1996), Hepple’s (1990),

or Morrill’ s (1994). Appropriately marked wordsor structureslicensethe appli-

cation of structural rulesthat involve -for example- theuseof commutativity. Be-

cause structural rules thus no longer necessarily apply to all structuresbut only

to specificconfigurations, we cangain a generative strength that goesbeyond the

ordinaryLambekcalculuswithout collapsingto LP.

From the technical viewpoint, Kurtonina and Moortgat show in (1996) that

the thus evolving landscapeof substructural proof logics behavesnicely, having

characteristics like completenessandsoundness. More importantly, Moortgat&

Oehrlediscussin their importantpaper “Adjacency, dependency, andorder” (1994)

whatthecategorial typelogical perspective on word order in factamounts to from

a linguistic point of view.

Thepoint thatMoortgat & Oehrleadvanceis thatadjacency is a parameterof

resourcestructuring. Structural rulescanbeusedto reconfigurestructuressuchthat

elements thatusedto benon-adjacent, now do becomeadjacent. Thus,adjacency

is notconsidered to beanecessarycondition for composition, but is something that

canbebrought about. This view stands in sharp contrastto Steedman’s Principle

of Adjacency for CCG. According to that principle, only string-adjacententities

maybecombined(cf. (Steedman, 2000c),p.54). Whendealing with adjacency as

a parameter, Moortgat& Oehrlepoint out that there areessentially two situations

thatonemight face(170).

(170) a. �:°-±³²µ´%¶6�¸·c¹��`º »c±¼��·g´��¸·c¹��H¶b. °�±¼��²g´��¸·c¹��H¶hº �:»c±³·g´"¶6�¸·c¹��

Eachstructural rulespecifiestheconfigurationweencounter(theLHS), andthe

configuration thatis requiredfor therule to apply (theRHS).Clearly, thetwo cases

in (170) aresymmetric. In (170a) we find that ² ¹ is combined with ° whereas it

should find its proper place with a substructure of ° , namely ²-´ ; (170b) presents

the opposite ‘movement’.7 Moortgat & Oehrlecharacterize (170a) as caseof a

7A brief remarkabout ‘movement’: Like Steedmanpoints out in the introduction to (1996),we use‘movement’heremetaphorically andnot in the senseof Chomskyan linguistics. Thereisno equivalent of “move-½ ” or alike in categorial type logic, becauseof a different relationto log-ical form. We do admit though that, ‘despite’ adheringto a metaphoricalsenseof movement,thestructuralrulesdealingwith word orderdo have a flavor of moving elementsaround. It is perhapsnoteworthy thatpreciselybecauseof thatflavor, categorial typelogic hasbeenusedasatool to modelMinimalism.


dependent ²�¹ beingattractedby thehead ²+´ , whereas(170b) illustratesthecase

of ²¾¹ adjoining itself to thehead²�´ .Formally, Moortgat & Oehrlemake useof structural rules that regulate the

interaction betweenheadedness (distinguishing a head-dependentasymmetry as

proposedby Moortgat& Morril l in (1991)) andadjacency. Axiomatically, this type

of interaction is captured-abstractly- by axiomsthatdefinehow differentmodesare

commutativeandassociativewith respect to oneanother:

(171) Interaction - Mixed commutativity:

�"�:¿J�jÀ�Áh�l�ÃÂ�Ä_��ÅhÆ �"�:¿J�ÃÂ�Ä_�µ��À[Ä1�(172) Interaction - Mixed associativity:

�"�:¿J�jÀ�Áh�l�ÃÂ�Ä_��ÅhÆ �:¿«��ÀÇ�:ÁÈ�ÃÂ�Ä1�"�The É modegenerically represents a modeof composition that enablesnon-

adjacency, whereas Ê modelsadjacent composition in termsof a heads anddepen-

dents. Thus,therulesin (171) and(172)areschemata: Moortgat & Oehrleobtain

modelsfor specific constructionsby appropriately instantiating Ê2�HÉ . Moortgat &

Oehrlediscusstwo examplesthatillustratethehead-wrapping typeof construction

in (170a) andthehead-attraction of (170b).

We canbriefly characterizethe understanding of head wrapping explored in

(Moortgat andOehrle, 1994) as foll ows. Headwrappingenables to elements to

becomeadjacent, starting from a composition in which thesetwo elements were

not adjacent. MoortgatandOehrleexplain this usingthetermsinfix andcircumfix

(or host): the infix syntactically adjoins itself to the headof the circumfix. More

specifically, we have that the infix cango beforeor after thehead of thehost, and

caneitherdeterminethe headof the construction (endocentricity) or combine as

a dependent (exocentricity). Consequently, Moortgat & Oehrledistinguish four

“wrapping” modes, labelled Ë�ÌX�2Ë:ÍÎ�"Ï�ÌÐ�"Ï^Í with Ë"�eÏ� indicating that the infix is to

the left (right), andwith Ì��:Í&� indicating that the infix (circumfix) determinesthe

headof theconstruction.

Theinterestingaspect about themodelthatMoortgat & Oehrlethenpresent is

their distinction between basescasesand recursive cases. The base casestell us

underwhatconditions head-wrapping is equivalent to simpledependency adjunc-

tion. On theother hand, therecursive casesestablish thecommunicationbetween

thewrappingmodesanddependency. They useinstantiationsof (171) and(172) to

allow theinfix to “travel” througha treestructureuntil it is at a landing sitewhich

is characterizedby oneof thebasecases. Their modelis givenin (173).Themode


ËeÑ©�eÏ^Ñ+� is a shorthandfor Ë�Ì or Ë:Í ( Ï�Ì or Ï�Í ).

(173) MOORTGAT AND OEHRLE’ S MODEL OF HEAD WRAPPING

a. Basecases:A1: ¿J��ÒAÁ Ó7Æ ¿«�jÒÕÔ�Á A1’: ¿«��Ö#Á Ó�Æ ¿J��ÒØ×jÁA2: ¿J��Ò&Á Ó�Æ ¿«� Ö ×�Á A2’: ¿J� Ö Á Ó�Æ$¿«� Ö Ô@Á

b. Recursive cases:A3: �"�:¿J��Ö%ÙkÁh�l��ÒÎÄ1� Ó�Æ �"�:¿«�jÒÎÄ1�g�-Ö%ÙOÁh�A4: �:¿J� Ö �:ÁÈ� Ö%Ù Ä1�"� Ó�Æ �"�:¿«� Ö Áh�g� Ö/Ù Ä_�A5: �:¿J� Ö �:ÁÚ�jÒ Ù Ä1�"� Ó�Æ �:ÁÛ�jÒ Ù �:¿ � Ö Ä1�"�A6: �"�:¿ �jÒ Ù Áh�l��ÒÎÄ1� Ó�Æ �:¿«�jÒ Ù �:ÁÚ��Ò�Ä_�"�

Moortgat & Oehrleapply their modelto Dutch verb raising, andin their dis-

cussion they briefly reflecton how their modeldiffers from Steedman’s CCG.As

we already pointed out earlier, CCG modelscross-serial dependencies in Dutch

using crossedcomposition, �� and �� . Although thesecombinatorsareob-

viously not valid in L, thestructuresthey allow for aretheoremsof LP. However,

if we would indeedmodelcrossedcomposition purely asLP, thenany directional

variant would do.

Steedmanrestrictspossible ruleschemataby meansof two principles: theprin-

ciple of Directional Consistencyandtheprinciple of Directional Inheritance - cf.

(1996), p.42ff. It follows from thesetwo principlesthatany rule in CCGneedsto

obey, or project, thedirectionality specified in the lexicon. On theother hand, the

model in (173) restricts the possible orderings directly in termsof the logic. The

orderspossibleon thebasisof �� arederivable astheoremsof (173),8 as

do theprinciples- thereis no need for their meta-theoretical stipulation.

Moortgat& Oehrlealsobriefly discussthesecondcase,headattraction(170b).

We do not repeat their entire discussion here, asMoortgat& Oehrleonly present

fragmentsto dealwith particular casesof head attraction in Dutch andEnglish.

Rather, we just note a few interestingobservations about their fragments.For ex-

ample,associativity (“re-bracketing”) providestheformal meansto block recursion

upor down trees,yieldingempirical consequencesliketheRightRoofconstraint or

the(im)possibility of dangling prepositions.Furthermore,islandconstraintscanbe

modelledmodelledby combining a head-dependentasymmetrywith associativity.

8In fact, they arederivableon even simplerstructuralrulesthatarecloseto (171) and(172),aswe show in (Kruijf f andBaldridge,2000).


To conclude, Moortgat & Oehrle’s modelsof head wrapping andheadadjunction

provide an interesting exampleof how word order canbe modeled in categorial

type logic. Theirsis, naturally, not theonly proposal thathasbeenadvanced- but

it bearsa close resemblanceto for example Hepple’s later work (1996; 1997), and

it providesmoredetail thanFoster’s (1992).

Unsurprisingly, the typesof structural rules that Moortgat & Oehrleemploy

aresimilar to theones we find in thesimulationsof CCG(Kruijf f andBaldridge,

2000)aspresentedabove. Thisunderlinestheobservation wemake in (Kruijf f and

Baldridge, 2000), namelythat the differencesbetweenthe combinatory tradition

and the Lambektradition are for a large part a matterof perspective. Here,we

naturally staywithin theLambektradition - but it is not inconceivable that DGL’s

modelof word orderto bepresentedbelow canbemoreor lessdirectly translated

into for examplea modalizedversion of Set-CCG.

4.3 VARIABILITY OF WORD ORDER IN DGL

Ouraimin thepresent section is to developamodelof basicphenomenawefind in

variability in word order. Particular about themodelis that it hasanarchitecture.

Thearchitecturegivesthemodelaninternalstructurethatdeterminesaprecedence,

or interdependence, amongstructural rules. Figure4.1 givesan overview of the

architecture. Many of the decision points in the architecture arecoveredby the

variation hypothesesof Chapter 3 or thedata assuch.9 Thearchitecture in Figure

4.1 provides the foundations on which we build our modelsof word order as a

structural indicationof informativity, seeÜ 4.4.

For example, consider the branching under Rigid OV. We have several options

here,concerning verbfinal clustering, non-rigid OV behavior, andscrambling. To

illustratehow we work with thearchitecture, consider thesubordinate clausecon-

structionsin Dutch, Flemish,andGermanin (174) through(176).

(174) Dutch, Flemish

omdatbecause


Kathykath

boekenbooks

wilwants

lerento beteach

lezen.to read.

English “BecauseChristopherwantsto beteach Kathy to readbooks.”

(175) a. Dutch omdatChristopherKathy boeken wil lerenlezen.9The only decisionsnot coveredconcernnon-rigidity in verb-finality, andwhena languagehas

cross-serialor nestedlong-distancedependencies.


Rigid

Rigid SVO

VFinal cluster Non-rigid Mixed OV

Rigid OV

Crossed ordering

Nested Ordering

Discont.CrossedOrdering

Scrambling

Free OV

Rigid VO

Mixed VO

V2-position Mixed SVO

Free SVO

Free SVO (nc)

Non-rigid VFirst VFinal

Figure4.1: Thearchitecture of DGL’sword ordermodel

b. Flemish,Dutch* omdatChristopherwil Kathy boekenlerenlezen.

c. Flemish,Dutch* omdatChristopherwil Kathy leren boeken lezen.

(176) a. German weil ChristopherKathy Bucher zu lesenbeibringenmochte.

As wealready discussedearlier, subordinateclauseshave adifferentdominant

word orderfrom matrix clauses- the formerareSOV, whereas the latterasSVO.

In theexamplesabove weseethatall three languagesdisplay verbraising, leading

to verbfinal clusters.What thegrammarsfor theselanguagesthuscanbethought

to havein commonis apackageof structuralrulesVFinalCluster thatenforcesthe

clause-finalordering of verbsin subordinateclauses. But, continuing this line of

thought, once the verbsareclusteredat the end, the languagesdiffer in how the

verbsareto beordered. Both DutchandFlemishsharea further packageCrosse-

dOrdering, on topof VFinalCluster, thatleads to anordering giving riseto cross-

serial dependencies. Germandoesnot have sucha package,but instead has-in

addition to VFinalCluster- a packageNestedOrdering (sharedwith for example

Japanese)thatorderstheverbsin sucha way that wegetnesteddependencies.

Thus,to sumup,we can“instantiate” therelevant partof thearchitecture asin

Figure4.2. Naturally, oncewe have definedthementionedpackagesof structural

rules, we canrecast the picture asa cross-linguistic network like we discussedin


Chapter1.

Rigid OV VFinal Cluster

Nested

CrossedOrdering

Ordering German

DutchDiscontinuity

Flemish

Figure4.2: Dutch, FlemishandGermanverbraising

4.3.1 PREL IMINARIES TO THE FORMULATION OF THE PACKAGES

Before we get to the formulation of the packagesof structural rules, I need to

clarify afew general strategiesthatI follow. Firstof all, following Moortgat(1999)

andSteedman(1996; 2000c) we distinguish different clause levels by meansof

features.Therelevantunary modaloperatorsaregivenin (177).

(177) a. Ý�Þ�ßHÒÕà , clause level, áâË�ã1äæå�çkè/é��¸ã�ê7ë�ì .b. Ý@Þâí-î¼ï , matrix clauselevel, çkè/é`ðñáâË�ãc. Ý@Þ�àHò�ó , subordinateclauselevel, ã�ê7ë�ðñáâË�ã

The different unary modal operatorsin (177) help us to obtain a modularity

in defining structural rules. Constraints on the required ordering at a particular

clauselevel canthenobtainedby a linkagerule like ô:¿�õ à6òLó Ó�Æ ô:¿�õYöZ÷ ÀRø^ù Ò , which

specifiesthat theorder in subordinateclauseis verb-final.

Secondly, I adhere to a particular encoding of the formal namesof the struc-

tural rulesdiscussedhere. Thegeneral format is PackageName [.SubPackage]

Number . Description, whereby Description cantakethefoll owing form: çú�eé[� =“move” structure é , ûÇ��ü7�"ç�Í&� = “percolate” feature ü over mode ç�Í , Í��ü7�"ç�ÍA� =“distribute” feature ü overmodeç�Í . Forexample,VFinal.XDep1.p(vhead,mod)

is a rule in theCrossedDependencies(XDep) subpackage of theVerb-Final Clus-

ter (VFinal) package,specifying thepercolation of thevhead feature over a struc-

ture built using mode ç�ý^Í . Theseformal namesare usedin proofs, but we -

naturally- give a more elaborate description of the ideasbehind eachrule when

introducingit.

Finally, to keepthe definitions of the packagesreasonably short, we usually

omit statementsof structural rulesfor modesotherthan ã�á , Íá , and ÊHá - like á , èYç�þ


or ã"û7þ . Rulesfor the latter modesaresimply different instantiations of the same

structureasused for ã�á , Íá , and ÊHá .

4.3.2 OV PACKAGES

TheOV packagesdefinebehavior thatis, possibly, availablein languagesthathave

OV asdominant word order at someor all clauselevels. For example, Japanese

displays OV behaviorat both the matrix clauseandthe subordinate clause levels,

whereas Dutch andGermanonly useOV at the subordinate clause level, having

SVO asthedominantorderof thematrix clause.

Below we present the various packagesrelevant to modeling aspects of OV

word order.Naturally, a languageonly employsaproper subset of thesepackages.

Moreover, evenwhena languagedoes employ a particular packageit need not be

thecasethatall rulesareused - for example, if a languagehasnomodalauxiliaries,

any rule definingthebehavior of the ç�ý�Í modeis superfluous.10

The architecture in Figure 4.1 in fact shows what packagescan be taken in

conjunction (&) andwhich only in (exclusive) disjunction (V). Thus,a language

usually eitherhasCrossed Dependenciesor NestedDependencies.

Themodeling of OV wordorderstartsfrom theassumptionthat wehavelexical

function categoriesthattake their argumentsto theleft. For example,with Subjthe

subject,DObj thedirect object, andVerb theverb,wehavethefollowing template-

like structuresfor OV:

(178) Prototypical OV canonical structure: �6ÿÇê[ë%ÉN�� àYß � �� ë%Éñ� � ×¸ß��Ï�ë��"�

Definition 14 (Verb Final Clusters, (VFinal)). TheVFinal package definesthe

ordering of verbs towards the end of a clause. The exact ordering is of verbs

within thecluster is definedin thepackagesXDep, NDep, andMxDep depending

on language-specific behavior. All thesepackagesextend thebehavior specifiedby

VFinal. TheVFinal package comprisestherules givenin (179).

10At least,it is superfluous in thesensethatit is not usedin derivationsfor thatlanguage.


(179)

ô:¿+õ à6òLó ÆÈô:¿�õYöU÷ À ø�ù Ò ± ÿÇê[ë ÊYã&ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë�¶ô:¿+õ í#î¼ï ÆÈô:¿�õYöU÷ À ø�ù Ò ±� þè/Ï^Ê6écÊYã�Aü7Ê��Ðþ&Ët¶

¿z�� àHß ô:Áhõ öZ÷ À ø^ù Ò Æ«¿ñ�� àHß ô:Áhõ ö Ô�� ù × ±��+Ê��Ðþ&Ë�� Ë"��&Ì��þ Í��&ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë6�H¶¿ñ� � ×2ß�ô:ÁhõYöZ÷ À ø^ù Ò Æ«¿ñ� � ×2ß�ô:ÁhõYö Ô�� ù × ±��+Ê��Ðþ&Ë�� Ë"��&Ì��þ Í��&ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë6�H¶¿z��ÎÀ ß ô:Áhõ öZ÷ À ø^ù Ò Æ«¿ñ��ÎÀ ß ô:Áhõ ö Ô�� ù × ±��+Ê��Ðþ&Ë�� Ë"��&Ì��þ Í��&ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë6�H¶ô:¿ñ� � àHß ÁhõYöZ÷ À ø^ù Ò Æ«¿ñ� � àHß ô:ÁhõYöZ÷ À ø^ù Ò ±��+Ê��Ðþ&Ë! "� ûÇ��&ü7Ê#�Ðþ Ë/��NãLá��H¶ô:¿ñ� � ×2ß"ÁhõYöZ÷ À ø^ù Ò Æ«¿ñ� � ×2ß�ô:ÁhõYöZ÷ À ø�ù Ò ±��+Ê��Ðþ&Ë! "� ûÇ��&ü7Ê#�Ðþ Ë/��ñÍ á��H¶ô:¿z��ÎÀ ß Áhõ öZ÷ À ø^ù Ò Æ«¿ñ��ÎÀ ß ô:Áhõ öZ÷ ÀRø^ù Ò ±��+Ê��Ðþ&Ë! "� ûÇ��&ü7Ê#�Ðþ Ë/�� ÊHá��H¶

�Remark 13 (Description of the VFinal package). The general strategy is as

follows. For a clause to be well-formed, we in general require it to be either

Ý Þ í#î¼ï ÿ (matrix clause)or Ý Þ à6ò�ó"ÿ (subordinate clause). In a languagethat has

verb final ordering at a particular clause level, we include ± ÿÃê7ëcÊ/ã$&ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë�¶ or

±� þ èYÏ^Ê6é¾ÊYã&ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë�¶ (or both) to mirror thatrequirement.

Eachof theserules specifies that if a structure ¿ is a particular type of clause

( ã�ê7ë�¢LçkèYé ), then it hasto be &ü7Ê#�Ðþ Ë . Then,starting with the VFinal1 rules,we

seethat for a structure composed out of ¿ and Á to be &ü7Ê#�Ðþ Ë , we needto have

thatthesubstructure Á needsto be &ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë . Becauseof thedirection of theheaded

modes(pointing % to thedependenton theleft), we know thattheverbal headhas

to beto theright - corresponding to OV.

In thesimplestcase,defined by theVFinal0 rules, we have that theverbfinal

cluster is formedby the verbal head itself. The examples in (180) illustratesuch

cases,whereas the derivation (181) shows how the goal category ÝÎÞ�àHò�ó2ÿ canbe

derivedfor subordinate clausesasin (180).11

(180) a. Dutch

...(dat)ChristopherChristopher

boekenbooks

leestreads

“... (that)Christopherreads books.”

b. German

...(daß)ChristopherChristopher

Bucherbooks

leßt.reads

“... (that)Christopherreads books.”

(181)11Notethat,for brevity, weglossover any morphological strategiesandfunctionalinterpretation.


subj &�®ÃÞ�ù ß î'�dobj &B® Þ)( ù2î'�

tverb &B®ÃÞ ö Ô�� ù ×�%® Þ ( ù2î'��¥ � ×2ß��%®#Þ�ù ß î'��¥*� àYß ã��"�ô tverbõ�ö Ô�� ù × &4® Þ+( ù2î��¥ � ×2ß��%® Þ ù ß î'��¥*� àHß ã^� ± ® Þ�,�¶dobj � � ×¸ß�ô tverbõ ö Ô�� ù × &�® Þ�ù ß î'��¥*� àHß ã ± ¥-,+¶

subj �� àHß � dobj � � ×2ß�ô tverbõ6ö Ô�� ù × �.&kã ± ¥-,+¶subj � � àHß � dobj � � ×2ß�ô tverbõ6öZ÷ À ø^ù Ò �/&Oã ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë�� Ë"��AÌ��þ&ÍÎ��Aü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë��H¶subj �� àHß ô dobj � � ×2ß tverbõ öZ÷ À ø^ù Ò &kã ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1 "� ûÃ��&ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë/��NÍá��H¶ô subj �� àHß � dobj � � ×2ß tverb�"õ6öZ÷ À ø^ù Ò &Oã ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1 "� ûÃ��&ü7Ê��Ðþ&Ë/��ãLá��H¶ô subj � � àHß � dobj � � ×2ß tverb�"õ àHò�ó &kã ± ÿÇê[ë ÊYã2Aü7Ê��Ðþ Ë�¶

subj �� àYß � dobj � � ×2ß tverb�.&B®ÃÞLàHò�ó%ã ± ® Þ�3 ¶

Definition 15(VFinal, Crossed Ordering (VFinal.XDep)). Thefirstextensionto

theVFinal package weconsider here is theXDep package which modelsthetype

of ordering in a verbal cluster that gives rise to cross-serial dependencies. The

XDep package comprisestherulesasgivenin (182).

(182)

Á � � ×2ß��:¿ñ� �Îí54 ×LÄ1�ÇÆ«¿z� �Îí54 ×��:Á � � ×2ß¸Ä1� ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û7��³çú�eç�ý^ÍA�H¶Áæ� � ×2ß��:¿ñ��ù ò ïÄ1�ÇÆ«¿z��ù ò ïÎ�:Á � � ×2ß¸Ä1� ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û7��³çú�:þ ê�éX�H¶Á � �ÎÀ ß �:¿ñ� �Îí54 ×LÄ1�ÇÆ«¿z� �Îí54 ×��:Á � �ÎÀ ß Ä1� ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û7��³çú�eç�ý^ÍA�H¶Á ��ÎÀ ß �:¿ñ��ù ò ïÄ1�ÇÆ«¿z��ù ò ïÎ�:Á ��ÎÀ ß Ä1� ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û7��³çú�:þ ê�éX�H¶Á �� àHß �:¿ñ�� (�� Ö Ä1�ÇÆ«¿z�� (�� Ö �:Á �� àHß Ä_� ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û7��³çú�Õû8��Ï�H¶Á � � ×2ß��:¿ñ�� (�� Ö Ä1�ÇÆ«¿z�� (�� Ö �:Á � � ×2ß¸Ä1� ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û7��³çú�Õû8��Ï�H¶Á ��ÎÀ ß �:¿ñ�� (�� Ö Ä1�ÇÆ«¿z�� (�� Ö �:Á ��ÎÀ ß Ä_� ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û7��³çú�Õû8��Ï�H¶ô:¿z� ��ù ò ï ÁhõYö Ô�� ù × Æ«¿z� ��ù ò ï ô:ÁhõYö Ô�� ù × ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û9 "� ûÃ��&Ì��þ Í��2þê�é[�H¶ô:¿ñ� �Îí54 ×�ÁhõYö Ô�� ù × Æ«¿z� �Îí54 ×�ô:ÁhõYö Ô�� ù × ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û9 "� ûÃ��&Ì��þ Í��"ç�ý^Í&�H¶ô:¿ �� (�� Ö Áhõ ö Ô�� ù × Æ«¿z�� (�� Ö ô:Áhõ ö Ô�� ù × ±��0�+Ê��Ðþ&Ë1��6 � �%û9 "� ûÃ��&Ì��þ Í��:û:��Ï�H¶

�Remark 14 (Description of the XDep package). The XDep packageextends

the VFinal package by determining the exact order of auxiliaries, modal verbs,

modal infinitives and the verbal head(possibly an infinitive itself) in the verbal

cluster. TheXDep0 structural rulesenable thecluster to beformed- andXDep1

imposes the requirementfor that the ordering, extending the VFinal1 rules. The

examples in (183) belowillustratein moredetail the kind of phenomenacovered

by VFinal+XDep.

(183) a. Dutch



KathyKathy

wildewanted

kunnento beable to

kussen.kiss

“...(that)Christopherwantedto beableto kissKathy.”

b. Dutch


KathyKathy

ElijahElijah

zagsaw

willento want

kussen.to kiss

“...(that)Christophersaw Kathy wanted to kissElijah.”

Now let us have a closer look at the derivations. In the derivations,we make

useof aslightly moreabstractlexiconwhosefunction categoriesaregivenin (184).

(184)

inf�<;>=@?)ACB�D+ELr#;F=HGHD!I�J ¬-K E�L¸r#;F=MD)L�I�J ¬-K�N L1OHP�J�Q�|H|

mod�r�;>=�D)L�I�J ¬-KRN L!OU|1S K�T�U ELr�;F=MD)L�I�J ¬-KRN L!OHP�J�Q�|

aux�r#;>=MD+L�I�J ¬"K�N L1Oâ|VS K D�WCXr#;F=MD)L�I�J ¬-KRN L!O+P�J�Q�|

modi�r#;>= D)L�I J ¬ K�N L OHP�J�Q�|VS KYT.U E r�;9= D)L�I J ¬ K�N L OHP�J�Q�|

tverb�<;>= ?)ACB�D)E r�;9= GHD!I J ¬ K E�L r�;F= D)L�I J ¬ KRN L Oâ|H|

perc Z*[ ;>=�D)L�I�J ¬-KRN L1O@\1S K G+B�]HOHP�J�Q

Then,for (183a) thederivationis asin (185). Weleaveout thefirst elimination

steps,asthese aretrivial.

(185)

...subj ^5_�`�a@[ aux ^5_�b)c@de[ modi ^5_�f�g1hi[ dobj ^5_Rh�aHj inf kVl)m@n b)h \#\V\Fo0prq s�t�usubj ^ _�`�a [ aux ^ _�b)c@d [ dobj ^ _�h�a [ modi ^ _Yf.g1h j inf kVl)m@n b)h \#\V\Fo0p q v�w�x�y{z"|#} ~��0�V�Y�<} � [ ��M�

\ usubj ^5_�`#aH[ aux ^2_�b�cCd*[ dobj ^2_�h�aHj modi ^5_�f.gVh inf kVl)m@n b)h \#\�o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|#} ~��0�V�7��} � [��"� �Cz-�e�#��M� \ usubj ^ _�`#a [ dobj ^ _�h�a [ aux ^ _Rb�cCd j modi ^ _�f.gVh inf kVl)m@n b)h \#\�o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|�} ~��1�e�*} � [ z-�Y�

\ usubj ^5_�`#aH[ dobj ^2_�h�a@j aux ^5_Rb�cCd*[ modi ^5_�f.gVh inf

\ k#l)mCn b)h \�o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|�} ~��1��i} � [�� Cz"�e�Vz-�e�\ u

subj ^5_�`#aH[ dobj ^�_�h�a@j aux ^5_Rb�cCd*[ modi ^5_�f.gVh inf\ k l)�@�� b!� \�o�p�q vw�x�y{z"|��<} | [��"� �Cz"�*� �"� x�y{z"|

\ usubj ^5_�`#aHj dobj ^�_�h�a@[ aux ^5_Rb�cCd*[ modi ^5_�f.gVh inf

\V\ k#l)�@�� b!� o�p q vw�x�y{z"|��} � [��"� x�y{z"|��H��i�\ u

j subj ^5_�`#aH[ dobj ^�_�h�a@[ aux ^5_Rb�cCd*[ modi ^5_�f.gVh inf\V\#\ kVl)�@�� b�� o0p q v�w�x�y{z"|#��} � [�� x�y{z"|��+�

p � \ uj subj ^ _�`�a [ dobj ^ _�h�a [ aux ^ _�b�cCd [ modi ^ _Yf.g1h inf

\#\V\ k `�cC o�p q ¡8�R¢:x p �"� x�y{z"|£usubj ^5_�`�a@[ dobj ^2_�h�aH[ aux ^2_�b�cCde[ modi ^2_Yf.g1h inf

\#\V\Fo�¤9¥ `'cM p q¤9¥@¦ u

Theexamplein (183b) illustratesDutchcross-serialdependenciesin awayit is

usually found in theliterature.Thederivationin VFinal+XDep is givenin (186).

126s A formal model of wordorder asstructural indication of informativity

(186)

...subj ^5_�`�a@[ perc ^2_<§ n

] [ subj ^�_R`�a@[ modi ^5_�f�g1hi[ dobj ^5_Rh�aHj inf kVl)m@n b)h \#\V\#\Fo�p q�sMt�usubj ^ _�`�a [ perc ^ _<§ n

] [ subj ^ _R`�a [ dobj ^ _�h�a [ modi ^ _Yf.g1h j inf k l)m@n b)h \#\V\#\Fo�p q ~��1�e�*} � [ ��M�\ u

subj ^ _�`#a [ perc ^ _*§ n] [ subj ^ _�`#a [ dobj ^ _�h�a j modi ^ _�f.gVh inf kVl)m@n b)h \#\V\Fo0p q ~��1��i} � [�� Cz"�*�V��M� \ u

subj ^ _�`#a [ subj ^ _R`�a [ perc ^ _*§ n] [ dobj ^ _�h�a j modi ^ _�f.gVh inf kVl)m@n b)h \#\V\Fo0p q ~��0�V�Y�<} � [ �e�@¨

\ usubj ^5_�`#aH[ subj ^�_R`�a@[ dobj ^5_Rh�a+[ perc ^5_*§ n

] j modi ^5_�f.gVh inf kVl)m@n b)h \#\V\Fo0p q ~��0�V�Y�<} � [ �e�@¨\ u

subj ^5_�`#aH[ subj ^�_R`�a@[ dobj ^5_Rh�a+j perc ^5_*§ n] [ modi ^5_�f.gVh inf

\ k#l)mCn b)h \V\Fo0prq ~��0�V�7��} � [��"� �Cz-�e��Y�@¨\ u

subj ^5_R`�a@[ subj ^�_R`�a@[ dobj ^5_Rh�a+j perc ^5_*§ n] [ modi ^5_�f.gVh inf

\ k#l)�@�� b!� \V\Fo0p q | [�� Cz"�*� �"� x�y{z"|\ u

subj ^5_R`�a@[ subj ^�_R`�a@j dobj ^5_Rh�a+[ perc ^5_*§ n] [ modi ^5_�f.gVh inf

\V\ k#l)�@�� b!� \Fo0p q � [�� x�y{z"|#�+�©�-�\ u

subj ^ _R`�a j subj ^ _R`�a [ dobj ^ _Rh�a [ perc ^ _*§ n] [ modi ^ _�f.gVh inf

\V\#\ kVl)�@�� b�� o0p q � [�� x�y{z"|#�+�p � \ u

j subj ^ _R`�a [ subj ^ _R`�a [ dobj ^ _Rh�a [ perc ^ _*§ n] [ modi ^ _�f.gVh inf

\V\#\#\ k#l)�@�� b!� o�p q � [�� x�y{z"|��+�p � \ u

j subj ^5_�`�a@[ subj ^5_�`#aH[ dobj ^2_�h�aH[ perc ^2_<§ n] [ modi ^2_Yf.g1h inf

\#\V\#\ k `'cM o�p q ¡8��¢ªx p �� x�y{z-|�usubj ^5_�`�a@[ subj ^5_�`#aH[ dobj ^2_�h�aH[ perc ^2_<§ n

] [ modi ^2_Yf.g1h inf\#\V\#\Fo�¤9¥ `'cM p q

¤F¥C¦ u

As it turns out, the packagesVFinal and XDep take a similar approach to

capturing cross-serial dependenciesasthemodelproposedby Moortgatin (1999).«In theexamplesin (175)weillustrated apeculiar contrastbetweenFlemishand

Dutch,whereit concernstheverbfinal cluster.12 In (standard)Dutch,theverbfinal

clustermustbecontinuous- wecannot haveverbalcomplementsinterspersedwith

theverbsmaking up theverbal cluster.

Flemish,on the otherhand, doesallow for that, giving rise to the possibility

of what we call herediscontinuous crossed ordering. The ordering amongthe

componentsmaking up the verb final cluster is still the sameasin Dutch,but we

mayhave that -for example-thePatient (directcomplement) or anAddresseeor

Beneficiary (indirectcomplement) appears inbetweentheauxiliary andtheverbal

head. Thestructuralrulesin theDXDep packageextendtheVFinal.XDep package

to allow for thesealternative orderings.

Definition 16(VFinal, DiscontinuousCrossedOrdering (VFinal.XDep.DXDep)).

TheDXDep package is an extension of VFinal’s XDep package, and covers the

construction of discontinuous verb final clusters with a crossedordering. The

DXDep monotonically extendsXDep with therulesgiven in (187) below.

(187)ô�¬®�¯�°)±�²hõ ö+³�´1µ °�¶ ¬®�¯�°)±�ô�²hõ ö+³�´Vµ ° ·�¸�¹»º�¼�½Y¾V¿�ÀÂÁ$Ã�ÄF¿�ÁÅÀÆÁÇÃ!Ä9È"¿ Ä>É�Ê�Ë�Ã�½eÌ�Í)Ì*Î�Ï#Ðô�¬® ¯{Ñ£± ²hõYö+³�´1µ ° ¶ ¬® ¯{Ñ£± ô�²hõYö+³�´1µ ° ·�¸�¹»º�¼�½Y¾V¿�ÀÂÁ$Ã�ÄF¿�ÁÅÀÆÁÇÃ!ÄF¿�È"¿ Ä>É�Ê�Ë�Ã�½eÌ�Í�º#Î�Ï#Ð

12I would like to thankMichael Moortgatfor pointingthis out to me.


«

Remark 15 (Explanation of the DXDep package). TheDXDep packagesimply

follows out the strategy we developed in the XDep. Namely, the distributional

characteristics of the vhead andvfinal featuresdefinethosestructuresto be well-

formedthatallow for proper distribution of thefeaturesover themodalconfigura-

tionsmakingup these structures. If thevhead/vfinal featurescannot bedistributed

over a particular construction, it is ill-for med- at leastfrom theviewpoint of these

packages.

TheDXDep relaxesthedistributional characteristics of the features.Thefea-

turesnot only distribute over continuous verb final clusters,asdeterminedby the

XDep package- therulesgivenin (187)allow now for distribution over the Ì*Î andº#Î modesaswell. In conjunction with the structural rules in the XDep package

this givesrise to thepossible formation of discontinuousclusters,astheexamples

below illustrate.

(188) a. Flemish


wilwants

boekenbooks

lezen.to read.

“...(that)Christopherwantsto readbooks.”

b.

...subj ^5_�`�a@Ò aux ^5_Rb�cCd*Ò dobj ^2_�h�a@j inf k#l)mCn b)hMÓVÓ o�p q s�t�usubj ^�_R`�a@Ò aux ^2_�b�cCdej dobj ^5_Rh�a inf k#l)mCn b)hMÓ o�pÔq v�w�x�y{z-|#} ~Å��1��} �»~��1��i} � Ò�� Cz"�e�V�-� Ó usubj ^ _R`�a j aux ^ _�b�cCd Ò dobj ^ _Rh�a inf Ó k l)m@n b)h o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|�} ~��1��i} � Ò�� Cz"�e�Vz-�e�

Ó usubj ^�_R`�a@j aux ^2_�b�cCdeÒ dobj ^5_Rh�a inf Ó kVl)�H�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��*} | Ò�� Cz"�*� �"� x�y{z"|

Ó uj subj ^ _R`�a Ò aux ^ _�b�cCd Ò dobj ^ _Rh�a inf Ó#Ó k#l)�@�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|#��} � Ò�� x�y{z"|��+�

p � Ó uj subj ^5_�`#aHÒ aux ^2_�b�cCd<Ò dobj ^2_�h�a inf ÓVÓ k `'cM o�p q ¡ª��¢:x p �"� x�y{z"|£u

subj ^ _�`#a Ò aux ^ _Rb�cCd Ò dobj ^ _�h�a inf ÓVÓ o�¤ ¥ `'cM p q¤9¥@¦ u

(189) a. Flemish

....(dat)KathyKathy

wilwants

kunnento beableto

SanskritSanskrit

schrijven.to write

“...(that)Kathy wantsto beableto write Sanskrit.”


b.

...subj ^5_R`�a@Ò aux ^2_�b�cCdeÒ modi ^2_Yf.g1h�Ò dobj ^2_�h�aHj inf k#l)mCn b)hMÓVÓ#Ó o�p q�sMt�usubj ^5_�`�a@Ò aux ^5_Rb�cCd*Ò modi ^5_�f�g1h-j dobj ^5_Rh�a inf k l)mCn b)h ÓVÓ o�pÕq �»~��1�7��} � Ò�� @z"�e�V�-� Ó usubj ^5_�`�a@Ò aux ^5_Rb�cCd*j modi ^5_�f�g1h-Ò dobj ^5_Rh�a inf Ó kVl)m@n b)hMÓ o�p q ~Å��1��} � Ò��"� �Cz"�*�V��M�

Ó usubj ^5_�`�a@j aux ^5_Rb�cCd*Ò modi ^5_�f�g1h-Ò dobj ^5_Rh�a inf Ó#Ó k#l)mCn b)h o�p q ~Å��1��} � Ò��"� �Cz"�*�1zi�Y�

Ó usubj ^ _�`�a j aux ^ _Rb�cCd Ò modi ^ _�f�g1h Ò dobj ^ _Rh�a inf Ó#Ó k#l)�@�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z-|Ö�<} | Ò��"� �Cz-�e� �� x�y{z"|

Ó uj subj ^5_�`�aCÒ aux ^5_Rb�cCd*Ò modi ^5_�f�g1h-Ò dobj ^5_Rh�a inf Ó#ÓVÓ kVl)�H�� b!� o�p×q v�w�x�y{z"|��i} � Ò�� x�y{z"|#�+�

p � Ó uj subj ^ _R`�a Ò aux ^ _�b�cCd Ò modi ^ _Yf.g1h Ò dobj ^ _�h�a inf Ó#Ó#Ó k `'cM o�p q ¡8�R¢8x p �� x�y{z"|£u

subj ^/_R`�aCÒ aux ^2_�b�cCdeÒ modi ^2_Yf.g1hiÒ dobj ^2_�h�a inf Ó#Ó#Ó o�¤>¥ `'cM p q¤F¥C¦ u

«Another way in which languagesmay order the verb final cluster is a nested or-

dering, leading to nesteddependencies. AmongGermaniclanguages for example

Germanhasa nestedordering. This type of ordering is brought about by placing

the verbsmakingup the cluster after theverbal head, rather thanbefore asin the

caseof a crossedordering. The examples in (190) below illustratethe contrast

between a Dutchcrossedordering anda Germannestedordering.

(190) a. Dutch

...(dat)KathyKathy

SanskritSanskrit

wilwants

kunnento beableto

schrijvento write


b. German

...(daß)KathyKathy

SanskritSanskrit

schreibento write

konnento beableto

will.wants


TheNDep packageextendstheVFinal packageto coverconstructionslike (190b).

Definition 17(Verb Final Clusters,NestedOrdering (VFinal.NDep)). TheNDep

package monotonically extendsthe VFinal package, and models nested ordering.

Thepackage consistsof thestructural rules givenin (191).


(191)

²Ø�¯�°)± É�Ù 5Ú5Û!°CÜF¬ Ï9¶ ¬Ý�¯{Ú5Û!° É ²Ø�¯�°)± Ù�Ï ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä7ß�¿�àáÉ�à�â"ÌYÏ#Ð²ã ¯{Ñ£± É�Ù 5Ú5Û!°CÜF¬ Ï9¶ ¬Ý�¯{Ú5Û!° É ²Ø ¯{Ñ£± Ù0Ï ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä7ß�¿�àáÉ�à�â"ÌYÏ#Ð²Ø�¯�°)± É�Ù µ)ä�å Ü ¬ Ï9¶ ¬Ý ¯ µ)ä�å É ²Ø�¯�°)± Ù�Ï ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä7ß�¿�àáÉ�½eæ�ç8Ï#Ð²Ø ¯{Ñ£± É�Ù µ)ä�å Ü ¬ Ï9¶ ¬Ý ¯ µ)ä�å É ²Ø ¯{Ñ£± Ù0Ï ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä7ß�¿�àáÉ�½eæ�ç8Ï#Ð²Ø�¯�°)± É�Ù �è ´Vé Ü ¬ Ï9¶ ¬Ý ¯ è ´Vé É ²Ø�¯�°)± Ù�Ï ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä7ß�¿�àáÉ�Ä:Ã�ê<Ï#Ð²ë ¯{Ñì± É�Ù è ´Vé Ü ¬ Ï9¶ ¬Ý ¯ è ´Vé É ²Ø ¯{Ñ£± Ù0Ï ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä7ß�¿�àáÉ�Ä:Ã�ê<Ï#Ðô�¬® µ)ä�å Ü ²hõYö+³�´Vµ ° ¶ ô�¬+õYö+³�´1µ ° µ)ä�å Ü ² ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä9È"¿ Ä>É�Ê�Ë�Ã�½YÌ{Í)½eæ�çªÏ#Ðô�¬®2Ú5Û!°CÜF²hõ ö+³�´Vµ °�¶ ô�¬+õ ö+³�´1µ ° �Ú5Û!°CÜF² ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä9È"¿ Ä>É�Ê�Ë�Ã�½YÌ{Í�à�â"Ì�Ï#Ðô�¬®�è ´Vé Ü ²hõYö+³�´Vµ ° ¶ ô�¬+õYö+³�´1µ ° .è ´#é Ü ² ·�¸0¹�º�¼�½e¾1¿�ÞÂÁ$Ã�Ä9È"¿ Ä>É�Ê�Ë�Ã�½YÌ{Í�Ä8ÃMê*Ï#Ð

«

Remark 16 (Explanation of the NDep package). Thereis little to explain about

the NDep package,asit follows exactly the samepattern of thinking asdoes the

XDep package.Theonly concretedifferencesherearetheplacementof thecom-

ponentsmakingupthecluster: ratherthanbeing placed beforetheverbalhead, they

areplacedafterit. Therulesin NDep arethus, in otherwords,themirror imageof

thestructural rulesin XDep. Theexamplebelow, repeating(190b), illustratesthe

useof theNDep package.

(192) a. German

...(daß)Kathy Sanskrit schreibenkonnenwill.

b.

...subj ^5_�`�a@Ò aux ^5_Rb�cCd*Ò modi ^5_�f.gVhiÒ dobj ^5_Rh�a+j inf kVl)mCn b)hMÓ#ÓVÓ o�p q s�t�usubj ^ _�`�a Ò aux ^ _Rb�cCd Ò dobj ^ _�h�a Ò#j inf kVl)m@n b)h ^ f.g1hHí modiÓVÓ#Ó o�p q î��1�e�<} � Ò ��M� Ó usubj ^5_R`�a@Ò aux ^2_�b�cCd<Ò dobj ^5_Rh�a+j inf ^�f.gVhHí modikVl)mCn b)hMÓ#Ó o�pÔq î��1��} � Ò��"� �Cz"�*�V��M� Ó usubj ^ _R`�a Ò dobj ^ _Rh�a ÒVj inf ^ f.g1hHí modik l)mCn b+h ^ b�cCd�í auxÓ#Ó o�p q îï��1�Y�<} � Ò zi�Y�

Ó usubj ^5_R`�a@Ò dobj ^5_Rh�aHjVÒ inf ^�f.g1hHí modiÓ ^/b�cCd�í auxkVl)mCn b)hMÓ o�p q îï��1�7��} � Ò�� @z"�e�Vz-�Y�

Ó usubj ^ _R`�a Ò dobj ^ _Rh�a jVÒ inf ^ f.g1hHí modiÓ ^ b�cCd�í auxkVl)�@�� b!��Ó o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��*} | Ò�� Cz"�*� �"� x�y{z"|

Ó usubj ^5_R`�a@j dobj ^5_Rh�aHÒVÒ inf ^�f.g1hHí modiÓ ^.b�cCd�í auxÓ kVl)�H�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��i} � Ò�� x�y{z"|#�+��-�

Ó uj subj ^5_R`�a@Ò dobj ^5_Rh�aHÒVÒ inf ^�f.g1hHí modiÓ ^.b�cCd�í auxÓVÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p�q v�w�x�y{z-|#��} � Ò��"� x�y{z"|��H�

p � Ó uj subj ^5_�`�a@Ò dobj ^5_�h�a@Ò#Ò inf ^�f.gVhHí modiÓ ^/b�cCd�í auxÓ#Ó k `'cM o�p q ¡ª��¢:x p �� x�y{z"|�u

subj ^5_�`�a@Ò dobj ^2_�h�a@Ò#Ò inf ^�f.gVhHí modiÓ ^/b�cCd�í auxÓ#Ó oï¤>¥ `'cM p q¤9¥C¦ u

«Example(Dutch, Flemish,and German subordinateclauses). In thedefinitions

we gave above we stressedthe fact that packagesprovide monotonic extensions.

They thusact asbuilding blocks - fragments that we canuseto build grammars


to cover a language.Moreover, becauseof a modularity that modelsaspects that

languagesmay have in common,we caneasilybuild multilingual fragments(cf.

Chapter 1). Using Dutch, FlemishandGermanexampleswe already illustrated

how the VFinal, XDep, DXDep andNDep packageswork. Taken together, we

cancreate a multilingual fragment for Dutch ( Á ), Flemish( ¹ ) andGerman( ð )

subordinate clauseword order,asshownin Figure4.3.

[VFinal0.*] ñVò�ó ôeó õ:ö[VFinal1.*] ñVò�ó ôeó õ:ö[VFinal.XDep0.*] ñVò�ó ô7ö[VFinal.XDep1] ñ#ò.ó ô7ö[VFinal.XDep.DXDep0.*] ñ#ô:ö[VFinal.XDep.DXDep1.*] ñVô7ö[VFinal.NDep0.*] ñ#õ8ö[VFinal.NDep1.*] ñVõ:ö

Figure4.3: A multilingualnetwork for subordinateclauseWO in Dutch,FlemishandGerman

Thereare-naturally- morepackagesfor modeling OV behavior, aswe saw in

Figure 4.1 on page120. Below we definethe NrOV packagethat defines non-

rigid verbfinality, which is basedontheMxOV packagethatdefinesscramblingor

mixedword order in OV languages.Finally, we definetheFreeOV package(also

extending MxOV) that allows for free word order in OV languages, like Turkish

(Hoffman,1995a).

Definition 18 (Mixed OV ordering (VFinal.MxOV)). TheMxOV package de-

finesmixedword order for OV languages. For thebasic verb final control mecha-

nisms,MxOV makesuseof VFinal (which it thus extends). MxOV comprisesthe

structural rules givenin (193).

(193)

j�÷�k h�b!ø ^�_ � aHjVj�ù2k b)a'a ^�_�h�a!úk�l)�@�� b!�Rû jÖù5k b)a'a ^�_Rh�a+jVj�÷�k h�b!ø ^�_ � a!úk�l)�@�� b!� q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿÖ�i�M�Vx'� Ój�÷�k h�b!ø ^ _ � a j#j�ù2k�� gVf ^ _�`�a úk�l)�@�� b!�Rû jÖù5k#� g#f ^ _�`�a jVj�÷�k h�b!ø ^ _ � a úk�l)�@�� b!� q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿ p ��#x'� Ój#jÖ÷�k h�b�ø ^ _ � a ÿ jÖù5k b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ú Ó k l)�@�� b!� û jVj�ù2k b)a'a ^ _�h�a ÿ jÖ÷�k h�b�ø ^ _ � a ú Ó k l)�@�� b!� q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿÖ�i�M�Vx'� Ój#jÖ÷�k b+a'a ^ _Rh�a ÿ j�ù5k#� gVf ^ _�`#a ú Ó k�l)�@�� b!�{û jVj�ù2k�� gVf ^ _R`�a ÿ j�÷�k b)a'a ^ _�h�a ú Ó k�l)�@�� b!� q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿ p ��V�-�j#jÖ÷�k h�b!ø ^�_ � a ÿ j�ù5k#� gVf ^�_�`#a1ú Ó k�l)�@�� b!�{û jVj�ù2k�� gVf ^�_R`�a ÿ j�÷�k h�b!ø ^�_ � a!ú Ó k#l)�@�� b�� q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿ p ��#x'� Ój�÷�k b)a'a ^�_�h�aHj#j�ù2k�� gVf ^�_�`�a!úk�l)�@�� b!�Rû jÖù5k#� g#f ^�_�`�a@jVj�÷�k b)a'a ^�_�h�a1úk�l)�@�� b!� q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿ p ��V�-�

«

Remark 17 (Explanation of the MxOV package). Thestructural rulesin (211)

obey theverbfinal characterof theclausein a similar way like Set-CCG.Thedi-

rectionality remains fixed, in that the rightmost element (wherethe verbal head

is located) is never moved. Moreover, conform VFinal, we define the eligible

orders in termsof a distribution of the vfinal feature. Finally, we make the pos-

sibility to scramble dependent on the presenceof case-marking. The reason for


doing so is that languagesgenerally tend to rigidify their word order assoonas

case-marking (inflection) is absent, or caseis realizedthroughfunction words.We

canobserve this for examplein Germansubordinateclauses,wherescrambling of

complements is only possible if they areproperly marked for case, and in Turk-

ish, whereword order becomesSOV assoonascasemarking is suppressed (cf.

(Hoffman,1995a),p.50ff).

To illustratethe MxOV package,consider the following Japaneseexamples,

adaptedfrom Tsujimura’s (1996)(p.186). Thesentencein (194) givesthecanoni-

cal ordering of the elements, whereasthe sentencesin give the other possible or-

derings.

(194) Japanese

Kinooyesterday

Taroo-gaTaro-NOM

susi-osushi-ACC

tabeta.eat-PAST

“Tarooatesusiyesterday.”

(195) a. Taroo-gakinoo susi-o tabeta.

b. Taroo-gasusi-o kinoo tabeta.

c. Susi-oTaroo-gakinoo tabeta.

d. Susi-okinoo Taroo-ga tabeta.

e. Kinoo susi-o Taroo-ga tabeta.

All theseorders arederivableusing MxOV andthe following structural rules

thataddbehavior for themode � à�½ (temporal adjunct).

(196)jÖ÷�k�� g#f ^ _�`�a j�ùÂ^ _eø�f.b úk�l)�@�� b!��û ùÆ^ _Yø�f.b j#j�÷�k�� gVf ^ _R`�a úk�l)�@�� b!� q üý�Yþv��<} �Çÿ��'��ze� p � Ó uj#jÖ÷�k b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ÿ ùÆ^ _eø�f.b ú Ó k�l)�@�� b!�Rû jÖùÆ^ _eø�f.b ÿ jÖ÷�k b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ú Ó k�l)�@�� b!� q üý�Yþv��<} �Çÿ��'��ze�1�i� Ó u

j�ùÆ^�_Yø�f�bC÷�k�l)�@�� b!��û ùÆ^�_Yø�f.b"j�÷�k#l)�@�� b�� q v�w�x�y{z"|��i} �:ÿ �� x�y{z-|#�+��'��z Ó u

(197) a.

...temp ^ _eø�f.b ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^ _R`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^ _�h�a j tverbkVl)�@�� b!�ÖÓVÓ o�p q v�w�x�y{z-|Ö�<} |#ÿ �"� �Cz-�e� �� x�y{z"|

Ó utemp ^5_Yø�f�b ÿ j subjckV� g#f ^�_�`�a@jVj dobjck b+a'a ^�_�h�a tverbkVl)�@�� b!�ÖÓ o�p q v�w�x�y{z-|#��} �7ÿ �"� x�y{z"|��H��i� Ó utemp ^ _Yø�f�b jVj subjckV� g#f ^ _�`�a ÿ j dobjck b+a'a ^ _�h�a tverbÓ kVl)�@�� b�� o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��i} �:ÿ �� x�y{z-|#�+�

p � Ó uj subjck#� gVf ^�_R`�a@j temp ^5_eø�f.b ÿ j dobjck b+a'a ^�_�h�a tverbÓ kVl)�@�� b�� o�p q üý�Yþv��<} �Çÿ��'��ze� p � Ó uj#j subjck#� gVf ^ _R`�a ÿ temp ^ _eø�f.b ÿ j dobjck b+a'a ^ _�h�a tverbÓVÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z-|#��} �7ÿ �"� x�y{z"|��H�

p � Ó ujVj subjckV� g#f ^�_�`�a ÿ temp ^5_Yø�f.b ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^._Rh�a tverbÓ#Ó k f9ø�d o�p q ü z��'¨Cx��x p �� x�y{z-|�uj subjckV� g#f ^�_�`�a ÿ temp ^5_Yø�f.b ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_Rh�a tverbÓ#Ó oï¤>¥ f>ø�d p q

¤F¥C¦ u


b.

...temp ^5_Yø�f.b ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^�_�`#a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^/_Rh�aHj tverbkVl)�@�� b!��ÓVÓ o0p q v�w�x�y{z"|Ö�<} |#ÿ �� @z"�e� �� x�y{z-|

Ó utemp ^5_eø�f.b ÿ j subjck � g#f ^._R`�aCj#j dobjck b)a'a ^�_�h�a tverbk l)�@�� b!� Ó o�pÔq v�w�x�y{z"|#��} �7ÿ �� x�y{z"|��+��-� Ó utemp ^5_eø�f.b"j#j subjck#� g#f ^._R`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_�h�a tverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��} �7ÿ �"� x�y{z"|��H�

p � Ó uj subjck#� gVf ^�_�`#aHj temp ^�_eø�f.b ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_�h�a tverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿ��'��zY� p � Ó uj subjck#� gVf ^ _�`#a jVj dobjck b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ÿ temp ^ _eø�f.b tverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿ��'��zY�V�-� Ó ujVj subjck#� gVf ^�_�`#a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_Rh�a ÿ temp ^2_eø�f.b tverbÓ#Ó kVl)�@�� b�� o0prq v�w�x�y{z"|#��} �7ÿ �� x�y{z"|��+�

p � Ó uj#j subjck#� gVf ^ _R`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^ _�h�a ÿ temp ^ _eø�f.b tverbÓ#Ó k f>ø�d o�p q ü z��'¨Cx��x p �"� x�y{z"|£uj subjck#� gVf ^�_R`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_�h�a ÿ temp ^5_eø�f.b tverbÓ#Ó o�¤>¥ f>ø�d p q

¤9¥C¦ u

c.

...temp ^ _eø�f.b ÿ j subjckV� g#f ^ _�`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^ _�h�a j tverbkVl)�@�� b��ÖÓ#Ó o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��*} |Vÿ �� Cz"�*� �"� x�y{z"|

Ó utemp ^5_Yø�f.b ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^�_R`�a@j#j dobjck b)a'a ^�_Rh�a tverbkVl)�@�� b��ÖÓ o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��i} �:ÿ �� x�y{z"|#�+��i� Ó utemp ^ _Yø�f.b j#j subjck#� gVf ^ _R`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^ _Rh�a tverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z-|#��} �7ÿ �"� x�y{z"|��H�

p � Ó uj subjck#� g#f ^�_�`�a@j temp ^5_Yø�f.b ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_Rh�a tverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q üý��þv��*} �Çÿ��'��zY� p � Ó uj subjck#� g#f ^ _�`�a j#j dobjck b)a'a ^ _�h�a ÿ temp ^ _Yø�f�b tverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q üý��þv��*} �Çÿ��'��zY�V�-� Ó uj#j subjck#� g#f ^�_�`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_�h�a ÿ temp ^5_Yø�f�b tverbÓ#Ó kVl)�H�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��i} �:ÿ �� x�y{z"|#�+�

p � Ó uj#j dobjck b)a'a ^�_�h�a ÿ j subjck#� g#f ^�_R`�a ÿ temp ^5_Yø�f�b tverbÓ#Ó kVl)�H�� b!� o�p q üý�Yþv��<} �$ÿ p ��V�-� Ó uj#j dobjck b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^ _�`#a ÿ temp ^ _eø�f.b tverbÓVÓ k f>ø�d o�p q ü z��'¨@x��x p �� x�y{z"|£uj dobjck b)a'a ^�_Rh�a ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^�_�`�a ÿ temp ^2_eø�f.b tverbÓVÓ oï¤>¥ f>ø�d p q

¤F¥M¦ u«WhereassomeOV languageshavemixedwordorderbut areotherwiserigidly verb

final, like Japaneseor Korean, other OV languagesdo allow for single dependents

(of thematrixverb)to occurafter theverbalhead. For example,Herring& Paolillo

discussSinhala, anIndo-Aryanlanguagethat is SOV (Greenberg/Hawkinstype23)

andwhich is non-rigid in the this way. Consider theexamplesin (198)and(199),

from (HerringandPaolillo, 1995)(pp.169-170).

(198) Sinhala

oyathat

gan-enrivier-INSTR

e-god.athat-bank

ekaone

paetta-k-aside-INDEF-LOC

lokularge

kaelaeaewa-kforest-INDEF

tibunaa.be-PAST.

“On thefar bankof thatrivier wasa large forest.”

(199) a. Sinhala

gan-enriver-INSTR

me-god.a-tthis-bank-also

tibunaabe-PAST

kaelaeaewa-k.forest-INDEF


“On this bank of therivier alsowasa forest.”

b. Sinhala

oyathat

kaelaeaewa-weforest-LOC

hit.iyaalive-PAST

nariy-ek.jackal- INDEF

“In thatforest liveda jackal.”

Herring & Paolillo associate the post-verbalpositioning of a dependentwith

(presentational)focus,bringingto theforetheintroductionof new information.Later

we comeback to this useof post-verbalpositioning - for themoment,we arejust

concernedwith thepureform of theconstruction.

Definition 19 (Nonrigid OV ordering (VFinal.MxOV.NrOV)). TheNrOV pack-

age extendstheVFinal andMxOV packages,modeling nonrigid verbfinality. Fol-

lowing out the strategy introducedin VFinal, we have a feature that controls the

postverbal positioning, called nrvfinal. Thefeature interactswith vfinal and en-

suresthat only a single dependentcan be placed postverbally. NrOV consistsof

thestructural rulesin (200).

(200)

ô�¬�õ Ú�� å ¶ ô�¬+õ� é%ö Ñ � µ � · � ½ � ê"º�ç º��2¼�âi¼ªê"º��eº#Ì��rÊ��:º�¼�½Y¾ÖÐô�²Ø�� ±�Ü ¬+õ � é%ö Ñ � µ � ¶ ¬Ý ¯ � ± ô�²hõYö Ñ � µ � · Þ©ê��0¸0ß�¿�àáÉ��iÎMÏ#Ðô�²ë Ñ£±!Ü ¬+õ� é%ö Ñ � µ � ¶ ¬Ý ¯{Ñ£± ô�²cõ ö Ñ � µ � · Þ©ê��0¸0ß�¿�àáÉ�º#Î�Ï#Ðô�²Ø�°)±!Ü�¬+õ � é%ö Ñ � µ � ¶ ¬Ý�¯�°)±�ô�²hõYö Ñ � µ � · Þ©ê��0¸0ß�¿�àáÉ�Ì*Î�Ï#Ð

«

Remark 18 (Explanation of the NrOV package). As we point out in the def-

inition, the packageintroduces a new feature, nrvfinal, that controls postverbal

positioning. By meansof a linking rule, we canhave that a matrix ( à � ç ) clause

hasa postverbaldependent. That is the caseif andonly if a single dependent is

placedafter construction that is otherwiseverbfinal.

Thederivationsin (201) examplify thestructural rulesof NrOV, on (abstract)

clauses similar in form to the examplesin (199). Observe that, becausewe still

have thelink betweenà � ç and Ê��:º�¼�½e¾ aswell (from VFinal) exampleslike (199)

already follow from VFinal+MxOV.


(201) a.

subjc ��! �"$#��%�'&)(�*,+-subjc. /",# �� 0&(�* +21 ��'354

dobjc �� 0&)($( � ��6�&)* +-dobjc. &(�( ��%��6�&7*$+ 1 � � 3�4

.

.

.-iobjc .�8 &7*�9�:<; ( - dtverb.>=)?!@ & 8A��6�&)*$+%B : 8 (�C ��'&)(�*$+%B :ED (�F�G 1 B)3�4-

dobjc. &)($( 9 : 8 (�C - iobjc . 8 &)* 9�:<; ( - dtverb. =)?!@ & 8 GE�� 0&(�* +�B :ED ( F 1 B)3�4-subjc. /",#H9 :ED ( C - dobjc. &(�(I9 : 8 (!C - iobjc .>8 &7*E9�:<; ( - dtverb.>=)?!@ & 80GJG<�KF 1 B354-subjc. �"$#L9 :ED ( C - dobjc. &(�(59 : 8 ( C - iobjc .�8 &7*�9 :<; ( - dtverb.>=M ; /&N GJGO�KF 1 P�Q5R +/S'T U�V T C W!X'Y S!Z0[ W!\ R +/S'T]G^4-subjc. /",# 9 :ED ( C - dobjc. &)($( 9 : 8 ( ->- iobjc . 8 &7* 9�:<; ( dtverb. =M ; /&N G<�AF 1 P�Q5R +/S'T`_�V a C]W�\ R +/S!T`[cb Red G^4-subjc. /",#L9 :ED ( ->- dobjc. &(�(I9 : 8 ( C - iobjc .�8 &7*�9 :<; ( dtverbGJ.>=M ; /&N �AF 1 P�Q5R +fS'T`_�V a C]W!\ R +/S'T`[,b�Z d Ge4-dobjc. &(�(I9 : 8 ( ->- subjc. /",#L9 :ED ( C - iobjc .�8 &7*�9�:<; ( dtverbGJ.>=M ; /&N �AF 1 g�h0i�P U�V j C F d [�Z d G^4-dobjc. &(�(I9 : 8 ( ->- iobjc .�8 &7*�9�:<; ( C - subjc. �",#k9 :ED ( dtverbGJ.>=M ; /&N �AF 1 g�h0i�P U�V j C F d [ R]d G^4-iobjc . 8 &7* 9�:<; ( ->- dobjc. &)($( 9 : 8 (C - subjc. �",# 9 :ED ( dtverbGJ. =M ; /&N �AF 1 g�h0i�P U�V j C Z d [ Red G^4- C - dobjc. &)(�(�9 : 8 (C - subjc. /",#L9 :ED ( dtverbG`G 95; (�l - iobjc .�8 &7* . fm =M ; �&)N �nF 1 oqp)i�P U�V j C R]d G^4- C - dobjc. &)($(59 : 8 ( C - subjc. �",#k9 :ED ( dtverbGJG 9 ; (cl - iobjc .>8 &)* . #r*Js �KF 1 g S't p7Reh5R F<+/u)+ p7R]v�R Zxw W�\ R +fS'T 4C - dobjc. &(�(59 : 8 (�C - subjc. /",#L9 :ED ( dtverbGJG 95; (�l - iobjc .>8 &7* ��%� #r*`s F 1 ��!y�4

b.

...zsubjc{ +/u)j}| bIF d

~�zdobjc{ S d,d | b�Z d

~�ziobjc{ Z)S't5| b R]d

zdtverb{ W!\ R +fS'T>��r�� 5�<�J�<� �

~>�O�� O�� <� ��5�<� �$�zsubjc{ +/u)j | bIF d


z�ziobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb{ W!\ R +fS'T �r�� 5�<�$�� ~>�<� ��5�<�$�0�}�� $�z

subjc{ +/u)j | bIF dz�z

dobjc{ S d,d | b�Z d~�z

iobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb� { W!\ R +fS'T �� 5�<�$�� ~>�<� ��5�<�$�'�}�� $�z

dobjc{ S d,d | b�Z dz�z

subjc{ +/u)j�| bIF d~�z

iobjc{ Z)S'tI| b R]d dtverb� { W!\ R +fS'T5�� ¡��<� ¢~ � �f�� $�z�~�z

subjc{ +fu)j | b�F d~�z

iobjc{ ZS!t | b R]d dtverb��| Z d)£zdobjc{ S d$d { + p W!\ R +/S'T �¤�¥� ¦�§/ ¡��<� ¢ ~ �� $�z�~�z

subjc{ +/u)j | bIF d~�z

iobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb��| Z d£zdobjc{ S d,d { jAt h �� ¨,§/�� 5©f�5§/�>ªO��« �<� ��5�E� �~�z

subjc{ +/u)j | bIF d~�z

iobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb��¬| Z d£zdobjc{ S d,d �Hq® jAt h � �

®'¯ �

c.

...zsubjc{ +/u)j | bIF d


~�ziobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d

zdtverb{ W!\ R +fS'T ��r�� 5�<�J�<� �

~>�O�� O�� <� ��5�<� �$�zsubjc{ +/u)j | bIF d


z�ziobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb{ W!\ R +fS'T �r�� 5�<�$�� ~>�<� ��5�<�$�0�}�� $�z



iobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb� { W!\ R +fS'T �� 5�<�$�� ~>�<� ��5�<�$�'�}�� $�z�~�z


iobjc{ Z)S't | b Red dtverb��¬| F d£zsubjc{ +/u)j { + p W!\ R +/S'T �¤�¥� ¦�§/ ¡��<� ¢ ~ � � �$�z�~�z

dobjc{ S d$d | b�Z d~�z

iobjc{ ZS't | b Red dtverb��| F d£zsubjc{ +fuj { jAt h �� ¨,§/�� 5©f�5§/�>ªO��« �<� ��5�E� �~�z


iobjc{ ZS!t5| b R]d dtverb��| F d£zsubjc{ +fu)j��H ® jAt h � �

® ¯ �

«

Definition 20(Freeword order fr om OV (VFinal.MxOV.FreeOV)). TheFreeOV

package extends the behavior to freeword order of verbal complements,starting

froma basic OV order. TheFreeOV package consistsof thestructural rules given

in (202). Themonotonically extend VFinal and MxOV, and can for example be

usedin conjunction with NrOV.


(202)

j�ù2k f>ø�dû jÖù5kV�/°!n�n q ü z��'¨Cx��x p � ¨M�C�+ujÖù5kV�/°!n�n û jÖù5k#l)�H�� b!� q w�¨M�C�Mþv��*} |Vÿ � ¨M�C�i� �"� x�y{z"| Ó ujÖù5k �/°!n�n û jÖù5k �O°Vl)�@�� b!� q w�¨M�C�Mþv��*} |Vÿ � ¨M�C�i�VyR¨ �"� x�y{z"| Ó u

j�÷ ^�`�aVí>j�ù5k#� gVf kV�/°!n�n û jVj�ù2k�� gVf ^�_R`�a1÷�k#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv»�i} �Çÿ p � Ó uj ÿ ÷ ^�`#aVí:ú Ó ^�h�aVíFj�ù2k b)a'a kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ jÖù5k b+a'a ^�_Rh�aV÷ Ó ^�`�aVí:úkV�/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv»�i} �Çÿ��-�M� p � Ó uj ÿ ÷ ^ h�aVí ú Ó ^ � aVí j�ù2k h�b!ø kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ jÖù5k h�b�ø ^ _ � a ÷ Ó ^ h�aVí úk#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv»�i} �Çÿ�x'�M�1�i� Ó u

ùÆ^ _ � a ÿ ÷ý^ `�aVí ú Ó8û ÿ ùÆ^ _ � a ÷ Ó ^ `#aVí ú q w�¨M�C�Mþv²±<} z pCp ��ÿ p �M�1�i� Ó uj ÿ ùÆ^ � aVí>jÖúk h�b!ø�Ó ^�h�aVíFj�÷�k b)a'a kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÆ^�h�aVíFjÖ÷�k b)a'a�Ó ^ � aVí�jÖúk h�b!ø k#��°1n#n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³*} �Çÿ�x'�M�1�i� Ó uj ÿ ùÆ^ � aVí9jÖúk h�b!ø#Ó ^�`�aVí>j�÷�k#� gVf kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÆ^�`#aVí9j�÷�k�� gVfÓ ^ � aVí>jÖúk h�b�ø kV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³*} �Çÿ�x'�M� p � Ó uj ÿ ùÂ^�h�aVíFj�úk b)a'a!Ó ^�`�aVí>j�÷�k#� gVf kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÆ^�`#aVí9j�÷�k�� gVfÓ ^�h�aVíFjÖúk b)a'a k#��°1n#n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³*} �Çÿ��-�M� p � Ó uj ÿ ùÆ^ � aVí9j�÷�k h�b!ø#Ó ^�`�aVí9jÖúk#� gVf kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÆ^�`#aVí9jÖúk#� g#fÓ ^ � aVí9jÖ÷�k h�b�ø kV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³*} �Çÿ�x'�M� p � Ó uj ÿ ùÂ^ h�aVí jÖ÷�k b+a'a1Ó ^ `�aVí jÖúk#� gVf kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÆ^ `#aVí jÖúk#� g#fÓ ^ h�aVí jÖ÷�k b)a'a k#��°1n#n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³*} �Çÿ��-�M� p � Ó u

jÖù5kV�/°!n�n�^ � aVí ÷ û jÖùÆ^ � aVí ÷�kV�/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µe} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i�Vx'� Ó ujÖùÆ^ � aVí7÷�kV�/°!n�n û jÖù5kV�/°!n�n�^ � aVí7÷ q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µe} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i�Vx'� Ó ujÖù5k#��°!n�n�^�h�aVí�÷ û jÖùÆ^�h�aVí�÷�kV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µe} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i�1�i� Ó ujÖùÆ^�h�aVí�÷�k �/°!n�n û jÖù5k �/°!n�n ^�h�aVí�÷ q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µe} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i�1�i� Ó uj�ù2k#��°1n#n�^�`�aVí7÷ û jÖùÆ^�`�aVí7÷�k#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µe} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i� p � Ó uj�ùÆ^ `#aVí ÷�kV�/°!n�n û jÖù5kV�/°!n�n�^ `�aVí ÷ q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µe} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i� p � Ó u

Remark 19(Explanation of the FreeOV package).TheFreeOV packagebuilds

forth on the MxOV packageby letting the latter handle all the scrambling that

maintains verb finality. FreeOV addsto that behaviorby first of all enabling the

formation of anVO order, using theFreeOV1.* andFreeOV2.* rules.13 Just like

MxOV, wedefinestructural rulesthatallow for scramblingof theargumentsatany

level of the tree,aslong astheentire structureis markedasfree. TheFreeOV3.*

are responsible for that. The FreeOV4.* make sure that we can freely reorder

elementsat the top-most level of the treeaswell asmoreembeddedlevels. The

examplederivationsin (203) illustrateFreeOV on the abstract lexicon with case

marking.

13Thus,in a senseFreeOV takesfurtherthebehavior we definein NrOV.


(203) a.

subjc �H¶® +fu)j q® S d t �zsubjc{ +/u)j �Hq® S d t � � q®f·��

...zdobjc{ S d$d | b�Z d

~�ziobjc{ ZS't | b Red

zdtverb{ W!X'Y S�Z �r�L¸® S d t �¬¹ b�F d �� ¹

·��zsubjc{ +fuj | b�F d

~�zdobjc{ S d$d | b�Z d

~�ziobjc { ZS!t | b R]d

zdtverb{ W�X'Y S!Z ��r�k� � ¹ ·��z

subjc{ +/u)j�| b�F d~�z


iobjc{ ZS!t5| b R]dzdtverb{ W�\ R +/S!T>��r�� <�J�O� �

~>�O�� O�� <� ��<� �$�zsubjc{ +fuj | b�F d

~�zdobjc{ S d$d | b�Z d

z�ziobjc{ ZS!t | b R]d dtverb{ W�\ R +/S!T �r��º� ��<�$�/� � ~>�<� ��<�$�'�}�� $�z

subjc{ +fuj | b�F dz�z


iobjc{ ZS!t | b R]d dtverb� { W�\ R +/S!T �� <�$�/� �~>�<� ��<�$�'�}�� $�z�~�z


iobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb��| F d)£zsubjc{ +/u)j { + p W�\ R +fS'T �� ¦¤§� ¡��<� ¢

~ � � �$�z�~�zdobjc{ S d,d | b�Z d

~�ziobjc{ Z)S'tI| b Red dtverb��¬| F d)£

zsubjc{ +/u)j { \ p YcY �¤� � ��§ �0� ¡�¡�O� � ~�� § �0� �7�5§ �<� ��5�<� �$�z�~�~�z

iobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb��| F d)£zsubjc{ +/u)j ��| Z d)£

zdobjc{ S d$d { \ p YcY �¤� � ��§

�0� ¡�»�� ¢ ~ ��/� � � �$�z�~�~�ziobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb��| Z d£

zdobjc{ S d,d �¬| F d)£

zsubjc{ +/u)j { \ p YcY �¤� � ��§

�0� ¡�¡¼<� ¢ ~ ��/� � � �$�z�~�~�ziobjc{ ZS!tI| b R]d dtverb�5| Z d)£

zdobjc{ S d$d �¬| F d)£

zsubjc{ +/u)j { jAt h �� ¨c§f�� § �0� �~�~�z

iobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb�¬| Z d£zdobjc{ S d,d �¬| F d£

zsubjc{ +/u)j �L¸® jAt h � � q® ¯ �

b.

...zsubjc{ +/u)j | bIF d


~�ziobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d

zdtverb{ W!\ R +fS'T ��r�� 5�<�J�<� �

~>�O�� O�� <� ��5�<� �$�zsubjc{ +/u)j | bIF d


z�ziobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb{ W!\ R +fS'T �r��º� ��5�<�$�� ~>�<� ��5�<�$�0�}�� $�z



iobjc{ Z)S't | b R]d dtverb� { W!\ R +fS'T �� 5�<�$�� ~>�<� ��5�<�$�'�}�� $�z�~�z


iobjc{ Z)S't | b Red dtverb��¬| F d£zsubjc{ +/u)j { + p W!\ R +/S'T �¤�¥� ¦�§/ ¡��<� ¢ ~ � � �$�z�~�z


iobjc{ ZS!t5| b R]d dtverb��| F d£zsubjc{ +fu)j { \ p Y,Y �� § �0� ¡�½�<� � ~�� § �0� �7�5§ �<� ��<� �$�z�~�~�z

iobjc{ Z)S't | b Red dtverb�5| F d£zsubjc{ +/u)j �¬| Z d£

zdobjc{ S d,d { \ p Y,Y �� §

�0� ¡��/� ¢ ~ ��/� � � �$�z�~�~�ziobjc{ Z)S't | b Red dtverb�5| Z d£

zdobjc{ S d,d ��| F d£

zsubjc{ +fu)j { \ p Y,Y �� §

�0� ¡��¼O� ¢ ~ ��/� � � �$�z�~�ziobjc{ Z)S'tI| b Red dtverb�5| Z d£

zdobjc{ S d,d { \ p YcY | F d£

zsubjc{ +/u)j�� § �0� ¡�¡¾<� � ~�� § �0� � � � �$�z�~

dtverb | Z d)£zdobjc{ S d$d �¬| R]d£

ziobjc { ZS!t { \ p YcY | F d£

zsubjc{ +/u)j�� §

�0� ¡��/� ¢ ~ ��/�7�� $�z�~dtverb | Red)£

ziobjc{ ZS't �5| Z d£

zdobjc{ S d,d { \ p YcY | F d£

zsubjc{ +/u)j �� §

�0� ¡��¼O� ¢ ~ ��/�7�� $�z�~�~dtverb | Red)£

ziobjc{ ZS't �5| Z d£


zsubjc{ +fu)j { \ p Y,Y �� §

�0� ¡�¡¾<� � ~�� § �0� � � � �$�z�~�~dtverb | Red)£

ziobjc{ Z)S't$�¬| Z d£


zsubjc{ +fuj { jAt h �� ¨c§f��¿� � � § �0� �~�~

dtverb | R]d£ziobjc{ ZS't ��| Z d£


zsubjc{ +fu)j �H ® jAt h � �

q® ¯ �

c.

...j subjck#� g#f ^ _R`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^ _�h�a ÿ j iobjck h�b�ø ^ _ � a j dtverbk1l)�@�� b��Ó#Ó o0p q v�w�x�y{z"|��*} |Vÿ �� Cz"�e� �� x�yj subjck#� gVf ^�_�`#a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_Rh�a+jVj iobjck h�b!ø ^�_ � a dtverbk1l)�@�� b��Ó o�p q v�w�x�y{z"|��i} �:ÿ �� x�y{z-|#�+�Çxj subjck#� gVf ^ _�`#a jVj dobjck b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ÿ j iobjck h�b!ø ^ _ � a dtverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q v�w�x�y{z-|#��} �7ÿ �"� x�y{z"|��H��i�j dobjc k b)a'a ^/_Rh�aHjVj subjck#� gVf ^�_�`�a ÿ j iobjck h�b!ø ^�_ � a dtverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q üý��þv��*} �Çÿ p �M�1�i� Ó uj dobjc k b)a'a ^/_Rh�aHjVj iobjck h�b!ø ^�_ � a ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^/_�`�a dtverbÓ kVl)�@�� b!� o�p q üý��þv��*} �Çÿ p �M�Vx'� Ó u

j ÿ j iobjck h�b!ø ^ _ � a ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^ _�`#a dtverbÓVÓ ^ h�aVí j dobjc k b)a'a k��<°Vl)�@�� b!� o�p q îï¨Mþv��<} �Çÿ��-� Ó uj ÿ j iobjck h�b!ø ^�_ � a ÿ j subjck � g#f ^�_�`�a dtverbÓ#Ó ^/h�aVíFj dobjck b)a'a k ��°1n#n o�p q w�¨M�C�Mþv��*} |Vÿ � ¨M�C�i�VyR¨ �j ÿ#ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^ _�`#a dtverbÓ ^ h�aVí j dobjck b)a'aVÓ ^ � aVí j iobjck h�b!ø k#��°1n#n o�p q w�¨M�@�Mþv0��} �$ÿ�x'�M�V�-� Ó uj ÿ#ÿ j subjck#� gVf ^�_�`#a dtverbÓ ^ � aVí>j iobjck h�b!ø�Ó ^�h�aVíFj dobjck b)a'a k#��°1n#n o�p q w�¨M�@�Mþv¤³<} �$ÿ�x'�M�V�-� Ó uj ÿVÿ j subjck#� gVf ^ _R`�a dtverbÓ ^ � aVí j iobjck h�b!ø�Ó ^ h�aVí j dobjc k b)a'a k f>ø�d o�p q ü z��'¨@x��x p � ¨M�C�HuÿVÿ j subjck � gVf ^�_R`�a dtverbÓ ^ � aVí9j iobjck h�b!ø Ó ^�h�aVí9j dobjc k b)a'a o�¤ ¥ f>ø�d p q

¤F¥M¦ u«


Observe that in FreeOV we maintain therequirementthatdependentsneedto

haveexplicit casemarking for themto beableto scramble. Naturally, wecaneasily

relax this constraint - structure of the rulesremains the same,only we no longer

needto have any feature markingon ¬ , ² or Ù . The definition below givesthe

relaxeddefinitionsof MxOV (MxOVnc) andFreeOV (FreeOVnc). Thepackages

MxOVnc andFreeOVnc monotonically extend oneanother, aswell astheMxOV

andFreeOV packages,andcanfor example beusedto modelthe freeword order

of Hindi.

Definition 21 (Mixed/f ree OV word order without casemarking). The Mx-

OVnc package is a relaxedversion of MxOV, in which dependentsno longer need

to be explicitly marked for case. MxOVnc comprises the rules given in (204).

FreeOVnc is a similarly relaxed version of FreeOV, consisting of therulesgiven

in (205).

(204)

÷á^�_ � a@jÖùÆ^�_�h�a!úk�l)�@�� b!�Rû ùÂ^�_�h�aHj�÷ ^�_ � a!úk�l)�@�� b!� q üý��þvy{�)�*} �Çÿ��-�M�Vx�� Ó u÷ ^/_ � aCj�ùÂ^�_�`�a!úk l)�@�� b!� û ùÂ^�_�`�a@j�÷ý^�_ � a1úk l)�@�� b�� q üý��þvy{�)�*} �Çÿ p �M�Vx'� Ó u

jÖ÷ ^�_ � a ÿ ùÆ^�_Rh�aVú Ó k�l)�@�� b!�{û jÖùÆ^�_�h�a ÿ ÷ý^�_ � a1ú Ó k�l)�@�� b!� q üý��þvy{�)�*} �Çÿ��-�M�Vx�� Ó uj�÷ ^�_Rh�a ÿ ùÆ^�_�`#a1ú Ó k�l)�@�� b!�{û jÖùÆ^�_�`#a ÿ ÷ ^�_�h�a1ú Ó k#l)�@�� b�� q üý��þvy{�)�*} �Çÿ p �M�1�i� Ó uj�÷ý^ _ � a ÿ ùÆ^ _�`#a ú Ó k�l)�@�� b!�{û jÖùÆ^ _�`#a ÿ ÷ ^ _ � a ú Ó k#l)�H�� b!� q üý��þvy{�)�*} �Çÿ p �M�Vx'� Ó u÷á^ _�h�a j�ùÂ^ _�`�a úk�l)�@�� b!�Rû ùÂ^ _�`�a j�÷ý^ _�h�a úk�l)�@�� b!� q üý��þvy{�)�*} �Çÿ p �M�1�i� Ó u÷ ^�_�`�a@jÖùÆ^�_eø�f.bMúk�l)�@�� b!�Rû ùÂ^�_eø�f.b"j�÷ ^�_R`�a!úk�l)�@�� b!� q üý��þvy{�)�*} �Çÿ��'��zY� p � Ó u

j�÷ý^�_�h�a ÿ ùÆ^�_Yø�f�bMú Ó k l)�@�� b!� û jÖùÆ^�_eø�f.b ÿ ÷ ^�_�h�a1ú Ó k l)�H�� b!� q üý��þvy{�)�*} �Çÿ��'��zY�V�-� Ó u

(205)

j�÷ ^�`#aVí7ù5kV�/°!n�n û jÖùÆ^�_�`�a1÷�k#��°1n#n q w�¨M�C�Mþv»�+y{��} �Çÿ p � Ó uj ÿ ÷ ^�`�aVí:ú Ó ^�h�aVí7ù5kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÂ^�_Rh�a#÷ Ó ^�`�aVí:úkV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv»�+y{��} �Çÿ��-�M� p � Ó uj ÿ ÷ý^ h�aVí ú Ó ^ � aVí ù5kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÂ^ _ � a ÷ Ó ^ h�aVí úk#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv»�+y{��} �Çÿ�x'�M�1�i� Ó u

ù©^ _ � a ÿ ÷ ^ `#aVí ú Óªû ÿ ùÆ^ _ � a ÷ Ó ^ `�aVí ú q w�¨M�C�Mþv²±My{��} z pCp ��ÿ p �M�1�i� Ó uj ÿ ùÂ^ � aVíªú Ó ^�h�aVí�÷�kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÂ^�h�aVí�÷ Ó ^ � aVí:úk#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³�y{��} �Çÿ�x'�M�1�i� Ó uj ÿ ùÂ^ � aVí:ú Ó ^�`#aVí7÷�kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÂ^�`#aVí7÷ Ó ^ � aVí:úkV�/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³�y{��} �Çÿ�x'�M� p � Ó uj ÿ ùÂ^�h�aVí7ú Ó ^�`#aVí7÷�k �/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÂ^�`#aVí7÷ Ó ^�h�aVí7úk ��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³�y{��} �Çÿ��-�M� p � Ó uj ÿ ùÂ^ � aVí:ú Ó ^�`#aVí7÷�kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÂ^�`#aVí7÷ Ó ^ � aVí:úkV�/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³�y{��} �Çÿ�x'�M� p � Ó uj ÿ ùÂ^ h�aVí ú Ó ^ `#aVí ÷�kV�/°!n�n û j ÿ ùÂ^ `#aVí ÷ Ó ^ h�aVí úkV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv´³�y{��} �Çÿ��-�M� p � Ó u

jÖù5kV�/°!n�n�^ � aVí ÷ û jÖùÆ^ � aVí ÷�kV�/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µ�y{��} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i�Vx'� Ó ujÖùÆ^ � aVí7÷�kV�/°!n�n û jÖù5k#��°!n�n�^ � aVí:÷ q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µ�y{��} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i�Vx'� Ó ujÖù5k#��°!n�n�^>h�aVí7÷ û jÖùÆ^�h�aVí7÷�kV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µ�y{��} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i�1�i� Ó ujÖùÆ^�h�aVí�÷�k �/°!n�n û jÖù5k ��°!n�n ^�h�aVí7÷ q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µ�y{��} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i�1�i� Ó uj�ù2k#��°1n#n�^�`�aVí7÷ û jÖùÆ^�`�aVí7÷�k#��°1n#n q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µ�y{��} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i� p � Ó uj�ùÆ^ `#aVí ÷�kV�/°!n�n û jÖù5k#��°!n�n�^ `�aVí ÷ q w�¨M�C�Mþv�µ�y{��} �:ÿ � ¨M�C�i� p � Ó u

«


4.3.3 V-FIRST PACKAGES

After having definedpackagesdealing with OV wordorderin theprevioussection,

we now turn our attention to the “mirror” caseof VO word order. Thereasonfor

dealing first with OV andVO beforeaddressingissuesin SVO is thatthelatter may

beconceivedof asa mixture of theformertwo.

Thecanonical structurefor VSOis asgivenin (206a),with asamplederivation

(with goal À ) in (206b).

(206) a. É�É�É�¸�Ã�ê5Á �� ±!Â À æAÁ!ÃeÏ 2°)±!Â Á��ÄÁ�ÃYÏ Ñì±'ÂÆÅ �ÄÁ�ÃYÏ

b.

tverb �� =?�@ & 8 C`C F�Ç 8 (cl � �6�&)* +%GJÇ D (cl � �'&)(�* +%G-tverb.>=)?!@ & 8A� C FcÇ 8 (cl �%�)6!&7*,+�GJÇ D (cl��%�!&(�*,+ 1 � � 3�4 subje �� @ m�È � �0&)(�* +-

subje.J@ m�È �É��0&)(�*$+ 1 � � 354-tverb.>=)?!@ & 8 9 D (cl - subje.>@ mcÈ �KF�Ç 8 (cl �� 6�&)* + 1 Ç)3�4 dobjc ��%�'&)(�('��6�&)*$+-

dobjc. &(�( ��%� 6!&7* +Ê1 ��'354C - tverb.>=)?!@ & 8 9 D (�l - subje.>@ m�È G 9 8 (�l - dobjc. &)(�( �AF 1 Ç)3�4C - tverb.>= ; ; *�9 D (�l - subje.>@ m�È G 9 8 (�l - dobjc. &)(�( �KF 1 P y7+ R tJU�V T C]W�X'Y S!Z0[ W R + R t>G^4-

tverb9 D (�l - subje. @ m�È . = ; ; * 9 8 (�l - dobjc. &)($( �nF 1 P y7+ R t$_�V a C]W R + R t$[$F dx£ G^4- C tverb9 D (�l - subje.>@ m�È G 9 8 (�l - dobjc. &(�( .J= ; ; * �KF 1 P y7+ R t$_�V a C]W R + R t$[�Z dx£ G^4- C tverb9 D (�l - subje. @ m�È G 9 8 (cl - dobjc. &(�( . #¶*`s �nF 1 g S't p)Reh5R F P w R + R t R S!T 4C tverb9 D (cl - subje.>@ m�È G 9 8 (�l - dobjc. &)(�( ��!#r*JsfFË1 � � y�4

Thepackagescover VO in general, andthusalsocover the(morescarce) VOS

languages.

Definition 22 (Rigid verb-initial word order, VFirst). TheVFirst package de-

finesthe basiccontrols for establishing that a structure is rigidly verb initial (or

V1). It consistsof thestructural rulesgivenin (207), which are essentially mirror-

ing therulesfound in theVFinal package (179).

(207)

j�ù2k f>ø�d û jÖù5k l)�H�`° `�ø q ü zE�'¨Cx��x p vÍÌ � x�¨ p ��ujÖù5k `'cM �û jÖù5k#l)�H�`° `�ø q ¡8��¢ªx p vÎÌ � x�¨ p ��u

jÖù5k#l)�H�`° `�ø ^ `�aVí ÷ û jÖù5k#l)m@n b)h ^ `#aVí ÷ q v�w�x�¨ p ��*} |Vÿ �� Cz"�e� �� x�¨ p � Ó uj�ù2k�l)�@�^° `�ø ^ h�aVí ÷ û jÖù5k#l)m@n b)h ^ h�aVí ÷ q v�w�x�¨ p ��*} |Vÿ �� Cz"�e� �� x�¨ p � Ó uj�ù2k�l)�@�`° `�ø ^ � aVí7÷ û jÖù5k#l)m@n b)h ^ � aVí:÷ q v�w�x�¨ p ��*} |Vÿ �� Cz"�e� �� x�¨ p � Ó ujÖùÆ^�`�aVí7÷�k�l)�@�`° `�ø8û jÖù5k#l)�H�`° `�ø ^�`�aVí7÷ q v�w�x�¨ p ��i} �:ÿ �� x�¨ p �� p �¿Ï Ó uj�ùÆ^�h�aVí�÷�k�l)�@�`° `�ø8û jÖù5k#l)�H�`° `�ø ^�h�aVí�÷ q v�w�x�¨ p ��i} �:ÿ �� x�¨ p ��1�i�¿Ï Ó uj�ùÂ^ � aVí7÷�k�l)�@�`° `�ø8û jÖù5k#l)�H�`° `�ø ^ � aVí7÷ q v�w�x�¨ p ��i} �:ÿ �� x�¨ p ��Vx��Ï Ó u

«

Remark 20(Explanation of the VFirst package).TheVFirst packagedefinesthe

basic behavior of thecontrol feature ¸0¹�º�ê5� � , andits interaction with thestandard

modes��Î , Ì*Î and ºVÎ aswell asthefeature Ê�Ë�Ã�½eÌ . Thepackagedoesnot defineany


variability in word order - it definesrigid SVO. To establish that a clauseindeed

is rigid in this sense, we needtheVFirst packageanda goalcategory Ð�Ñ<ÒÔÓ Ñ é � � À ,

(208).

(208)

...ÿ j tverbk!Õ ô �`° `'ø ^�`�aVí>j subjek1n�°)Ö Ó ^�h�aVí9j dobjck b)a'a o�p q vw�x�¨

p ��<} |#ÿ �"� �Cz-�e�1v�w�x�¨ p � Ó uj tverb ^ `�aVí j subjekVn�°ÖMk�Õ ô �^° `�ø ^ h�aVí j dobjck b)a'a o�p q vw�x�¨ p ��} �7ÿ�v�w�x�¨ p �� p ��Ï Ó uj ÿ tverb ^/`�aVí9j subjek n�°Ö Ó ^�h�aVíFj dobjck b+a'a k Õ ô �^° `�ø o�p q vw�x�¨

p ��} �7ÿ�v�w�x�¨ p ��1�i�¿Ï Ó uj ÿ tverb ^/`�aVí9j subjekVn7°)Ö Ó ^�h�aVíFj dobjck b)a'a k f>ø�d o�p q ü z��'¨Cx��x p vÎÌÅx�yRxc�'x'z"|£uÿ tverb ^ `�aVí j subjek n7°)Ö Ó ^ h�aVí j dobjck b)a'a o�¤ ¥ f>ø�d p q

¤9¥@¦ u

The derivation in (208) coversVSO order- but the VFirst package is not re-

stricted that thatparticularword order type. It alsocoversVOSword order, aswe

find it in for example TobaBatak,(209).14

(209) Toba Batak

Mang-idasee-ACTIVEV

si ElijahElijah

si Kathy.Kathy

“Kathy seesElijah.”

The derivation for a structure that we could assign to (209) is given in (210)

below. Naturally, to reflectthefact thatVOSis thecanonicalword order, we start

with a verbal category thatfirst takes theobject, andthenthe(ergative) subject.

(210)

ostverb �� =)?!@ & 8 CJC FcÇ D (�l � �'&)(�* +%GJÇ 8 (�l � �6�&7* +�G-ostverb.J=)?!@ & 8A� C F�Ç D (cl��'&(�*,+�GJÇ 8 (cl ��6�&)*$+ 1 � � 3�4 dobjc �� '&(�( � �6�&7* +-

dobjc. &)($( ��6�&)*$+ 1 � � 354-ostverb. =)?!@ & 8 9 8 (cl - dobjc. &)($( �KF�Ç D (cl � �0&)(�* + 1 Ç)3�4 subje �� @ m�È/��0&(�*�+-

subje. @ mcÈ �� 0&)(�* +×1 ��'3�4C - ostverb.J=?�@ & 8 9 8 (cl - dobjc. &(�( G 9 D (cl - subje.>@ mcÈ �KF 1 Ç354C - ostverb.J=M ; m D *�9 8 (cl - dobjc. &(�( G 9 D (cl - subje.>@ mcÈ �KF 1 P�Q5R^p FctÙ�V T C]W!X'Y S�Zf[ W�\ R^p Fct>Ge4-

ostverb9 8 (�l - dobjc. &)($( .J=M ; m D *�9 D (cl - subje.>@ m�È �KF 1 P�Q5R^p Fct�_�V a C W!\ R^p Fct�[JZ dr£ G^4- C ostverb9 8 (�l - dobjc. &)($( G 9 D (�l - subje. @ m�È . =M ; m D * �KF 1 P�Q5R^p Fct�_�V a C W!\ R^p Fct�[>F dx£ Ge4- C ostverb9 8 (�l - dobjc. &)($( G 9 D (�l - subje.>@ m�È . #r*Js �KF 1 g S!t p7R^h5R F P w \ Rep F,t`4C ostverb9 8 (cl - dobjc. &(�( G 9 D (cl - subje.>@ mcÈ ��%�'#r*`sfF 1 ��!y�4

«

Definition 23 (Mixed, rigi d verb-intia l word order, MxVO). TheMxVO pack-

agedefinesthemixedword orderpattern for rigidly verbinitial languages,extend-

ing the VFirst package. MxVO allows for properly case marked dependentsto

occurin anyorder, andcomprisestherules givenin (211).14ACTIVEV=Activevoice,and“si” arepropernamemarkers;cf. (Manning, 1996),p.27ff.


(211)

z�Ø | R]d£z�Ù { ZS't { W!\ Rep Fct | Z d)£

z�Ú { S d$drÛ z�Ø | Z d)£z�Ú { S d,d { W�\ Rep Fct | R]d£

z�Ù { ZS't � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ ��/�7�� $�z�Ø | R]d£z�Ù { Z)S't { W�\ Rep Fct | F d)£

z�Ú { +/u)j Û z�Ø | F d£z�Ú { +fu)j { W!\ Rep Fct | Red)£

z�Ù { Z)S't � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ � �/�7�� $�z�Ø | Z d£z�Ù { S d$d { W�\ Rep Fct | F d)£

z�Ú { +/u)j Û z�Ø | F d£z�Ú { +fu)j { W!\ Rep Fct | Z d)£

z�Ù { S d,d � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ � �/�7�� $�z�~�Ø | R]d£z�Ù { ZS't ��| Z d)£

z�Ú { S d,d { W�\ Rep Fct Û z�~�Ø | Z d)£z�Ú { S d,d ��| Red)£

z�Ù { Z)S't { W!\ R^p Fct � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ ��/�)�� $�z�~�Ø | Z d£z�Ù { S d,d ��| F d£

z�Ú { +/u)j { W�\ Rep Fct Û z�~�Ø | F d£z�Ú { +fu)j��| Z d)£

z�Ù { S d$d { W!\ R^p Fct � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ � �/�7�� $�z�~�Ø | R]d£z�Ù { ZS!t,��| F d£

z�Ú { +/u)j { W�\ Rep Fct Û z�~�Ø | F d£z�Ú { +fu)j��| Red)£

z�Ù { Z)S't { W�\ R^p Fct � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ ��/� � � �$�z�Ø | R]d£z�Ù { ZS't { W!\ Rep Fct | F d£

z�Ú { Y p�v Û z�Ø | F d£z�Ú { Y p7v { W�\ R^p Fct | R]d£

z�Ù { ZS!t � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ � �/�7�� $�z�Ø | Z d£z�Ù { S d,d { W!\ Rep Fct | F d£

z�Ú { Y p�v Û z�Ø | F d£z�Ú { Y p7v { W�\ R^p Fct | Z d£

z�Ù { S d,d � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ � �/�7�� $�z�~�Ø | Z d£z�Ù { S d,d ��| F d£

z�Ú { Y p�v { W�\ Rep Fct Û z�~�Ø | F d£z�Ú { Y p7v ��| Z d)£

z�Ù { S d,d { W!\ Rep F,t � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ � �/�7�� $�z�~�Ø | R]d£z�Ù { ZS't ��| F d£

z�Ú { Y p�v { W�\ Rep Fct Û z�~�Ø | F d£z�Ú { Y p7v ��| Red)£

z�Ù { Z)S't { W!\ Rep F,t � ��I�� ½�O� ¢ ~ ��/� � � �$�«

Remark 21 (Explanation of the MxVO package). The MxVO package allows

for dependentsto bescrambled, aslongasthey bearpropercasemarking. Because

someverbiniti al languageshave ergativecasemarking (rather thanabsolutive) we

have also included behavior for the Ã�êE� feature. The MxVO extends the VFirst

packagemonotonically, anddoes not alter any of its rigidnessin placing the verb

initi ally.

To illustratetheMxVO package,consider theTagalogexamplesin (212). The

sentencein (212a) givesthecanonical order, which we already presenteda deriva-

tion for in (208). The sentence in (212b) is a variation on (212a), differing in

the order of the dependents. The derivation for (212b) necessarily makesuseof

MxVO, andis givenin (213).

(212) Tagalog

a. Nagbabasaread-PAST

angtitserteacher

ng dyaryo.newspaper

“The teacher readthenewspaper”

b. Nagbabasaread-PAST

ng dyaryonewspaper

angtitser.teacher

“The teacher readthenewspaper”

(213)

...ÿ j tverbkVl)�@�^° `�ø ^�`�aVí9j subjekVn�°Ö Ó ^�h�aVíFj dobjck b)a'a o�p q v�w�x�¨

p ��<} |#ÿ �� @z"�e�1vw�x�¨ p � Ó uj tverb ^.`�aVí>j subjek1n�°)Ö�k#l)�H�`° `�ø ^�h�aVí>j dobjc k b)a'a o�p q v�w�x�¨ p ��} �7ÿ �� x�¨ p �� p ��Ï Ó uj ÿ tverb ^.`�aVí>j subjek1n�°)Ö Ó ^�h�aVí9j dobjck b)a'a k�l)�@�`° `'ø o�p q v�w�x�¨

p ��} �7ÿ �� x�¨ p ��1�i�¿Ï Ó uj ÿ tverb ^.h�aVíFj dobjck b)a'a!Ó ^�`�aVí>j subjekVn7°)Ö�k�l)�@�`° `'ø o�p q üý�Yv�þ��<} �$ÿ p ��V�-� Ó uj ÿ tverb ^ h�aVí j dobjck b)a'aVÓ ^ `�aVí j subjekVn�°Ö�k f>ø�d o�p q ü z��'¨@x��x p vÎÌ$x�yRxc�'x�z"|�uÿ tverb ^/h�aVíFj dobjck b)a'aVÓ ^�`�aVí9j subjekVn�°Ö o�¤F¥ f>ø�d p q

¤F¥C¦ u


«Justlikein thecaseof OV languages, wemayfind thatalanguage-occasionally-

allows for a dependent to occurbefore theverb,without theword order beingfree

assuch. For example, the (Western-Malayo) Polynesian languageChamorroal-

lows for theergative subjectto appear before theverb.

Definition 24 (Non-rigid verb-first languages, NrVO). TheNrVO package de-

finesthepossibilit y for onedependentto occur before theverbal head– non-rigid

verb-firstness.TheNrVO package consistsof therulesin (214).

(214)

Ü ¬LÝ Ú�� å ¶ Ü ¬LÝ� é�Þ Ñ é � � · � ½ � ê"º�ç º�2¼�â-¼��ê"º��*º#Ì�Ê��:º�ê5� � ÐÜ ²Ø ¯ � ± ¬LÝ � é�Þ Ñ é � � ¶ Ü ¬LÝÞ Ñ é � � �� ±!Ü ² · ÞÆê<¸Ë�»ß�¿�àáÉ��iÎ�Ï#Ð

«

Remark 22 (Explanation of the NrOV package). Admittedly, the NrOV is not

very spectacular. It only allowsfor thedependentrealizedassubject to bemoved

beforethe verb. The reason for modeling NrOV this way is that our -admittedly

limited- observationsconcerning VO languagesall regardergative languages,and

thatin suchlanguagesnon-rigidity is usually reservedfor thesubject (with achange

in voiceto alterthedependentthatis realizedassubject). Thisalsoholdsfor a lan-

guagelikeTagalog. Therewecanorderanelementbefore theverbusing aspecific

construction called ay-inversion. Kroegerpointsout thattheinversionis generally

restricted to thesubject (1993)(p.67ff), but thequestion is whether to usea struc-

tural rule to model this phenomenonor achieve it through a lexical assignment

(to ay) asBaldridge (2000) proposes. Given Kroeger’s observations that thereis

aninterplay betweenwhatdependency relation is involvedin ay-inversion andthe

information structure,we proposeto usea structural rule.

Leaving the Tagalogcaseat the momentfor what it is, we have a look at

Chamorro. In Chamorro, we can employ NrVO directly to obtain the desired

analysis. Consider the examplesentencesin (215), from (Chung, 1990), andthe

derivation in (216) for (215b).

(215) Chamorro

a. lumi’e’see-PAST

i lahiman

i palao’an.woman

“The mansaw thewoman”


b. i lahiman

lumi’e’see-PAST

i palao’an.woman

“The mansaw thewoman”

(216)

...É Ü tverbÝ7Þ Ñ é � � � ±!Ü Ü subjeÝ�´Vé!ß Ï 2°)±!Ü Ü dobjc Ý#µ ±�±�à �·�¸0¹»º�ê5� � ß�¿�¾�É�Ê�Ë�Ã�½YÌ{Í�Ê��:º�ê5� � Ï#Ð

Ütverb ¿� ±�Ü Ü subjeÝ ´#é!ß Ý Þ Ñ é � � �°)±!Ü Ü dobjc Ý µ ±�± à �

·�¸0¹»º�ê5� � È"¿ Ä�É�Ê��:º�ê5� � Íf�iÎká�Ï#ÐÜtverb 5°)±!Ü Ü dobjc Ý�µ ±�± ÝÞ Ñ é � � �� ±!Ü Ü subjeÝ#´#é!ß à �

· � ç8¸â�»ß�¿�àáÉ��iÎ-Í)Ì*Î�Ï#ÐÜ'Ü

subjeÝ#´Vé!ß2 ¯ � ± É tverb �°)±!Ü Ü dobjc Ý�µ ±�± Ï Ý � é�Þ Ñ é � �Éà �· ÞÆê<¸Ë�»ß�¿�àáÉ��iÎ�Ï#Ð

Ü'ÜsubjeÝ ´#é!ß ¯ � ± É tverb 5°)±!Ü Ü dobjcÝ µ ±�±+Ï Ý Ú�� å à �

· � ½ � ê"º�ç º��¼�â-¼��ê"º��*º#Ì�Ê��:º�ê5� � ÐÜsubjeÝ#´#é!ß5 ¯ � ± É tverb 5°)±�Ü Ü dobjc Ý#µ ±�± Ï àäã ÑMÚ�� å �

· ã Ñ Å Ð

«

Definition 25 (Freeword order in VO languages,FreeVO). TheFreeVO pack-

age definesfreeword order, starting froma VO word order. Thepackage consists

of thestructural rules givenin (217). Just like MxVO, werequire that proper case

marking is present for a structureto appear in position differentfromthecanonical

one.

(217)

j�ù5k f>ø�dû j�ù2k#��°!n�n q ü z��'¨Cx��x p � ¨M�@�Huj�ù2k#��°!n�n û j�ù2k�l)�@�`° `�ø q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ��<} |#ÿ � ¨C�C�-� �� xj�ù2k#��°!n�n û j�ù2k��O°1l)�@�^° `�ø q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ��<} |#ÿ � ¨C�C�-�#yR¨ �

jVj�÷�k � gVf ^ _R`�a ù5k ��°!n�n û j�ùÂ^ `�aVí j�÷�k � gVf k ��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ��} �$ÿ p � Ó uj#j�úk b)a'a ^ _�h�a ÿ ùÆ^ _�`�a ÷ Ó k#��°!n�n û j�ùÂ^ _�`�a ÿ ÷ý^ h�aVí jÖúk b)a'a!Ó k#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ��} �$ÿÖ�i�� p � Ó uj#jÖúk h�b!ø ^ _ � a ÿ ùÆ^ _�h�a ÷ Ó k#��°!n�n û j�ùÂ^ _�h�a ÿ ÷ ^ � aVí j�úk h�b!ø�Ó kV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ��} �$ÿÖ�i��#x'� Ó u

ÿ ùÆ^�`#aVí7÷ Ó ^ � aVí8ú û ùÆ^�_R`�a ÿ ÷ ^ � aVí:ú Ó q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ�±�} z p@p ��ÿ p �M�#x'�j#jÖ÷�k b+a'a ^�_Rh�a ÿ j�ù5k h�b!ø ^�_ � a1ú Ó k#��°!n�n û j#jÖù5k h�b!ø ^�_ � a ÿ j�÷�k b)a'a ^�_�h�a1ú Ó kV�/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ»³<} �$ÿ�x'�M�V�-� Ó uj#jÖ÷�k#� g#f ^�_�`�a ÿ j�ù5k h�b!ø ^�_ � a1ú Ó k#��°!n�n û j#jÖù5k h�b!ø ^�_ � a ÿ j�÷�k�� gVf ^�_R`�a!ú Ó k#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ»³<} �$ÿ�x'�M� p � Ó uj#jÖ÷�k n7°)Ö ^ _�`�a ÿ j�ù5k h�b!ø ^ _ � a ú Ó k ��°!n�n û j#jÖù5k h�b!ø ^ _ � a ÿ j�÷�k n�°Ö ^ _R`�a ú Ó k �/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ»³<} �$ÿ�x'�M� p � Ó uj#jÖ÷�k�� g#f ^ _�`�a ÿ jÖù5k b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ú Ó k#��°!n�n û j#jÖù5k b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ÿ j�÷�k�� gVf ^ _R`�a ú Ó kV�/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ»³<} �$ÿÖ�i�� p � Ó uj#j�÷�k#n�°Ö/^ _�`�a ÿ jÖù5k b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ú Ó k#��°!n�n û j#jÖù5k b)a'a ^ _Rh�a ÿ j�÷�k#n�°Ö/^ _�`�a ú Ó kV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ»³<} �$ÿÖ�i�� p � Ó u

j�ùÆ^�_R`�a1÷�k#��°!n�n û ùÆ^�_R`�a@j�÷�kV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ¿µ*} �7ÿ � ¨C�C�-� p � ÓùÆ^�_�`�a@jÖ÷�k#��°!n�n û j�ùÂ^�_�`�a1÷�kV��°1n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ¿µ*} �7ÿ � ¨C�C�-� p � Ój�ùÂ^�_�h�aV÷�k#��°!n�n û ùÆ^�_Rh�a+jÖ÷�k#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ¿µ*} �7ÿ � ¨C�C�-�V�-� Óù©^ _�h�a jÖ÷�k#��°!n�n û j�ùÂ^ _�h�a ÷�kV�/°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ¿µ*} �7ÿ � ¨C�C�-�V�-� ÓjÖùÆ^ _ � a ÷�k ��°!n�n û ùÆ^ _ � a j�÷�k ��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ¿µ*} �7ÿ � ¨C�C�-�#x'� Óù©^ _ � a jÖ÷�k#��°!n�n û j�ùÂ^ _ � a ÷�k#��°!n�n q w�¨M�C�Cv�þ¿µ*} �7ÿ � ¨C�C�-�#x'� Ó

«


Remark 23(Explanation of the FreeVO package). Justlikein theFreeOV pack-

age,we control theaccessibility of FreeVO’s structural rulesusinga freefeature.

TheFreeVO packagemonotonically extends theVFirst, MxVO andNrVO pack-

ages,so -again-we may have that in the process of constructing a derivation we

obtainstructuresthatcanbeanalyzedin termsof these morerestrictive packages.

Thederivation in (218) examplifiesthis.

(218)

...ÿ j tverbkVl)�H�`° `�ø ^�`�aVí9j subjekVn�°Ö Ó ^�h�aVíFj dobjck b+a'a o�p q v�w�x�¨

p ��*} |Vÿ �� Cz"�*� �"� x�¨ p � Ó uj tverb ^/`�aVí9j subjekVn�°Ö�k�l)�@�`° `�ø ^�h�aVíFj dobjck b)a'a o�p q v�w�x�¨ p ��i} �:ÿ �� x�¨ p �� p �¿Ï Ó uj tverb ^ h�aVí j dobjck b)a'a k�l)�@�^° `�ø ^ `�aVí j subjekVn�°Ö o�p q üý�Yv�þ��<} �$ÿ p �M�V�-� Ó u

j#j subjekVn7°)Ö/^�_�`�a ÿ tverb ^.h�aVíFj dobjck b)a'a1Ó k#�O°Vl)�@�`° `'ø o�p�q î ¨�v�þ��*} �Çÿp � Ó u

j#j subjekVn�°Ö.^ _R`�a ÿ tverb ^ h�aVí j dobjck b)a'aVÓ k#��°!n�n o0p q w�¨M�@�Mv�þ��<} |#ÿ � ¨M�C�-�#yR¨ �� x�¨ p � Ó uj#j dobjck b)a'a ^�_Rh�a ÿ j subjekVn�°Ö�^�_R`�a tverbÓ k1��°!n�n o0p q w�¨M�C�Mv�þ��} �Çÿ��-�M�

p � Ó uj#j subjekVn�°Ö.^ _R`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^ _�h�a tverbÓ k1��°!n�n o0p q w�¨M�C�Mv�þ»³<} �Çÿ��-�M�

p � Ó uj#j subjekVn�°Ö/^�_�`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_�h�a tverbÓ k f9ø�d o�p q ü z��'¨Cx��x p � ¨M�@�Huj subjekVn�°Ö/^�_�`�a ÿ j dobjck b)a'a ^�_�h�a tverbÓ o�¤>¥ f9ø�d p q

¤9¥M¦ u

We do not definehereany packagesthat allow for mixed or free word order

of elements that arenot properly marked for case.If onewereto observe sucha

language,then theMxVO andFreeVO packagescanbeextendedto MxVOnc and

FreeVOnc by simply leaving off the casefeatures,analagously to the derivation

of MxOVnc andFreeOVnc from MxOV andFreeOV.

4.3.4 SVO PACKAGES

In the current section we definea number of packagesthat describe word order

behavior which might beavailableto a languagethat is SVO at oneclause level or

another. Figure4.4 givesa concise overview of the packagesandtheir interrela-

tions.

Thepackagesarebasedontheassumptionthatthelexiconassignsabasicword

orderasshown in (219).

(219) É ¬ ´åq� ± É�É ² 2°)±!Â Ù0Ï Ñ£±!Â ÁÇÏ�ÏBeforewegoanddefinethepackages,weshould first considerwhat“the struc-

ture” of SVO is - or, at least, whatview weadhereto here. For example,Figure4.5

illustratesthepossible waysin which wecanconceive of the(initial, or canonical)

structuring of SVO clauses.


Free SVO

&

Free SVO (nc)

V2-position

Wackernagel Position Mixed SVO

Rigid SVO

Figure4.4: Architectureof SVO packages

TheRigid SVO picture shows just thebasicword orderasin (219). A slightly

morecomplex situationarises whenwe addtheWackernagelposition to this con-

figuration. Following FGD,we characterizetheWackernagelposition asto be-in

general- theposition right afterthefirst dependent.15

More interesting situationsarise in the caseof verb secondness, either with

rigid or mixed SVO word order. A languagethat hasa verb second SVO word

order alsohasa verbfinal cluster. This splits thestructureup into severaldomains

or “fields”: the domainbefore the second (Wackernagel)position, the verb-final

cluster, andthedomainbetweenthecluster andthesecond position. In Germanic

linguistics,thesedifferent domainsareusually calledtheVorfeld, theNachfeld, and

theMittelfeld respectively.

Languagesthat are verb second SVO are most often mixed word order lan-

guages,like Dutchor German(with Swedishanexception wenotedin Chapter3).

Thus,becausewordordercanbemixed,wegetacommunication betweentheVor-

15Datafrom for exampleCzechshows quite obviously that it is not thefirst constituent, or eventhe first phrase. A phrase-structuregrammardoesnot lend itself to a satisfactorydefinition of theWackernagel position,in otherwords.Sgall(p.c.) notesthat,in a moredetailedway, theview FGDis asfollows: The Wackernagel position is (prototypically, if not always), (i) the surfacepositiondirectly following after the positionof the first item in the uppersubtreeif the surfaceword ordercorresponds to the underlying positionsof the subtree;(ii) if one of the deeper embeddeditemsis shifted to the left (as in Czech “Jirku jsmeplanovali poslatdo Francii”) then the Wackernagelpositionis aftertheheadof theshiftedsubtree(“jsme”); (iii) someothershiftsmaybenecessarytospecifyotherpossibilities.


Rigid SVO

Rigid SVO, Wackernagel

V2-SVO, Wackernagel, VFinal

Mixed V2-SVO, Wackernagel, VFinal

Free SVO, Wackernagel

Subject Verb Object

Subject

Subject

Subject

Subject

Object

Object

Object

Wack

Wack V2

V2

Wack Verb Object

Vfinal

Vfinal

Figure4.5: Structuring of SVO word order

feld andtheMittelfeld. Verbaldependents within theMittelfeld canbescrambled,

and can be ‘exchanged’ with the dependent in the Vorfeld (as verb secondness

needsto be maintained). If a languageis free but still does distinguish a Wack-

ernagel position, we get the moregeneral situation that dependents canbe either

placedin thedomainbeforetheWackernagelposition or after it - just aslong the

Wackernagelposition is indeed in its right place.

Definition 26 (Wackernagel Position, SVO.Wack). TheWack package defines

structural rulesthatcharacterizetheWackernagel position. Weconsider theWack-

ernagel position to be-in general- thepositionafter thefirst dependent.Thestruc-

tural rulesgivenin (220) implement that viewpoint, immediately for the rigi d ( æ )andmixed( ç ) cases. Thefree( è ) word order casesare defined in (230)on page

150,in thedefinition of theFreeSVO package.

146é A formal model of wordorder asstructural indication of informativity

(220)

ê�ëíì�îIï,ðfñ�ò�ì¸ó ðô�õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ë�ì�îIï,ðfñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ìAó ðô�õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�� ö � � ñ�� !ö��ê�ëíìÉîIï,ð/ñ�ò�ì��]ðô õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ë�ì�îIï,ðfñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ì��]ðô õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�� ö � � ñ�� !ö��ê�ë�ìÉîIï,ð/ñ�ò�ì�î ù�� õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ë�ì�îIï,ðfñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì�î ù�� õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�� ö � � ñ�� !ö��

ê�ëíì�îIï$ð/ñ�ò ì î�� ó õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ë�ì�îIï,ðfñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ì î!�"� ó õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�� ö � � ñ�� !ö��ê�ëíì�î ó ð/ñ�ò ì ï$ðô õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ë�ì�î ó ðfñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ðcú ì ï$ðô õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�# ö � � ñ�� %$&�!ö��ê�ëíì î ó ð ñ�ò�ì �]ðô õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ë�ì î ó ð ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ðcú ì �]ðô õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�# ö � � ñ�� %$&�!ö��ê�ëíì î!�]ð ñ�ò ì ï$ðô õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ë�ì î!�]ð ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì ï$ðô õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�# ö � � ñ�� %'(�!ö��ê�ëíì�î��eðfñ�ò�ì¸ó ðô�õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ë�ì�î!�]ð/ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì¸ó ðô�õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�# ö � � ñ�� %'(�!ö��

ê�ëíì î ó ð ñ�ò�ì�î ù�� õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ë�ì î ó ð ñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ðcú ì�î ù��)� õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�# ö � � ñ�� %$&�!ö��ê�ëíì î ó ð ñ�ò ì î�� ó õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ë�ì î ó ð ñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ðcú ì î�� ó õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�# ö � � ñ�� %$&�!ö��ê�ë�ì î��eð ñ�ò�ì î ù�� õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ë�ì î!�]ð ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î ù��)� õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�# ö � � ñ�� %'(�!ö��ê�ë�ì î!�]ð ñ�ò ì�î�� ó õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ë�ì î!�]ð ñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ìÉî�� ó õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�# ö � � ñ�� %'(�!ö��

ê�ê�ë ÷+*�,�- ù ó ì ï,ðô ñ�ò�ì¸ó ðô�õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ê�ë ÷+*�,.- ù ó ì ï,ð)ô ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ìKó ðô�õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ0/ ö � � ñ�� !� ��'ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ *�,�- ù ó ìKï,ðôqñ�ò�ì¸ó ðô�õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ê�ë ÷ *�,.- ù ó ìAï,ð)ôAñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ìKó ðô�õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ0/ ö � � ñ�� !� ��'ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ *�,�- ù ó ìAó ð)ô ñ�ò ìnï$ðô õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ê�ë ÷ *�,.- ù ó ì¸ó ðô ñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ìKï,ðô õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ0/ ö � � ñ�� !��$&�'ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ *�,.- ù ó ìAó ðô ñ�ò�ì��]ðô õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ê�ë ÷ *�,.- ù ó ì¸ó ðô ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì��eð)ô õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ0/ ö � � ñ�� !��$&�'ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ *�,�- ù ó ì1�eð)ôAñ�ò ìnï$ðô õ½ö�÷cø�ù ð�úÔû ê�ë ÷ *�,.- ù ó ì1�]ðô¸ñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ðcú ìKï,ðô õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ0/ ö � � ñ�� !��'(�'ö��ê�ê�ë ÷+*�,.- ù ó ì �]ðô ñ�ò�ì ó ðô õ½ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú û ê�ë ÷+*�,.- ù ó ì �]ðô ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ðcú ì ó ð)ô õ½ö ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ0/ ö � � ñ�� !��'(�'ö��

2

Remark 24 (Explanation of the SVO.Wack package). The Wack packagede-

finesa “generalpurpose”setof structural rulesthatcanbeused in any word order

setting. Thepackageassuchdoesnot defineanyordering. All its structural rules

do is definewhattheWackernagelposition is in varioussettings,with “definition”

meaning thata a 35476&8 featurecanonly bepercolated to a higher level if andonly

if the elementoriginally labeled with that feature is in the right position (i.e. the

Wackernagelposition).

The Wack packageserves as the foundation for various, more specific ac-

counts. Below we detail out theV2nd packages,which extend theWack package

to modelverbsecondness.2

Definition 27(Verb-second position, SVO.Wack.V2nd). TheV2nd package is a

simpleextension to theWack package, to defineverbsecondnessin (rigid/mixed)

SVO languages. TheV2nd package comprisesthestructural rulesgiven in (221).

(221)

9�:<;>=@?(ACBD90:�;�E.F G HJILK%MONQP5N�RTSVU�WYX�Z90:�;�E.F[BD90:�;�\Y].^%_ G SVU�WYX�N%Ra`JI�b)cLZ

:edgfih Ôj 90k5;�\Y].^%_Tdgf =Tl�m�npo Bq:�dgfih ^�j 90k5;�E.Fadgf =Tl mrnpo G stSvu5w `JI�b)ciwxSVU�WYXzy{w | j(} U!~ �gI�b)c o Z:�d fih ^ j 9�kv;>\Y].^%_Td f ]��OA npo Bq:�d fih ^ j 90k5;�E.Fad f ]��OA npo G stSvu5w `JI�b)ciwxSVU�WYXzy{w | j(} U!~ �gI�b)c o Z:�d f�h ^ j 9�kv;�\Y])^%_ad m�^ � npo Bq:�d fih ^ j 90k5;�E.�O��].mTd m�^ � npo G stSvu5w `JI�b)ciwxSVU�WYXzy{w | j(}!�{� I�X7~>�gI�b)c o Z


Becausea requirementfor verbsecondnessis almostinvariably accompanied

bya requirementfor certain verbsto beverbfinal, thefollowing rules fromVFinal

should becombinedwith (221) to account for that, andoneof the *Dep packages

to determinetheorder in theverbfinal cluster.

(222)

:�dgf m�^ 9�kv;�E.�r��]��YB�:edgf m�^ 90k5;�E.�O��].m G SC��N+WYI�|0y�w | j0}��7� I�X{~ }�� N+WYI�| o Z:�dgf ��^ 9�kv;�E.�r��]��YB�:edgf ��^ 90kv;>E.�O��].m G SC��N+WYI�|0y�w | j0}��7� I�X{~ }�� N+WYI�| o Z90:�d f m�^ kv;>E.��]��B�:ed f m�^ 90k5;�E.�r��z]�� G SC��N+WYI�|��w � j0}�� N+WYI�|�~��Xzb o Z9�:�d f ��^ kv;>E.��]��B�:ed f ��^ 90kv;>E.�r��]�� G SC��N+WYI�|��w � j0}�� N+WYI�|�~��N+b o Z2Remark 25 (Explanation of the V2nd package). TheV2nd packageis, assaid,

a simple extension to theWack package. Becausethelatter alreadythe important

aspect of defining the“verbsecond” or Wackernagelposition, all theV2nd package

doesis specifying what should appear in that position for that element(and the

clause) to be verb second. Particularly, a clause is verb second if it either has

the verbalheadin the second position (rule ��L�t�{�i� ��¡Q¢i£¥¤�4¦�Y§�35476&8Y¨ ), or if it has

the(modal) auxiliary in thatposition ( �©�L�t�{�i� ��¡Q¢¦�¦§�35476&8Y¨ ). In the latter case, the

verbalheaditself is then -mostly- requiredto bein verbfinal position.

To illustratetheV2nd package,considerfirst theDutchsentencein (223), with

theformal lexical entriesasgivenin (224).

(223) Dutch


wilwants

boekenbooks

lezen.to read

“Christopher wantsto readbooks.”

(224) Lexicon:

christopher ªY«@¬&�®%¯%�boeken ª"« ¬.°�)¯ �wil ªY« ¬�±)² ¡�¡�« ¬ )®%¯%�@³{´"µ ®�¶L¨�· Ý¸�¹�º « ¬ ±�»&¼�½ )¾ ¡�« ¬ �®%¯%�@³{´"µ ®�¶¿��Ôèt¨�¨lezen ª¥«a¬&±)À�Á )º ¡�«[¬)°�)¯%�@³ ´¥º.® ¡�«g¬&�®%¯%�@³{´"µ ®�¶¿��Ôèt¨�¨

Observe that themodalauxiliary “wil” imposestwo requirements. First of all,

it needs the infinite (andany of its arguments) to form a verb final structure,due

to the Â ¬ ±�»O¼�½ �¾ . Secondly, it statesthat it hasto appear itself in the verb second

position, Â ¬&±)² . Becausewe give asgoal-category Â ¬ ¸g¯�Ã7Ä which thenrewrites to

Âv¬ ±)² Ä (verb-secondmatrix clause),all theserequirementshave to be met. The

derivation in (225) shows how this is done.


(225)

...christopher

ìÉîIï$ð/ñ�êwil÷�ø�ù ðcú ì î!� � óOñ

boekenì î ó ð

lezenö�ö¥Åv� ü ýrþ�ÿ�� !� þ<Æ.Ç�$�� È ñ�É Æ�� Eö��

êchristopher

ìÔî�ï,ð�ñwil

ì î!� � ó<ñboeken

ì î ó ðlezen

ö�ö�÷ ø�ù ð�ú Åv� ü ýrþ�ÿ�� ñ�� ö � � ñ�� !ö��êchristopher

ì î�ï,ð ñwil

ì�î!�"� ó ñboeken

ìnî ó ðlezen

ö�ö�÷Q*�Ê@Å5� ü þ<Æ.Ç�$a'��&�êchristopher

ìÉî�ï,ð/ñwil

ì î!� � óOñboeken

ì î ó ðlezen

ö�ö�÷ �1Ë �[Å5� ü ÌÍ�&Î � '(Ï�'��AþgÆ)Ç�$O�christopher

ìnîIï,ð/ñwil

ì î�� óEñboeken

ì î ó ðlezen

ö�öYÅÑÐ¥Ò �1Ë � � ü Ð Ò�Ó �

2Definition 28 (SVO mixed word order, SVO.MxSVO). The MxSVO package

modelsmixedword order in SVO languages. The structural rules are given in

(226).

(226)

ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ìÉî ù��)� ñ�ë�ìÉîIï$ð õ½ö û ëíì�î�ï,ð/ñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ðcú ìÉî ù��)� õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ�Ô�� #�ñ ��Õ�Ï5ö��ê�ò ÷cø�ù ðcú ì î!� � óOñ�ë�ìÉîIï$ð õ½ö û ëíì�î�ï,ð/ñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ðcú ì î!� � ó õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ�Ô�� #�ñ �� #5Ö $<ö��ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î ù�� ñ�ë�ìÉî ó ð õ½ö û ëíì�î ó ðfñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î ù�� õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ�Ô�� #�ñ $&��Õ�Ï5ö��ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î�� óOñ�ë�ì î ó ð!õ½ö û ëíì î ó ð ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î!�"� ó õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ�Ô�� #�ñ $&�� #vÖ $<ö��ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î ù�� ñ�ë�ì î!�]ð õ½ö û ëíì î��eð ñ�ê�ò ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î ù�� õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ�Ô�� #�ñ '(��Õ�Ï5ö��ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ì î�� óOñ�ë�ìÉî!�]ð õ½ö û ëíì�î��eðfñ�ê�ò ÷cø�ù ð�ú ì î!�"� ó õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ�Ô�� #�ñ '(�� #5Ö $<ö��ò�ì î ó ð ñ�ê�ë ÷cø�ù ðcú ìÉî ù��)� õ½ö û ê�ë ÷cø�ù ð�ú ì�î ù�� ñ�ò�ì î ó ð�õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ[Æ&� #�ñ ��Õ�Ï¦�%$&�!ö��ò�ì�î!�]ðfñ�ê�ë ÷cø�ù ðcú ìÉî ù��)� õ½ö û ê�ë ÷cø�ù ð�ú ì�î ù�� ñ�ò�ìÉî!�]ð õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ[Æ&� #�ñ ��Õ�Ï¦�%'(�'ö��ò�ì î ó ð ñ�ê�ë ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î!�"� ó õ½ö û ê�ë ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î�� ó<ñ�ò�ì î ó ð!õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ[Æ&� #�ñ�#5Ö $��%$&�'ö��ò ì î��eð ñ�ê�ë ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ìÉî!�"� ó õ½ö û ê�ë ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì�î�� ó ñ�ò�ì î!�]ð õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿ[Æ&� #�ñ�#5Ö $��%'(�'ö��

ò�ì î ó ð ñ�ë�ì îIï$ð õ½ö û ëíì î�ï,ð ñ�ò ì î ó ð!õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿT×�� #�ñ ��$&�'ö��ò�ìÉî�ï,ðfñ�ë�ìÉî!�]ð õ½ö û ëíì�î��eðfñ�ò�ìÉîIï$ð õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿT×�� #�ñ ��'(�'ö��ò�ìÉî��eðfñ�ë�ìÉîIï$ð õ½ö û ëíì�î�ï,ð/ñ�ò ì�î!�]ð õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿT×�� #�ñ ��'(�'ö��ò�ìÉî!�]ðfñ�ë�ì î ó ð!õ½ö û ëíì î ó ð ñ�ò�ì�î!�]ð õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿT×�� #�ñ $&��'(�'ö��ò�ì î ó ð ñ�ë�ìÉî!�]ð õ½ö û ëíì�î��eðfñ�ò�ì î ó ð�õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿT×�� #�ñ '(��$&�'ö��õ ì�î ó ð/ñ�ò ì ï$ðô ë ö û ëíì î�ï,ð ñ�ò ì ó ð)ô õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿaØ� #�ñ ��$&�'ö��õ ì î!�]ð ñ�ò ì ï$ðô ë ö û ëíì î�ï,ð ñ�ò ì �eð)ô õ½ö ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿaØ� #�ñ ��'(�'ö��ñ�ëíì �eð)ô õ½ö ìAó ð)ô ò û ñ�ëíì¸ó ðô ò ö ì �]ðô õ ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿaØ� #�ñ '(��$&�'ö��ñ�ëíìKï,ð)ô õ½ö ìAó ð)ô ò û ñ�ëíì¸ó ðô ò ö ìKï,ð)ô õ ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿaØ� #�ñ ��$&�'ö��ñ�ëíìKï,ð)ô õ½ö ì1�]ðôxò û ñ�ëíì1�]ðô�ò ö ìKï,ð)ô õ ü Ì�Ï5ýrþ�ÿaØ� #�ñ ��'(�'ö��

Remark 26 (Explanation of the MxSVO package). Thereareseveral observa-

tions we should make about thestructural rulesin (226). First of all, thepackage

hasbeen designedsuch that it relieson theWack packageto bepresent.Although

thecontraint that Ù should bemarked with 3v4¦6O8 could berelaxed,thereis a lin-

guistic reason why wemodeled MxSVO with thisconstraint. Thisreason is simple:

It follows from the definition of what it meansto be mixed SVO, (Steele, 1978).

In general,it tendsto hold thatmixedSVO languages have a requirementfor verb

secondness - witnessDutchandGerman.Towardstheendof rigid SVO languages


wehave for exampleEnglish, whichdoesnothavesucharequirement,andneither

doesa freeSVO languagelike Czech.

Secondly, we obtain a communication betweentheVorfeld andtheMittelfeld

in the following way. The MxSVO1.* “temporarily move aside”, as it were, to

allow the dependentfrom the Vorfeld to combine with the dependent(s) from the

Mittelfeld. TheMxSVO3.* enable any orderingof thedependents to obtain, after

which the MxSVO2.* rulesmove a dependent from the Mittelfeld back into the

Vorfeld. The latter stephas to bemade,becauseotherwise we would have an el-

ementthat requiresto be in the Wackernagelposition, but is not. And the stepis

made,if wehaveagoalcategory Â ¬ ¸g¯�Ã7Ä , becausethewack featureonly distributes

if thesuchmarkedelementis indeed in theright position (rulesSVO.Wack0(m).*).

To illustratetheMxSVO package,considertheDutchexamplesin (227). These

areall valid variations,amongother possible ones. An analysisfor (227b) is given

below, in (228).

(227) Dutch

a. ChristopherChristopher

wilwants

boekenbooks

aanto

KathyKathy

voorlezen.to read

“Christopherwantsto readbooks to Kathy.”

b. Boekenwil ChristopheraanKathy voorlezen.

c. Christopherwil aanKathy boekenvoorlezen.

(228)

.

.

.

christopherÚ¦ÛzÜ�Ý�Þ�ß wil à�á�â Ý�ã Ú Ûä¥å+æ Þ boekenÚ Ûzæ�Ý Þ�Þ aan Ú¦Û&ç�è+é(ç kathyê�Ú Ûë�Ý voorlezenê�ê�êì ïîí ïð7ñ¥ò ó ùðcú ò ð7ô+õ ó ö ò ÷ Þ * ô ø ø�ù ðcú ê�ù

ß wil à�áLâ Ý0ã Ú Ûä¥å+æ Þ christopherÚ ÛzÜQÝ Þ boekenÚ Ûzæ�Ý Þ�Þ aan Ú Û&ç�è+é(ç kathyê�Ú Ûë�Ý voorlezenê�ê�êì ïîí ú � ï�ð¦ñ¥û%ò� Þ ï,ð ø � � ó ê�ù

ß wil à�áLâ Ý0ã Ú Ûä¥å+æ Þ boekenÚ Ûzæ�Ý Þ christopherÚiÛzÜQÝ�Þ�Þ aan Ú¦Û&ç�è+é(ç kathyê�Ú Ûë�Ý voorlezenê�ê�êì ïîí ú � ï�ð¦ñ¦ü�ò� Þ ï,ð ø ó ð ê�ù

boekenÚ Ûzæ�Ý Þ�ß wil à�áLâ Ý0ã Ú Ûä"åQæ Þ christopherÚ ÛzÜQÝ Þ�Þ aan Ú Û&ç�è+é(ç kathyê�Ú Ûë�Ý voorlezenê�ê�êì ï í ú � ï�ð¦ñiô ò� Þ � � ó ø ó ð ê�ù

ß boekenÚ Ûzæ�Ý Þ wil Ú Ûä¥å+æ Þ christopherÚiÛzÜQÝ�Þ�Þ aan Ú¦Û&ç è%é�ç kathyê�Ú Ûë�Ý voorlezenê�ê�ê�à�á�â Ý�ã ì ïýí ïð7ñ¥ò ó ùðcú ö Þ þ>ê ò ÿ Þ ø�ù ðcú ø ó ð ê�ù

ß boekenÚ Ûzæ�Ý Þ wil Ú Ûä¥å+æ Þ christopherÚ ÛzÜ�Ý Þ�Þ aan Ú Û&ç è%é�ç kathyêOÚ Ûë�Ý voorlezenê�ê�ê�à�� ì ï í ðiô+õ ó �eï ó ù ð�ú ùß boekenÚ Ûzæ�Ý Þ wil Ú Ûä"åQæ Þ christopherÚ ÛzÜQÝ Þ�Þ aan Ú Û&ç è%é(ç kathyê�Ú Ûë�Ý voorlezenê�ê�ê�à ä�� ì ï í ú ù

Ë þ � � �eï ð�ô+õ ó ùboekenÚ Ûzæ�Ý Þ wil Ú Ûä¥å+æ Þ christopherÚiÛzÜQÝ�Þ�Þ aan Ú¦Û&ç è%é�ç kathyêrÚ Ûë�Ý voorlezenê�ê�êì �� ä�� ï í � � ù

2

Definition 29 (SVO fr ee word order, SVO.FreeSVO). TheFreeSVO package

defines freeword order for SVO languages.It canbeusedin conjunction with the

MxSVO package, andconsistsof thestructural rulesgivenin (229). Theextension

to theWack package, to dealwith full freeword order, is givenbelow in (230).


(229)

ê�ë ÷ � Ë � û ê�ë ÷cø�ù ð�ú ü Ì��Î � '(Ï Ö�� &�ê�ë ÷ � Ë � û ê�ë ÷�� þ -+- ü Ì��Î � '(Ïg'�� /L�� ê�ò ÷ *�,�- ù ó ì � � ó ô ñ�ê�ë ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ìAï,ð)ô õ½ö û ê�ë ÷ ø�ù ð�ú ì î�� ó<ñ�ê�ò ÷ *�,�- ù ó ìAï,ð)ô õ½ö ü � �� ýrþ½ÿ�Ôr� #Ëñ�É�� $�� #vÖ $<ö��

ê�ò ÷ *�,�- ù ó ì ù�� ô¶ñ�ê�ë ÷cø�ù ð�ú ìAï,ð)ô õ½ö û ê�ë ÷cø�ù ð�ú ì�î ù�� ñ�ê�ò ÷ *�,�- ù ó ìAï$ðô õ½ö ü � �� ýrþ½ÿ�Ôr� #Ëñ�É�� $��%��Õ�ÏIö��ñ�ê�ò ÷+*�,�- ù ó ì ï$ðô ë ö ì ó ð)ô õ û ëíì î�ï,ð ñ�ê�ò ÷+*�,�- ù ó ì ó ðô õ½ö ü � �� ýrþ½ÿ�Ôr� #Ëñ�É�� $��>��!ö��

ñ�ëíìAó ðô�õ½ö ì ï$ðô ò û ñ�ëíì ï,ð)ô ò ö ìAó ð)ôxõ ü � �� ýrþ½ÿ�Ôr� #Ëñ $&�)� ��'ö��ë�ì îIï,ð ñ õ ì î ó ð ê�ò ÷ *�,�- ù ó ö û ëíì î�ï,ð ñ�ê�ò ÷ *�,�- ù ó ìAó ðô�õ½ö ü � �� ýrþ½ÿ�Ôr� #Ëñ�É�� $��%$&�!ö��

(230)

9 90:�;�E.�O��].mTd =Tl m�� j k dah ^ � npo ;>��@B 90:�;�E.�O��].mTd =Tl�m�� j 90k5;�\Y].^%_[dah ^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c9>9�:<;�E.�O��])mad =Tl�m�� j k d m�^ �"npo ;>��@B 90:�;�E.�O��].mTd =Tl�m�� j 90k5;�\Y].^%_[d m�^ �"npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c9>9�:<;>E.�r�>].mTd =al�m�� j k d ��^ � npo ;>��@B 90:�;�E.�O��].mTd =Tl�m�� j 90k5;�\Y].^%_[d ��^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c9>9�:<;>E.�r�>].mTd ]��OA�� j k d h ^ � npo ;>��@B 90:�;�E.�O��].mTd ]��OA� j 9�kv;>\Y].^%_Td h ^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c9 90:�;�E.�O��].mTd ]��OA� j k d m�^ � npo ;>��@B 90:�;�E.�O��].mTd ]��OA� j 9�kv;>\Y].^%_Td m�^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c9>90:�; E.�O��].m d ]��OA�@j k d ��^ � npo ; �� B 90:�; E.�O��].m d ]��OA�@j 9�kv; \Y].^%_ d ��^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c90:�dgf�h ^rj k d m�^ �"npo ;>��@B�:�dgf�h ^rj 90k5;�\Y].^%_Td m�^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c90:�dgfih ^rj k d ��^ � npo ;>��@B�:�dgf�h ^rj 90k5;�\Y].^%_Td ��^ �1npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c90:�d f m�^ j k d h ^ � npo ;>��@B�:�d f m�^ j 90kv;>\Y].^%_[d h ^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c9�:�d f m�^ j k d ��^ � npo ;>��@B�:�d f m�^ j 90kv;>\Y].^%_[d ��^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c90:�d f ��^ j k d h ^ � npo ;>��@B�:�d f ��^ j 9�kv;>\Y].^%_[d h ^ � npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c9�:�dgf ��^rj k d m�^ �"npo ;>��@B�:�dgf ��^rj 9�kv;>\Y].^%_[d m�^ �"npo G s SVu5wx`JILb�c!y jQ��o w � j �<ILb�c90:�; �� B 90:�; E.�O��].m G ��M �O� stSVu5w | j0}��7� I�X{~ � M �O�90:�d h ^ � kv;>�� B 90:�;>��tdah ^ � k G ��M �O� stSVu5w � jQ� M �r� ~�R�b o Z90:�d m�^ � kv;>�� B 90:�;>��td m�^ � k G ��M �O� stSVu5w � jQ� M �r� ~�Xzb o Z90:�d ��^ � kv;>�� B 90:�;>��td ��^ � k G ��M �O� stSVu5w � jQ� M �r� ~ N+b o Z90:�d fih ^ kv;>�� B�:�d f�h ^ 90kv; �� G ��M �O� stSVu5w � jQ� M �r� ~�R�b o Z90:�dgf m�^ kv;>�� B�:�dgf m�^ 9�kv;>�� G ��M �O� stSVu5w � jQ� M �r� ~�Xzb o Z90:�dgf ��^ kv; �� B�:�dgf ��^ 90k5; �� G ��M �O� stSVu5w � jQ� M �r� ~ N+b o Z2Remark 27(Explanation of the FreeSVO package).TheFreeSVO packageex-

tends theMxSVO package,essentially by allowing theverbal headto occurin any

position aswell. Webriefly definetheinteraction with any elementsrequiring to be

placedin theWackernagel position,with themajorityof thecontrol structural rules

being placed in theWack package,(230). Although thenumber of rules in (230)

mayseemrather large, thereader should notethat these areexplicit instantiations

of only a handful of rule schemata- three, to beprecise. With theFreeSVO pack-

age,we obtain completely freeword orderwithin thedomainof a verbalhead, as

illustratedin thederivationsin (231). Languagesthatdisplay such behavior arefor

exampleCzechandRussian,at least in simplecases. I discussedaniniti al proposal

for dealing with a morecomplex caselike Czechclitics in (Kruijf f, 1999a).


(231) a.

subjÅÑÐ¥Ò ù ð+Ë Ç

verbÅÑÐ Ò *�,�- ù óOñ�ñ Ð Ò ù ð+Ë Ç�� îIï,ð �0ö�� ó ðô¥Ð Ò ÿ ù Ë Ç�öê

verb÷ *�,�- ù ó Å ñ Ð"Ò ù ð+Ë Ç�� îIï$ð �0ö�� ó ðô¥Ð"Ò ÿ ù Ë Ç

üxÐ"Ò��a�dobj

Å Ð"Ò ÿ ù Ë Çêverb

÷ *�,�- ù ó ìKó ðôdobj

Å Ð"Ò ù ðQË Ç�� î�ï,ð � ü ��a�subj

ì îIï,ð ñ�êverb

÷Q*�,�- ù ó ì ó ð)ôdobj

ö¥Åv� ü ��a�ñ�ê

verb÷ *�,�- ù ó ìKï,ðô

subjö ì¸ó ð)ô

dobjÅv� ü � �� ýrþ¡ÿ�Ôr� #Ëñ�É�� $��>��!ö��

ñ�êverb

÷ � þ -+- ìKï,ðô subjö ìqó ð)ô

dobjÅv� ü � �� ýrþ¡ÿ�� È ñ�É�� $�� /L�� ö��

êverb

ì ï,ðôsubj

÷ � þ -Q- ì ó ð)ô dobjÅ5� ü � �� ýrþ½ÿ�� ñ0/L�� >��'ö��

ê�ñverb

ì ï,ðôsubj

ö ì¸ó ðôdobj

÷ � þ -+- Åv� ü � �� ýrþ½ÿ�� ñ0/L�� %$&�!ö��ê�ñ

verbì¸ï$ðô

subjö ì¸ó ðô

dobj÷ �1Ë �[Å5� ü Ì��Î � '(Ïg'�� /L��

ñverb

ì ï,ðôsubj

ö ìAó ðôdobj

Å Ð Ò �1Ë � � üxÐ Ò Ó �

b.

...��Õ �� ìÉî�ï,ðfñ�ê�É� .�� ÷ *�,�- ù ó ìKó ðô7$ Ö�� öYÅ �$ Ö��! �ìÉî ó ðfñ�ê�É� .�� ÷+*�,�- ù ó ì ï$ðô ��Õ �� öYÅ � ÌÍÏ5ýrþ¡ÿaØz� #Ëñ ��)��$&�'ö$ Ö��! Éì î ó ð ñ�ê�É� .�� ÷ � þ -+- ì ï$ðô ��Õ �� ö¥Å5� þ �� $ '�� /L�� $ Ö��! Éì î ó ð ê�ñ�É� .��rìAï,ð)ô ��Õ �! ö�÷�� þ -Q- Å5� � �� ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ0/L�� >��'öê $ Ö��! Éì î ó ð ñ�É� ��¶ìAï,ð)ô ��Õ �! ö�÷ � þ -Q- Å5� � �� ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ0/L�� %$&�'öê $ Ö��! �ì î ó ð ñ�É� .��¶ìAï,ð)ô ��Õ �! ö�÷ �1Ë �gÅ5� Ì�ÎQÏ�'�� /L�� $ Ö�� Éì î ó ð ñ�É� ��¶ìAï,ðô ��Õ �� ö¥Å#" Ò �1Ë � � Ó " Ò

c.

...��Õ �� ì î�ï,ð ñ�ê�É� .�� ÷+*�,�- ù ó ìKó ðô7$ Ö�� öYÅ ��Õ �� ìÉî�ï,ðfñ $ Ö��! �ì î ó ð ê�É� .�� ÷ *�,�- ù ó öYÅ � � �� ýrþ¡ÿ�� #�ñ�É�� $��+$&�'ö��Õ �� Ôì�î�ï,ðfñ $ Ö��! Éì î ó ð ê�É� .�� ÷�� þ -+- öYÅ5� þ �� $ '�� /L�� $ Ö��! Éì î ó ð ñ ��Õ �� Ôì î�ï,ð ê�É� .�� ÷ � þ -+-öYÅ5� ÌÍÏ5ýrþ¡ÿT×� #Ëñ ��)��$&�'ö$ Ö��! Éì î ó ð ê�ñ ��Õ �� ÔìÉîIï,ð>É� �� ö�÷�� þ -+- Å5� � �� ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ0/L�� >��'öê $ Ö��! Éì î ó ð ñ ��Õ �� ÉìÉîIï,ð>É� �� ö�÷�� þ -+- Å5� � �� ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ0/L�� %$&�'öê $ Ö��! �ì î ó ð ñ ��Õ �� ì î�ï,ð É� .�� ö�÷ � Ë � Å5� Ì�ÎQÏ�'�� /L�� $ Ö�� Éì î ó ð ñ ��Õ �! �ìÉîIï$ð�É� �� ö�Å#"aÒ �1Ë � � Ó "aÒ

4.4 MODELING THE STRATEGIES

The hypotheseswe formulated in Chapter3 are bestviewed as indicating how

strategies like word order or tunerealize acategory of informativity in aparticular

setting. In this section, we work out the structural rules defining thesestrategies

in more detail. Thesestructural rules extend the basic grammararchitectures I

developedin theprevioussection.

Theapproachto modeling theword order-basedstrategiesto realize informa-

tion structureis asfollows. We already discussedearlier therelation between con-

textual boundnessandthePraguianconception of systemicordering: wordgroups

realizing thecontextually nonbound dependentsof thefocusappear in canonical or


systemicordering. Thereis no suchconstraint on wordgroupsrealizing contextu-

ally bounddependents,whoseorderingis ratherdependent on theunderlying scale

of communicative dynamism. We alsoobserved the important role that systemic

ordering playsin focus projection.

Therefore, the first stepwe take is to rewrite the grammatical modes ¶6 , �{6 ,etc. into modesthat indicate whether or not the dependents are realized in sys-

temicordering. We introduceheadedmodes¶%$ (systemically ordered)and � ¶ (not

systemicallyordered) to indicatethis. Thenew ¶&$!·z� ¶ -structureabstractsnot only

from theparticular grammatical structure,but also–moreimportantly– from a lan-

guage’s specific systemic ordering.16 This enables to formulate a more general

account of word order asa structural indication of informativity. Oncewe have

a structure indicating the (non-)systemic ordering of dependents, we follow the

informativity hypotheses of Chapter3 to determine contextual boundnessof the

individual wordgroups.

Thestructuralrulesmodeling wordorder strategiesto realizeinformationstruc-

turecontrol themorebasic word orderrulesasfollows. Thegoalcategory we try

to prove states that the (verbal) headof the construction hasto have a specific

informativity, e.g. Â�¬O½�' . The structural rules definehow the contextual bound-

nessof the verbal headinfluences further possible distributions of contextually

bound/contextually nonbound valuesover thedependents. Whetherthese distribu-

tionsarethenderivablefrom thecanonical wordorder dependson thepossibilities

to vary word order.

Besidesbeing anatural wayto go in adependency grammar,definingthemod-

els in termsof systemic ordering ratherthanspecificgrammatical structuresnot

only yieldsa moregeneral perspective – it alsoprovidesfor a smoothintegration

with modelsof tuneasastructural indicationof informativity, asweshow in Chap-

ter 5.

Below we definethe fundamentalrulesfor the models, andillustratethemon

basic examplesrelating to the more linguistically oriented discussionin Chapter

2. Thedefinitionsonly elaboratea simplemapping to ¶&$�·z� ¶ -structures,andonly

consider relatively shallow structures. This is no inherent theoretical problem, as

thedefinitionscanbe(monotonically) extendedto cover morecomplex structures.

16Languagesmay show differencesin their systemicorderings;only within a single language,its systemicorderingis considered universal,(Sgall et al., 1986; Sgall et al., 1995). The mappingfrom modeslike

��,$&�

to� Ö �+Ç¦�

canbe madesensitive to a language’s specificsystemicordering.However, theresulting

� Ö �.Ç¦�-structureis independentof thatspecificsystemicordering,sinceit is

formulatedpurelyin termsof whetheror not somesystemicorderingis obeyed.


Definition 30 (Structural indications of informativity in OV). The InfOV de-

finesthebasic structural rulesfor describing structural indication of informativity

in OV languages,given INFHYP1 and INFHYP2. The InfOV monotonically ex-

tendsall theOV packages,andonly definesrulesthat specify feature information.

Thestructural rulesof InfOV are below, without anyreferenceto tune(asweonly

definetune in thenext chapter).

ê�ë�ìÉîIïQ��ñ�ò�ìÉîIïQ� õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ìÉîIï$ð/ñ�ò�ì î ó ð�õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� ý � �'ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ë�ìÉîIïQ�0ò ö ìAïQ�'ô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ë�ìÉîIï$ð�ò ö ìAó ðô�õ½÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� ý � �'ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ë�ì ïQ�'ô ò ö ì ïQ�'ô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ë�ì ï,ð)ô ò ö ì ó ðô õ½÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� ý � �'ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ëíì õ ïô ò ö ì õ ïô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ë�ì¸ó ðô ò ö ì ï,ðô õ½÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �'ÿ � $O�ê�ëíì î õ ï ñ�ò�ì î õ ï õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ì î ó ð ñ�ò�ì îIï,ð õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �'ÿ � $O�

ê�ë�ìÉîIï��ñ�ê�ò ÷ õ�)!* ìÉîIïQ� õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ìÉîIï��ñ�ê�ò ÷ � õ � ìÉîIïQ� õ½ö�÷ � Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� Ó&#5#,+a�� þ¥� õ-� + �ê�ëíìÉî õ ï�ñ�ê�ò ÷ õ�).* ì�î õ ï õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ìÉî õ ï�ñ�ê�ò ÷ � õ � ìÉî õ ï õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� Ó&#5#,+a�� þ¥� õ-� + �

ê�ñ�ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ìAïQ�'ô¸ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ìAïQ�'ô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ìAïQ�'ôqê�ò ÷ � õ ��ö ìAïQ�'ô õ½÷ � Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� þ �� Ö � Õ��ê�ñ�ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ì õ ïôqê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì õ ïô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì õ ï)ôAê�ò ÷ � õ � ö ì õ ïô õ½÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� þ �� Ö � Õ��ñ�ëíì õ ï)ô ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì õ ïô ê õ½÷ ð ) û ñ�ë�ì õ ï)ô ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì õ ïô ê õ½÷ � õ � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� þ �� Ö � Õ��

ê�ñ�ë�ì îIï�� ò ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ë�ì îIï�� ò ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ � õ � ÷ � Ë � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� +aÖ ��Î7þY� � + �ê�ë ÷ õ�).* ìÉî�ïQ��ê�ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ì�îIïQ��ê�ò ÷ � õ � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� / �@� $�� +a�)Ö0 �ê�ë ÷ õ�) ìÉîIïQ��ñ�ê�ò ÷ õ�).* ìÉî�ïQ� õ½ö û ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì�îIïQ��ñ�ê�ò ÷ õ�)!* ì�î�ïQ� õ½ö ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� 1 � � $�� +a�)Ö� �ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�î�ïQ�%ê�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì�îIïQ��ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� 2 +a�)Ö� �ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�î õ ï/ê�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì�î õ ï/ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� 2 +a�)Ö� �

ñ�ë�ì ïQ�'ô ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ ð ) û ñ�ë�ì ïQ�'ô ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ � õ � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� 2 +a�)Ö� �ê�ë ÷ õ�).* ì î�ïQ� ê�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ì îIïQ� ê�ò ÷ � õ � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� / �@� $�2 +a��Ö� �ê�ë ÷ õ�).* ì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ � õ � ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� / �@� $�2 +a��Ö� �

ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉîIïQ��ñ�ê�ò ÷ õ�).* ìÉî�ïQ� õ½ö û ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì�îIïQ��ñ�ê�ò ÷ õ�)!* ì�î�ïQ� õ½ö ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� ýrÿ ò[Ö Õ�Ç�$&� �� ñ�ë�ìÉî�ïQ��ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ìAï��0ôqê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ë�ìÉîIï��ê�ò ÷ � õ ��ö ìAïQ�'ô¸ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� ýrÿ ò[Ö Õ�Ç�$&� ��

ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî�ïQ�0ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî�ïQ��ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ � � ��3 � Ö ö��ê�ë�ìAï��0ô�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìAïQ�'ô�ò ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ � � �� Ö54 ö��ê�ë�ì ï��0ô ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�) ì ïQ�'ô ò ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ Ç � �� Ö64 ö��ê�ë�ì õ ï)ô ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�) ì õ ï)ô ò ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ Ç � �>Ç7� 4 ö��ê�ëíì õ ïô�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì õ ïôxò ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ � � � Ç7� 4 ö��

ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�î õ ï�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî õ ï�ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ � � ��3 Ç7�0ö��ê�ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî õ ï/ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ìÉî õ ï õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî õ ï�ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ìÉî õ ï/ê õ½÷ õ�).* ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ Ç ��7 ��3 Ç7�0ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ õ�).* ìÉî�ïQ�0ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ì�îIïQ��ê�ò ÷ õ�) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ Ç � ��3 � Ö ö��

ê�ê�ë ÷ ù ð,ð ÷ � õ � û ê�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ÷ ù ð,ð ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ '(Ç / �>��!ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ õ � � ÷ � õ � û ê�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ÷ õ �>� ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ '(Ç / �>Ç Ö�# ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì î�ïQ� ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì î�ïQ� ê�ò ÷ õ�) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ Ç � ��3 � Ö ö��

ê�ê�ë ÷ õ�) ìÉî�ïQ�0ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�) ìÉîIï��ê�ò ÷ õ�) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þ¥� � ñ Ç � ��3 � Ö ö��ê�ë�ì ïQ�'ô ê�ò ÷ ð ) ÷ õ�)!* û ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ì ïQ�'ô ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þY� � ñ Ç �7 �� Ö64 ö��ê�ëíì õ ïô¸ê�ò ÷ ð ) ÷ õ�)!* û ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ì õ ïô¸ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þY� � ñ Ç �7 �>Ç7� 4 ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ õ�).* ì�î õ ï�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ìÉî õ ï�ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þY� � ñ � � �3 Ç7�0ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ì�î�ïQ�'ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ õ�)!* ìÉîIïQ��ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ÿ¡þY� � ñ � � �3 � Ö ö��


2

Remark 28(Explanation of the InfOV package).To begin with, theInfOV pack-

ageaswe defineit above doesnot have explicit referenceto tune yet. Thereason

being thatwe only deal with themodeling of tunein thenext chapter. Thus,sofar

we only capturetheeffect of word order.

Thestrategy employedin theInfOV packageis ratherstraightforward.Thegoal

category should specify theinformativity of theverbal head.Technically, whatwe

dothenis thatwefirst assignthefocusproper (nb*), andsubsequently distributecb

andnb featuresasappropriate to theconstruction (word order) we have. We need

to endupwith adistribution that assignstheverbal headacontextual boundnessas

required by thegoal category.

To that end,we specify percolation rules that distribute features (the p(X,Y)

rules), and linkagerules that specify features. The ImmPreV.CFP rules realize

the focus proper in the canonical focus position, being immediately before the

verb. The PostV.FP rule covers the case of a postverbally realized focus proper,

as possible in non-rigid verb-final languageslike Sinhala(Herring and Paolillo,

1995). The VerbFocus rules cover cases observable in free OV languageslike

Turkish, Hungarian andHindi wheretheverbformsthefocusproper if thereis no

preverbally placeddependent. Oncewe have establishedthefocus proper,we can

projectthetopic (TProj) andthefocus (FProj).

Froma morelinguistic perspective, we should reada proof bottom-up. At the

bottom, we find a sentencewith given indicationsof informativity. Then,reading

upwards, we seehow the sentence’s information structure determinesits actual

word order, aswe reason how the observed word order canbe establishedon the

basis of thecanonicalword order- a view akin to thegenerative perspective taken

in FGD, cf. Sgallet al’s discussionin (1986) andPetkevic (in prep).

Example. First, let us consider various unmarked cases,wherethe focus proper

is realized in the immediately preverbalposition. The proof in (232) shows the

realizationof an“out-of-the-blue” sentence.


(232)

.

.

.ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9�Ú ÛzÜQÝ Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à ë 8�9YÚ Ûzæ�Ý ß tverbià ë 8�9)ê�à ä�� ì ïß�ß�ß subjci à 8 åQä à ë 8�9 Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9 Ú ÛzÜ�å ß tverbià ë 8�9 ê�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ï�:ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9YÚ ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå ß tverbià ë 8�9)ê�à ä>�?� ì ï�í õ � ñiðò �1�A@ þ - ðò B�C @ ù

ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9�Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜ�å ß tverbiàD8�;�ê�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò E ø þ ó C @ þ �.F ùß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à�8�;!Ú¦ÛzÜQå�Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú¦ÛzÜQå�ß tverbiàD8�;%ê�à ä��?� ì ïJí õ � ñiðò G ø þ ó C @ þ �HF ùß�ß�ß subjcià 8 å�ä à 8�; Ú ÛzÜQå ß�ß�ß dobjcià â Ý0Ý à 8�;=< Ú ÛzÜQå tverbià 8�; à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ÿ Þ õ�)%ø î�ïQ� ê�ùß�ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à�8�;�Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå tverbiê�àD8�;%à ä��?� ì ïýí õ � ñiðò ÿ Þ õ�)%ø

î�ïQ� ê�ùß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à�8�;!Ú ÛzÜ�å Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå tverbiê�àD8�;7ì � � ä�� ï í � �0 ùß�ß subjcià�8 å�ä à�8�;!Ú¦ÛzÜQå�Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à�8�;H<iÚ¦ÛzÜ�å tverbiêì � � 8�; � � ä��?� ï í

� �0 ù

Thenext examplesshowshow wecanrealizeanarrow focus,beingconstituted

by just thefocus proper (233), or a wider focusincluding moredependents, (234).

(233)

.

.

.ß�ß�ß subjcià 8 åQä à ë 8�9 Ú¦ÛzÜQÝ�Þ�ß�ß dobjcià â Ý�Ý à ë 8�9 Ú Ûzæ�Ý ß tverbià ë 8�9 ê�à ä�� ì ïß�ß�ß subjci à�8 åQä à ë 8�9�Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9¥Ú ÛzÜ�å ß tverbià ë 8�9.ê�à ä�� ì ï�í õ � ñiðò ï�:ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9YÚ¦ÛzÜQå�Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú¦ÛzÜQå�ß tverbià ë 8�9)ê�à ä>�?� ì ï�í õ � ñiðò �1�A@ þ - ðò B�C @ ù

ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå ß tverbià ë 8�9�ê�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ï�ñJI � � õ ó ù þ : ùß�ß�ß subjci à�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå ß tverbià Ý ;%ê�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò E ø þ ó�K @ þ �HF ùß�ß�ß subjci à�8 å�ä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜQå ß�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå tverbià Ý ;%à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ÿ Þ ð )%ø î�ïQ� ê�ùß�ß�ß�ß subjci à�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú¦ÛzÜQå�Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú¦ÛzÜQå tverbiê�à Ý ;%à ä��?� ì ï�í õ � ñiðò ÿ Þ

ð )%ø î�ïQ� ê�ùß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜ�å Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå tverbiê�à Ý ;iì � � ä�� ï í � �0 ùß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à�8�;H<iÚ ÛzÜ�å tverbiêì � � Ý ; � � ä��?� ï í

�� ù

(234)

.

.

.ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9�Ú ÛzÜQÝ Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à ë 8�9YÚ Ûzæ�Ý ß tverbià ë 8�9)ê�à ä�� ì ïß�ß�ß subjci à 8 åQä à ë 8�9 Ú¦ÛzÜQå)Þ�ß�ß dobjcià â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9 Ú¦ÛzÜ�å.ß tverbià ë 8�9 ê�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ï�:ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9YÚ ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå ß tverbià ë 8�9)ê�à ä>�?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò �1�A@ þ - ðò B�C @ ù

ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9¥Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜ�å ß tverbià Ý ;�ê�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò E ø þ óLK @ þ �HF ùß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à�8�;!Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<iÚ ÛzÜQå ß tverbià Ý ;�ê�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò G ø þ ó C @ þ �HF ùß�ß�ß subjcià 8 å�ä à 8�; Ú7ÛzÜ�å)ß�ß�ß dobjcià â Ý0Ý à 8�;=< Ú¦ÛzÜQå tverbià Ý ; à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ÿ Þ ð )%ø î�ïQ� ê�ùß�ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à�8�;!Ú ÛzÜQå Þ�ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå tverbiê�à Ý ;>à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ÿ Þ

ð )%ø î�ïQ� ê�ùß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à�8�;!Ú ÛzÜ�å Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<¦Ú ÛzÜQå tverbiê�à Ý ;iì � � ä�� ï í �� ùß�ß subjcià�8 å�ä à�8�;�Ú ÛzÜ�å Þ�ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à�8�;H<7Ú ÛzÜ�å tverbiêì � � Ý ; � � ä��?� ï í

� �0 ù

2Example. The structural rules in InfVO also allow for more marked cases, ob-

tainable through word orderalone. For example,we canrealize just the verb as

focusby placing it sentence-initially. We canobserve this behavior in for example

Hungarian(Vallduvı andEngdahl, 1996) or Turkish(Hoffman,1995a). Examples

(235)and(236) differ in theorderin which thedependents arerealized.


(235)

.

.

.ß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9¥Ú æ�Ý!M ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9�ê�Ú ÜQÝ!M ß�ß subjcià�8 å�ä à ë 8�9)à ä��?� ì ïß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9 Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobjcià â Ý�Ý à ë 8�9 êOÚ 8 Ü�M ß�ß subjcià 8 åQä à ë 8�9 à ä>�?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò N� õOïO: ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß tverbiàD8�;=<¦Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à Ý ;>ê�Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ð - þ ).C �7ð � ï ùß�Þ�ß tverbiàD8�;=<¦Ú 8 ÜPM ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à Ý ;�êrÚ 8 Ü�M ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ð - þ ).C �7ð � ï ùß�ß tverbi Ú 8 Ü�Miß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à Ý ;�à�8�;=<¦Ú 8 Ü�Miß�ß subjcià�8 å�ä à Ý ;�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñ¦ðò ÿ Þ õ�).*�ø�õ ïxô ê�ùß�ß�Þ tverbi Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobjcià â Ý0Ý à Ý ; ê�Ú 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjcià 8 åQä à Ý ; à 8�;=< à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñ¦ðò ÿ Þ õ�).*�ø�õ

ïxô ê�ùß�Þ tverbi Ú 8 ÜPM ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý0Ý à Ý ;�êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;%à�8�;=<"ì � � ä�� ï í � � ùÞ tverbi Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à Ý ;>ê�Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;¦ì � � 8�;=< � � ä��?� ï í

� �0 ù

(236)

.

.

.ß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9 Ú ÜQÝ!M ß�ß subjcià 8 åQä à ë 8�9 ê�Ú æ>Ý!M ß�ß dobjcià â Ý�Ý à ë 8�9 à ä�� ì ïß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9YÚ�ÜQåQM¦ß�ß subjcià�8 å�ä à ë 8�9)ê�Ú{Ü�åQMiß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à ë 8�9)à ä>�?� ì ïîí õ � ñiðò ïO:ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß tverbiàD8�;=<¦Ú ÜQåQM ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;�êrÚ ÜQåPM ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9)à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ð - þ ).C �7ð � ï ùß�Þ�ß tverbiàD8�;=<¦Ú ÜQåPM ß�ß subjcià�8 å�ä à Ý ;�êrÚ Ü�åQM ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à Ý ;�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñiðò K @ þ �HF ùß�ß tverbi Ú ÜQåQM ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;�à�8�;=<¦Ú ÜQåPM ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à Ý ;�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñ¦ðò ÿ Þ õ�).*�ø ïQ�qô ê�ùß�ß�Þ tverbi Ú{ÜQåQMiß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;�êrÚ�ÜQåQM¦ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à Ý ;�à�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ñ¦ðò ÿ Þ õ�).*�ø

ïQ�qô ê�ùß�Þ tverbi Ú Ü�åQM ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;�ê�Ú Ü�åQM ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à Ý ;>à�8�;=<¥ì � � ä�� ï í � �� ùÞ tverbi Ú ÜQåQM ß�ß subjcià�8 å�ä à Ý ;%êOÚ ÜQåPM ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à Ý ;7ì � � 8�;=< � � ä�� ï í

�� ù

Finally, consider the post-verbally realized focus proper in (237). We illus-

trated suchconstructionsin Chapter 3 on Sinhala,a non-rigid verb-final language.

(237)

.

.

.ß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià ë 8�9 à 8 åQä Ú¦ÛzÜQÝ�ß tverbià ë 8�9 êrÚ æ�Ý�M ß�ß dobjcià ë 8�9 à â Ý�Ý à ä�� ì ïß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9¥Ú ÛzÜQÝ ß tverbià ë 8�9)êrÚ æ�Ý�M ß�ß dobjcià ë 8�9�à�â Ý�Ý à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñ¦ðò ÿ Þ� õ � ø0õ �>� ê�ù

ß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9¥Ú¦ÛzÜQÝ�ß tverbià ë 8�9)êrÚ æ�Ý�M ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9)à ä�� ì ï�í õ � ñ¦ðò ÿ Þ� õ � ø ù ð,ð ê ù

ß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià�8 å�ä à ë 8�9¥Ú ÛzÜ�å ß tverbià ë 8�9.êOÚ ÜQåQM ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ñið�ò ïO:ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à ë 8�9�Ú ÛzÜ�å ß tverbià ë 8�9)êrÚ ÜQåQM ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ñiðò@��)ï+Ë ð�ò C @ ù

ß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià 8 åQä à ë 8�9 ÚiÛzÜ�å.ß tverbià Ý ; êrÚ�ÜQåQM�ß�ß dobjcià â Ý0Ý à 8�;=< à ä�� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ïñ�I � � õ ó ù þ : ùß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜ�å ß tverbià Ý ;>ê�Ú ÜQåQM ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<�à ä>�?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò K @ þ �HF ùß�ß�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜ�å tverbià Ý ;!Ú Ü�åQM ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à�8�;H<�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ñiðò ÿ Þ ð )�ø î�ï�� ê ùß�ß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜ�å tverbiêrÚ Ü�åQM ß�ß dobjcià�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<�à Ý ;�à ä>�?� ì ïîí õ � ñiðò ÿ Þ

ð )�ø ï��qô ê ùß�Þ�ß�ß subjcià 8 å�ä à Ý ; Ú¦ÛzÜQå tverbiêrÚ{ÜQåQM¦ß�ß dobjcià â Ý0Ý à 8�;=< à Ý ; ì �� ä�� ï í � �0 ùÞ�ß�ß subjcià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜQå tverbiê�Ú Ü�åQM ß�ß dobjcià(â Ý�Ý à�8�;H<Yì � � Ý ; � � ä>�?� ï í

� � ù2

Definition 31(Structural indicationsof informativity in VO). TheInfVO defines

the basic structural rules for describing structural indication of informativity in

VO languages, given INFHYP1 and INFHYP2. TheInfVO monotonically extends

all the VO packages, and only definesrules that specify feature information. The

basic setof structural rulesof InfVO is given below, without anyreferenceto tune.

Becauseof lack of sufficient data, asweindicatedalready in Chapter3, the InfVO

is smallerthanthe InfOV and InfSVO packages.


ê�ñ�ëíìAïQ�'ô�ò ö ìAïQ�'ô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ë�ìAï,ð)ô�ò ö ìAó ðô�õ½÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ý � �0ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ëíìÉîIïQ�0ò ö ìAïQ�'ô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ìÉîIï$ð/ñ�ò�ìAó ðô�õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ý � �0ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ëíì�î õ ï�ò ö ì õ ï)ô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ì î ó ð ñ�ò�ìKï,ðô õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �'ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ëíì õ ïô�ò ö ì õ ï)ô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ë�ì¸ó ðô ò ö ìAï,ðô õ½÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �'ÿ � $O�

ê�ë�ì ïQ�'ô ê�ò ÷ õ�)!* ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ì ïQ�'ô ê�ò ÷ � õ � ÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� +aÖ ��Î�þ¥� õ-� + �ê�ëíì õ ïô ê�ò ÷ õ�)!* ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ì õ ï)ô ê�ò ÷ � õ � ÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� +aÖ ��Î�þ¥� õ-� + �ñ�ëâì ï��0ô ê�ò ÷ õ�) ö ì ï��0ô ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ë�ì ïQ�'ô ê�ò ÷ � õ � ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� +a�)Ö0 �ê�ë ÷ õ�) ìAï��0ôqê�ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ � õ � ìKïQ�'ô¶ê�ò ÷ õ�) ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� +a�)Ö0 �ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì õ ïôqê�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì õ ïôqê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� 2 +a��Ö� �ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�î õ ï/ê�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì�î õ ï/ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� 2 +a��Ö� �ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì ï��0ô ê�ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ � õ �Ôì ïQ�'ô ê�ò ÷ õ�) ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ýxÿ ògÖ Õ�Ç�$&� �� ñ�ë�ì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì õ ï)ô ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ë�ì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ � õ ��ö ì õ ïô ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� (Lýxÿ ò[Ö Õ�Ç�$&� ��

ñ�ë�ì õ ïô ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì õ ï)ô ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ë�ì õ ï)ô ê�ò ÷ � õ � ö ì õ ïô ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� (Lýxÿ ò[Ö Õ�Ç�$&� �� ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî�ïQ��ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ìAï��0ôqê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ìÉîIï��ê�ò ÷ � õ ��ö ìAïQ�'ô¸ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� +a�� þ �� ògÖ Õ�Ç�$&� �� ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�î�ïQ�%ê�ò ÷ õ�) ö ìAï��0ôqê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ìÉîIï��ê�ò ÷ � õ ��ö ìAïQ�'ô¸ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� +a�� þ �� ògÖ Õ�Ç�$&� �� ê�ë�ìAï��0ô�ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�) ìAïQ�'ô�ò ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ñ Ç � �� Ö64 ö��

ê�ê�ë ÷,ù ð,ð ÷ � õ � û ê�ê�ë ÷ � õ ��÷,ù ð,ð ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ñ '(Ç / �� 'ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ õ � � ÷ � õ � û ê�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ÷ õ �>� ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ñ '(Ç / ��Ç Ö)# ö��

ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì î õ ï ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ñ � � �03 Ç7�0ö��ê�ëíì õ ïô�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì õ ï)ô�ò ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ñ � � �%Ç7� 4 ö��ê�ëíìKïQ�'ô¬ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìKïQ�'ô¬ò ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ñ � � �>� ÖR4 ö��

ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�î�ïQ�'ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�îIï��%ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ñ � � �03 � Ö ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî�ïQ�0ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�îIï��%ê�ò ÷ õ�) ü Ó Ç / þ�ÿ�� ñ Ç � ��3�� Ö ö��

S

Example (VO realization of information structur e). We give threebrief exam-

ples- canonical word order (238), noncanonical word order(239), andnon-rigid

verb-firstness(240).

(238)

...9 j 9 tverbi; ��<dah ^ � 9>9 subji

;>�zl>=�;�� o d m�^ � 9>9 dobji;�].^%^ ;>��z�L;>= ?(AUT©R

9 j 9 tverbi; ��z��d h l.� 9 9 subji

;>�l =�;>�� o d h l�� 9 9 dobji;�].^%^�;��;�= ?(AUT�R G VzW � SCu5wxsAW�ROu�MOXZ

9 j 9 tverbi; ��z� dah l.� 9>9 subji

; �l>= ; �� o dah l.� 9 9 dobji; ].^%^ ; �%X�Y ; = ?(A T�R G VzW � SVu5w Z\[�R�K>Stw n �\Z�Z

9 j 9 tverbi; ��<d h l�� 9 9 subji

;>�l =�;>�%X o d h l.� 9>9 dobji;�])^%^�;>�%X�Y);>= ?(A]T R G VzW � SVu5w �\Z�MO[�^Z

9 j 9 tverbi; �&X"dah l.� 9>9 subji

;>�l>=p;>�%X o dah l�� 9>9 dobji;�].^%^�;��&X!Yr;>=@?(AUT�R G VzW � SCu5w �\Z�M�[�^Z

9>9tverbi

d h l.� 9>9 subji;>�zl>=�;��%X�;>�%X"d h l.� 9 9 dobji

;�].^%^�;��%X�Yr;�= ?(AUT�R G VW � Svu5w � j W>_O~�R�[U` o Z9 9 j tverbi

d h l.� 9>9 subji; �zl>= ; �%X o d h l.� 9 9 dobji

; ].^%^ ; �%X�Y ; �%X ; =@?(A T�R G VW � Svu5w � j W>_O~�R�[U` o Z9 j tverbi

d h l.� 9>9 subji;>�zl>=�;��%X o d h l.� 9 9 dobji

;�].^%^�;��%X�Yr;��%XaTcbed =@?(A R Gfbgd�VZj tverbi

d h l�� 9>9 subji;>�zl>=�;��%X o d h l.� 9 9 dobji

;�].^%^�;��%X�Y5Tcbgd �%X bed = ?(A R Ghbed�VZ


(239)

.

.

.ß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9¥Ú æ�Ý!M ß�ß dobji à ë 8�9)à�â Ý0Ý êrÚ ÜQÝ!M ß�ß subjià ë 8�9�à�8 åQä à ä�� ì ïß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9 Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobji à ë 8�9 à â Ý�Ý êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjià ë 8�9 à 8 åQä à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ðiñ¥ò N� õrïO: ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9�Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobji à ë 8�9)à�â Ý�Ý êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjià�8 åQä à ë 8�9)à ä��?� ì ïýí õ � ðiñ¥ò ÿ Þ� õ � ø(õ �>� ê�ù

ß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9YÚ 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobji à ë 8�9�à�â Ý�Ý ê�Ú 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjià�8 åQä à�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ð¦ñ¥ò@!�ïQË ðò BiC @ ù

ß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9YÚ 8 Ü�M¦ß�ß dobji à�â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9)ê�Ú 8 ÜPM¦ß�ß subjià�8 åQä à�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ð¦ñ¥ò ÿ Þ� õ � ø ù ð,ð ê�ù

ß�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9 Ú 8 ÜPM ß�ß dobji à â Ý0Ý à Ý ; êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjià 8 åQä à 8�;=< à ä�� ì ï í õ � ð¦ñ¥ò N ï�ñJI � � õ ó ù þ : ùß�Þ�ß tverbià Ý ;!Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobji à�â Ý0Ý à Ý ;�êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjià�8 å�ä à�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ð¦ñ¥ò K @ þ �.F ùß�ß tverbi Ú 8 ÜPM ß�ß dobji à(â Ý�Ý à Ý ;>à Ý ;!Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß subjià�8 åQä à�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ðiñYò ÿ Þ ð )%ø(õ ïxô ê�ùß�ß�Þ tverbi Ú 8 ÜPM7ß�ß dobji à(â Ý�Ý à Ý ;>ê�Ú 8 Ü�M¦ß�ß subji àD8 åQä à�8�;=<�à Ý ;�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ðiñYò ÿ Þ

ð )%ø(õ ïxô ê�ùß�Þ tverbi Ú 8 ÜPM ß�ß dobji à â Ý0Ý à Ý ; êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjià 8 åQä à 8�;=< à Ý ; ì � � ä>�?� ï í � �0 ùÞ tverbi Ú 8 Ü�M ß�ß dobji à(â Ý0Ý à Ý ;%êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß�ß subjià�8 åQä à�8�;=<¥ì � � Ý ; � � ä�� ï í

� �0 ù

(240)

.

.

.ß�ß�ß subji à ë 8�9�à�8 åQä Ú ÛzÜQÝ Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9YÚ æ�Ý�M ß�ß dobji à ë 8�9�à�â Ý0Ý ê�à ä��?� ì ïýí ú ùË þ � � �^ï õ � õkj þ �ml�� ó * � � þ ï+Ë ù

ß�ß�ß subji àD8 åQä à ë 8�9YÚ ÛzÜQÝ Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9YÚ æ�Ý�M ß�ß dobji à ë 8�9�à�â Ý0Ý ê�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ð¦ñ¥ò ÿ Þ� õ � ø0õ �>� ê�ù

ß�ß�ß subji à 8 åQä à ë 8�9 Ú¦ÛzÜQÝ�Þ�ß tverbià ë 8�9 Ú æ�Ý�M ß�ß dobji à â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9 ê�à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ð¦ñ¥ò ÿ Þ� õ � ø ù ð,ð ê�ù

ß�Þ�ß�ß subji à�8 å�ä à ë 8�9YÚ ÛzÜ�å ß tverbià ë 8�9�ê�Ú ÜQåQM ß�ß dobji à(â Ý0Ý à ë 8�9)à ä��?� ì ï í õ � ðiñ¥ò ïO:ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß�ß subjià�8 å�ä à ë 8�9¥Ú ÛzÜ�å ß tverbià ë 8�9.êrÚ ÜQåQM ß�ß dobji à(â Ý�Ý à�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ð¦ñ¥ò@!�ïQË ðò BiC @ ù

ß�Þ�ß�ß subjià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú¦ÛzÜ�å.ß tverbià Ý ;%ê�Ú�ÜQåQM�ß�ß dobji à�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ð¦ñ¥ò @ þ - ð - þ )%ò I � � õ ó ù þ : ùß�ß�ß�ß subjià 8 åQä à Ý ; Ú¦ÛzÜ�å tverbià Ý ; Ú{Ü�åQM�ß�ß dobji à â Ý0Ý à 8�;=< à ä�� ì ï í õ � ðiñYò ÿ Þ ð )%ø î�ïQ� ê�ùß�ß�Þ�ß�ß subjià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜ�å tverbiêrÚ ÜQåPM ß�ß dobji à(â Ý�Ý à�8�;H< à Ý ;�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ðiñYò ÿ Þ

ð )%ø ïQ�qô ê�ùß�Þ�ß�ß subjià�8 åQä à Ý ;!Ú ÛzÜQå tverbiêrÚ ÜQåQM ß�ß dobji à(â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<�à Ý ;iì � � ä>�?� ï í �� ùÞ�ß�ß subjiàD8 åQä à Ý ;�Ú¦ÛzÜQå tverbiê�Ú7Ü�åQMiß�ß dobji à�â Ý0Ý à�8�;=<"ì � � Ý ; � � ä�� ï í

� �0 ù2

Definition 32(Structural indicationsof informativity in SVO). TheInfSVO de-

finesthebasicstructural rulesfor describing structural indication of informativity

in SVO languages,given INFHYP1 and INFHYP2. TheInfSVO monotonically ex-

tendsall theSVO packages,andonlydefinesrulesthatspecify feature information.

Thebasic setof structural rules of InfSVO is given below, without any reference

to tune.Thestrategy followedis thesameasin thepreviouspackages,exceptthat

wepaymore attention here to therelation between non-systemic ordering andthe

boundarybetween (therealizations of) topic andfocus.

ê�ëíì�îIïQ�0ò ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ëíì�îIï,ðò ÷ � Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ý � �'ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ëâì�î�ïQ�'ò ö ìKïQ�'ô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ëíì�îIïQ�%ñ�ò�ìKó ðô�õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ý � �'ÿ � $O�ñ�ëíìKïQ�'ô¬ò ö ìKïQ�'ô õ û ñ�ëíì��eð)ô�ò ö ì¸ó ðô�õ ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ý � �'ÿ � $O�

ê�ë�ìÉî õ ï!ò ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ëíì î ó ð ò ÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �0ÿ � $O�ê�ë�ì î õ ï ò ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ëíì î!�]ð ò ÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �0ÿ � $O�

ê�ñ�ëíì î õ ï ò ö ì õ ïô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ëíì î õ ï ñ�ò�ì ï,ð)ô õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �0ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ëíì�î õ ï�ò ö ì�î õ ï õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ëíì�îIï,ðfñ�ò�ì î ó ð�õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �0ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ëíì�î õ ï�ò ö ì�î õ ï õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ëíì î ó ð ñ�ò ì�î�ï,ð õ½ö�÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �0ÿ � $O�ê�ñ�ëíì õ ïô�ò ö ì õ ïô õ½÷ �1Ë � û ê�ñ�ëíì¸ó ð)ô ò ö ìnï$ðô õ½÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ�ÿ�� ( Ö Ç¬ý � �0ÿ � $O�


ê�ë�ìAïQ�'ôqê�ò ÷ õ�)!* ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ìAïQ�'ô¸ê�ò ÷ � õ ��÷ �1Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� +aÖ ��Î7þY� õ-� + �ê�ëâì õ ïôqê�ò ÷ õ�)!* ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ì õ ïô¸ê�ò ÷ � õ ��÷ � Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� +aÖ ��Î7þY� õ-� + �ê�ëâì�î õ ïfê�ò ÷ õ�)!* ÷ �1Ë � û ê�ë�ìÉî õ ï�ê�ò ÷ � õ � ÷ � Ë � ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� +aÖ ��Î7þY� õ-� + �

ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì�î�ïQ�%ê�ò ÷ õ�) ö ìAïQ�'ôqê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ìÉîIïQ��ê�ò ÷ � õ ��ö ìAïQ�'ô¸ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� +a��Ö� �ñ�ê�ë ÷ õ�) ì î�ïQ� ê�ò ÷ õ�) ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ �Ôì îIïQ� ê�ò ÷ � õ � ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� +a��Ö� �ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ �Éì î�ïQ� ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ �Ôì îIïQ� ê�ò ÷ � õ � ö ì ïQ�'ô ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ýrÿ ò[Ö Õ�Ç�$&� �� ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì õ ïô ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì õ ïô ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì õ ïô ê�ò ÷ � õ � ö ì õ ï)ô ê õ½÷ õ�).* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� (Lýxÿ ògÖ Õ�Ç�$&� �� ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉîIïQ��ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì õ ïô¸ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ìÉîIïQ��ê�ò ÷ � õ � ö ì õ ïô¸ê õ½÷ õ�).* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� (Lýxÿ ògÖ Õ�Ç�$&� �� ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�îIïQ��ê�ò ÷ õ�) ö ì õ ïô¸ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ìÉîIïQ��ê�ò ÷ � õ ��ö ì õ ïô¸ê õ½÷ õ�).* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� (Lýxÿ ògÖ Õ�Ç�$&� �� ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî õ ï�ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì õ ïô¸ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ � õ � ìÉî õ ï�ê�ò ÷ � õ ��ö ì õ ï)ôAê õ½÷ õ�).* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� (Lýxÿ ògÖ Õ�Ç�$&� ��

ñ�ë�ì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ì î õ ï ê õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ë�ì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ � õ � ö ì î õ ï ê õ½÷ õ�).* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� (Lýxÿ ògÖ Õ�Ç�$&� �� ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì îIï�� ê�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ � õ � ì îIïQ� ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� 2 +a�)Ö� �ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ � õ �Ôì î õ ï ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� 2 +a�)Ö� �ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�îIï��'ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�îIïQ��ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ � � �3�� Ö ö��

ê�ëíìKïQ�'ô¬ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìKïQ�'ô¬ò ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ � � � � Ö54 ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî�ïQ�0ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�îIïQ��ê�ò ÷ õ�) ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ Ç � �3 � Ö ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ õ�) ìÉî�ïQ�0ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�) ìÉîIïQ��ê�ò ÷ õ�) ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ Ç � �3 � Ö ö��

ê�ë�ì ïQ�'ô ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�) ì ïQ�'ô ò ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ Ç � � � Ö64 ö��ê�ë�ì õ ïô ò ÷ õ�) û ê�ë ÷ õ�) ì õ ïô ò ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ Ç � ��Ç7� 4 ö��ê�ëíì õ ïô�ò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì õ ïô�ò ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ � � ��Ç¦� 4 ö��ê�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�î õ ïò ÷ ð ) û ê�ë ÷ ð ) ì�î õ ï/ê�ò ÷ ð ) ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ � � �3 Ç7�0ö��

ê�ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî õ ï�ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ìÉî õ ï õ½÷ õ�).* û ñ�ê�ë ÷ ð ) ìÉî õ ï�ê�ò ÷ ð ) ö ìÉî õ ï�ê õ½÷ õ�)!* ü Ó Ç / ýrþ¡ÿ�� ñ Ç ��7 ��3 Ç7�0ö��S

Example. To round off this chapter, we present a few examples of the realiza-

tion of information structure in SVO word order languages. In the next chapter

we seemoreexamplesof informationstructure in SVO languages,using a mix-

ture of tuneandword order. (241) provesthe realization of an “out-of-the-blue”

sentence,whereas(242) and(243) illustratehow systemicorderingplays a role in

establishing a boundarybetweentopic andfocus.

(241)

.

.

.ß�ß subjià ë 8�9 Ú ÛzÜQÝ Þ�ß verbià ë 8�9 Ú æ�Ý!M ß dobji à ë 8�9 ê�à ä��?� ì ïß�ß subjià ë 8�9¥Ú¦ÛzÜQå�Þ�ß verbià ë 8�9¥Ú æ�Ý!M ß dobji à ë 8�9�ê�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ï�ð7ñ¥ò ïO:ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß subjià ë 8�9YÚ ÛzÜ�å ß verbià ë 8�9�ê�Ú Ü�åQM ß dobji à ë 8�9)à ä��?� ì ïýí õ � ï�ð7ñ¥ò ïO:ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß subjià ë 8�9 Ú¦ÛzÜ�å.ß verbià ë 8�9 ê�Ú�ÜQåQMiß dobji à 8�;=< à ä�� ì ï í õ � ï�ð7ñ¥ò@!�ïQË ðò BiC @ ù

ß�Þ�ß subji à 8�; Ú¦ÛzÜ�å.ß verbià 8�; ê�Ú{Ü�åQMiß dobji à 8�;=< à ä�� ì ï í õ � ï�ð7ñ¥ò C @ þ �HF ùß�ß�ß subji à�8�;!Ú ÛzÜ�å verbià�8�;�Ú Ü�åQM ß dobji àD8�;=<�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ï�ð¦ñYò ÿ Þ õ�)%ø î�ïQ� ê�ùß�ß�Þ�ß subji à�8�;!Ú ÛzÜ�å verbiê�Ú ÜQåQM ß dobji àD8�;H<�à�8�;%à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ï�ð¦ñYò ÿ Þ õ�)%ø

ïQ�¸ô ê�ùß�Þ�ß subjià 8�; Ú¦ÛzÜQå verbiê�Ú{ÜQåQM�ß dobjià 8�;=< à 8�; ì � � ä>�?� ï í � �0 ùÞ�ß subjià 8�; Ú¦ÛzÜQå verbiêrÚ{Ü�åQMiß dobji à 8�;=< ì �� 8�; �� ä�� ï í

� �0 ù


(242)

.

.

.ß�ß dobji à ë 8�9�Ú Ûzæ>Ý Þ�ß verbià ë 8�9YÚ ÜQÝ!M ß subjià ë 8�9�ê�à ä�� ì ïß�ß dobji à ë 8�9 Ú Û 8 Ü Þ�ß verbià ë 8�9 Ú ÜQÝ!M ß subjià ë 8�9 ê�à ä>�?� ì ï í õ � ï�ð¦ñ¥ò N� õOïO: ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß dobji à ë 8�9�Ú Û 8 Ü ß verbià ë 8�9.êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß subjià ë 8�9)à ä>�?� ì ïîí õ � ï�ð¦ñ¥ò N� õOïO: ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß dobji à ë 8�9YÚ Û 8 Ü ß verbià ë 8�9�êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß subjià�8�;=<�à ä>�?� ì ï�í õ � ï�ðiñ¥ò@!�)ï+Ë ðò BiC @ ù

ß�Þ�ß dobji à Ý ;!ÚiÛ 8 Ü�ß verbià Ý ;�êrÚ 8 ÜPM¦ß subjià�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ï�ðiñ¥ò N"ïñ�I � � õ ó ù þ : ùß�ß�ß dobji à Ý ; Ú Û 8 Ü verbià Ý ; Ú 8 Ü�M ß subjià 8�;=< à ä�� ì ï í õ � ï�ð7ñ¥ò ÿ Þ ð )%ø î õ ï ê�ùß�ß�Þ�ß dobji à Ý ;!Ú Û 8 Ü verbiê�Ú 8 Ü�M ß subjiàD8�;=<�à Ý ;�à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ï�ð7ñ¥ò ÿ Þ

ð )%ø(õ ïxô ê ùß�Þ�ß dobji à Ý ;!Ú Û 8 Ü verbiêrÚ 8 ÜPM ß subjià�8�;H<�à Ý ;¦ì � � ä�� ï í � �� ùÞ�ß dobji à Ý ;�Ú¦Û 8 Ü verbiê�Ú 8 Ü�M¦ß subjià�8�;=<¥ì � � Ý ; � � ä��?� ï í

� �0 ù

(243)

.

.

.ß�Þ�ß verbià ë 8�9YÚ æ�Ý�M ß dobji à ë 8�9)êrÚ ÜQÝ!M ß subjià ë 8�9)à ä��?� ì ïß�Þ�ß verbià ë 8�9 Ú 8 Ü�Miß dobji à ë 8�9 êrÚ 8 ÜPMiß subjià ë 8�9 à ä>�?� ì ïîí õ � ï�ð¦ñ¥ò N� õOïO: ï ñ þ ó ù

ß�Þ�ß verbià ë 8�9YÚ 8 Ü�M ß dobji à ë 8�9�êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß subjià�8�;=<�à ä>�?� ì ï í õ � ï�ðiñ¥ò@!�)ï+Ë ðò BiC @ ù

ß�Þ�ß verbià Ý ;!Ú 8 Ü�M ß dobji à Ý ;�êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß subjià�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ï�ðiñ¥ò N"ïñ�I � � õ ó ù þ : ùß�ß verbi Ú 8 ÜPM7ß dobji à Ý ;>à Ý ;!Ú 8 Ü�M¦ß subjià�8�;=<�à ä�� ì ï í õ � ï�ð7ñ¥ò ÿ Þ ð )%ø(õ ïxô ê ùß�ß�Þ verbi Ú 8 ÜPM7ß dobji à Ý ; ê�Ú 8 Ü�Miß subjià 8�;=< à Ý ; à ä�� ì ïýí õ � ï�ð7ñ¥ò ÿ Þ

ð )%ø(õ ïxô ê ùß�Þ verbi Ú 8 Ü�M ß dobji à Ý ;�êrÚ 8 ÜPM ß subjià�8�;H<�à Ý ;¦ì � � ä�� ï í � �� ùÞ verbi Ú 8 Ü�M ß dobji à Ý ;�êrÚ 8 Ü�M ß subjià�8�;=<¥ì � � Ý ; � � ä��?� ï í

�� ù2

SUMMARY

In thischapterI discussedvariousapproachesto modelingwordorderin acategorial gram-

mar- CCG,MCCG,Set-CCG,andcategorial typelogic. I elaboratedonwhywechoosefor

viewing adjacency asa parameterratherthana principle. The“principle”-view yields(in

contemporaryformulationsof CCG)varioustechnical consequencesthatareat oddswith

our linguistic intuitions, like thedissociationbetweentheexplanationsof word orderand

informationstructure in MCCG.The“parameter”-view enablesusto considerinformation

structureasaprimary factor(parameter)determining wordorder. I presentedgrammarar-

chitecturesthatformalizedthebasicaspectsof rigid, mixedandfreeword order predicted

by thevariationhypothesesof Chapter3, including complex phenomenalike (discontin-

uous)cross-serialdependenciesandnesteddependencies.Subsequently, I extendedthese

architectureswith models of how word order principally actsasa structuralindication of

informativity in OV, VO, andSVO, asfar ascoveredby the informativity hypothesesof

Chapter3. Theadoptedstrategy wasto relatethesyntacticmodesto modesthatjust show

whetheror not systemicordering is adhered to, after (Sgall et al., 1986). This provides

usnot only with a very general description of therelationbetweenword order andinfor-

mationstructure.It will alsoenableusto describetheinteraction betweentuneandword

orderin a straightforwardway, aswe shall seein thenext chapter. There, we extendthe

SVO model to cover tuneasastructuralindication of informativity.

CHAPTER 5

A FORMAL MODEL OF TUNE AS STRUCTURAL

INDICATION OF INFORMATIVITY

Besidesword orderlanguagesusuallyalsousetuneto realize information structure- sometimes

even predominantly so, like in the caseof English. In this chapter, we begin by discussing

Steedman’s modelof English tunedeveloped in Combinatory Categorial Grammar. We then

continueby presenting a moreabstractmodelof tunethatcanbe instantiated to cover different

languages,and that overcomesa few problems we may note for Steedman’s proposal. The

chapterendswith adiscussionof how to includetunein themodelof informativity wedeveloped

in thepreviouschapter.

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The goal of this chapter is to develop an abstract model of tune in its role as a

structural indication of informativity, after (Steedman, 2000a), andshow how the

model can be integratedwith the word order account presentedin the previous

chapter. Theintegratedarchitecture enablesus to describe formally how tune and

word order interact to realize information structure.

Most languagesthat do not have a mixed or free word order predominantly

usetune to realize structural indication of informativity, cf. (133) on page96. An

often-cited example of sucha languageis English. Only in (very) marked cases

doesEnglishuseboth word order andtune- otherwise it just places the nuclear

stressin a position other thanthe unmarked oneto realize a different focus. The

examplesin (244)illustratethis useof tune,on narrow focus.

(244) English

a. Elijah gave a book n to KATHY ofp .

b. Elijah gave n a BOOK oDp to kath.

c. n ELI JAH o p gave a book to Kathy.

161

162q A formal model of tuneasstructural indication of informativity

Theuseof tuneto realize informationstructurewasstudiedalready by Math-

esius in theearly nineteenthirties- seefor example(1975), whereMathesiuscon-

trastsEnglish andGerman.Sgallet al. (1986) discussEnglish tuneandhow it can

beunderstood to indicatetheunderlying linguistic meaning’s topic-focusarticula-

tion, a discussion continuedin Hajicova et al’s (1998).

An important,recent contribution to thestudy of tuneandits relation to infor-

mationstructureis Pierrehumbert& Hirschberg (1990). Pierrehumbert& Hirschberg

argue that the interpretation of tune is built compositionally from pitch accents,

phraseaccents, andboundary tones.

Various authors have advanced proposals that formalize this compositional

interpretation in more detail, including Steedman (2000c; 2000a) and Hendriks

(1996; 1997; 1999). Bothwork outmodelsthat arephrasedin categorial grammar,

with Steedmanworking in CCGandHendriks in theLambektradition.1 Herewe

focus on Steedman’s proposal,discussingit in moredetail in r 5.2. The reasons

for opting for Steedman’s CCGaccount ratherthanHendriks’ proposalis that the

former is worked out in more linguistic detail, and that it -surprisingly perhaps-

appearsmoresuitable for recasting in termsof categorial type logic. In r 5.3 we

present the abstractmodelof tunein DGL, andin r 5.4 we show how to integrate

themodelwith theSVO architecture developedin thepreviouschapter.

5.2 STEEDMAN’ S SYNTAX-PHONOLOGY INTERFACE

Steedmanproposesin (2000a) an integration, into CCG,of informationstructure

andits realization throughtune. With that,Steedmanpresentsnot only a compre-

hensive modelof Englishtuneandits relation to linguistic meaning. He alsopro-

vides the ground for the important argumentthat “a theory of grammarin which

phrasal intonation and informationstructure arereunited with formal syntaxand

semantics is not only possible, but muchsimpler thanonein which they aresepa-

rated.”

In other words, Steedmanshows that a categorial model is both possible and

preferable over the generally adhered to GB architectureasproposedby Selkirk.

This architecture is given in Figure 5.1 (adapted from Steedman(2000a)), and

shows how Selkirk proposesan autonomousstructural level called “Intonation

Structure” thatmediatesbetweenPhonologicalForm(PF)andLogical Form(LF).

1Recall from earlierdiscussionsthat, in fact,Moortgat & Morrill alreadyproposeda modelofprosody in (1991). Also Oehrlediscusses prosody, for example in (1991)and(forthcoming).How-ever, noneof thesediscussionsconcern Pierrehumbert& Hirschberg’s proposal.

A formalmodelof tuneasstructuralindication of informativity /163

Important to observe is thatwe alsohave theSurfaceStructure mediating between

PFandLF, asidefrom the Intonation Structure. Theresponsibility of the Surface

Structure still concernsaspectsrelating to theLF’s Predicate-Argumentstructure.

The additional task for Intonation Structure is to definethose aspects of LF that

relateto information structure.2

PF

Intonational

Lexicon

D-Structure

S-Structure

structure

a) Predicate-argument str.b) Information StructureLF:

Figure5.1: Architectureof a GB theory of Prosody

Thearchitecture thatSteedmanadvancesis depicted in Figure5.2. Insteadof

having separate levels for S-Structureand Intonational Structure we now have a

singlemoduledescribing surfacesyntax - CCG.As usual we have that operations

on categories (describing surface structure) are associatedwith a compositional

formation of a sentence’s semantics,cf. (Steedman, 1996). In (Steedman,2000a),

thesesemanticscaptureboththesentence’s informationstructureandits predicate-

argumentstructure.3

Wealready discussedSteedman’stheory of informationstructurein r 2.3(p.52ff.).

Here, we briefly review how Steedman’s Themeand Rhemerelate to different

tunes, afterwhich we turn to Steedman’s formalization in CCG.

In keepingwith Pierrehumbert& Hirschberg, Steedmanconsiderstheinterpre-

tation of tuneto be built from pitch accents,phrase accents, andboundary tones.2Recallthatthisseparationof predicate-argumentstructureandinformationstructuregoesagainst

thePraguianviewpoint,aswe alreadynotedin Chapter2.3Thearchitecturein Figure5.2 shows thata predicate-argumentstructureis in factconceivedof

asthe end-product in (Steedman,2000a). The reasonwhy Steedmanpresentsthe architecturethisway primarily hasto do with his efforts to rebuke theGB architecture.As Steedmannoteshimselfat theendof s 3.2, in practiceonewould not want to have a normalizedterm,but a morestructuredmeaning- for example, like the representationsas proposedby Maternaet al. (1987), or as perPeregrin (1995) andelaboratedin Kruijf f-Korbayova (1998).


Phonetic form

CCG Lexicon

Information Structure

Predicate-ArgumentStructure

phonology

normalization

Figure5.2: Architectureof a CCGtheoryof Prosody

We startwith pitch accents. Steedmanfoll ows BeckmanandPierrehumbertin as-

sociatingthefollowing pitch accents with Themeor Rheme(in English).

(245) a. Realizing Theme:L+H*, L*+H

b. Realizing Rheme:H*, L*, H*+L, H+L*

For example,in (246), “admires” hasapitchaccent L+H* (andaboundarytone

LH%), whereasthefocus of theRhemehasa pitch accent H*.

(246) English

I know thatMarcel likes themanwho wrotesthemuscial.

But who does heADMIRE?

Marcel

t uOv wxzy�{Q|�}�~0��

ADMIRES

L+H*LH%t u�v wp �0{��&�t u�v w��L�6�

thewomanwho

t u�v wxzy�{P|�}�~�L�%��

DIRECTED

H*t u�v wp �0{��

themusical

LL%t uOv wxzy�{Q|�}�~0��t uOv w��L�6�

Pitchaccentsconcernwordforms, indicatingtheinformativity of asingle (sim-

ple) dependent or head.To enable the projection to larger structures,i.e. “phrase

accents”, Steedmanassumesthatpitch accentsarenotonly related to thelinguistic

meaning, but that they arealsoexpressedin theword’s category. Sucha category

canthenbecomposedwith othercategorieson thecondition thatthis composition

obeys whatSteedmancalls “compatibility with theme-or rheme-hood”.


Below we point out how this works in CCG.Beforethat we should still have

a look at boundarytones, andwherewe get our tunesfrom in the first place. To

begin with thelatter, Steedmanassumeswhathecallsa“pre-syntactic assignment”.

In the context of his (2000a), this naturally resolvesto an assignmentof tunesto

wordsin thelexicon - but this is not a theoretical necessity.4

In building a compositional semantics for the boundary tones LH% andLL%

andtheabove pitch accents,Steedmanfirst of all considerstheconceivable differ-

encebetweenLH% andLL%. Steedmanconjecturesthat an H% boundary tone

indicatesthat the Themeor Rhemeit is associatedto is the hearer’s responsibil-

ity, whereasan L% boundary toneindicatesthat the information is the speaker’s

responsibility.5 For example,by marking information with a boundarytoneH%,

we could realizevarious speech actslike questioning, polite requesting, ceding or

holding theturn,etc.

Steedmansubsequently makes a rather inelegant move, and models bound-

ary tonesasemptystrings,reminiscentof transformational grammar’s emptycat-

egories. A boundarytonehasa functional category, with no realization, thatcom-

bineswith pitch accents. Important hereis thatthecomposition of aboundarytone

category with a pitch accent category allows for the Theme/Rhemedistinction to

beprojectedfrom pitch accentsonto prosodic phrases.

Thus, to recapitulate, we have an inventory of pitch accents that realize either

Themeor Rheme(using Steedman’sterms),andwhichcanproject over larger con-

structionsby composition with eitheraboundarytoneor wordswith unmarkedin-

tonation. Projection is handledby unification: Categoriescarryfeatures� (Theme),� (Rheme)or � (unmarked), which get unified in the usual way asexplained in

(Steedman,1996). The ideaof unification that Steedmanusesis of course very

muchakin to the distribution andpercolation structural ruleswe employ in DGL

(andcategorial type logic in general) to handle feature information. In the next

section, we sketch how we cannot only remodelSteedman’s proposalin termsof

DGL, but actually -by using boxesanddiamonds- getrid of theemptystringsthat

Steedmanusesto modelboundary tones.

4For example,tunescould be obtainedfrom a speech-recognition module, and thencombinedwith the ‘bare’ category informationfrom the lexicon to form the category assignment usedin thederivation. This doespresenta differenceto for exampleHendriks’ (1999), in which a possibleintonationis derivedthrougha rewriting system.

5Thereby, responsibilityis understoodin thesenseof ‘ownership’.


5.3 TUNE IN DGL

Herewe provide a modelof tune in DGL that we envision asan abstract model

of tune. That is, we assume the presence of tunes that either realize contextu-

ally bound information (Steedman’s � -tunes) or contextually nonbound informa-

tion (the � -tunes),andboundarytones,but we leave openhow a specific language

instantiates thesewith its own inventory of tunes.6 Particularly, we assumethe

following unary modal operatorsfor the basicintonation: �� for tunes realizing

contextually nonboundelements,and �� for unmarkedintonation. We caninclude

these lexically, or let structural rulesdetermineproper instantiationsof a generally

assigned �P�z� feature. Here,we keepit simpleandassumea lexical assignment. At

thesametime,boundarytones �� arenot modeled lexically. Instead, we modelthe

presenceof a boundarytoneusing a structural rule that rewritesa �>� or �� feature

into for exampleeither �� or �� . This immediately leadsto amoreelegant

proposal,becausewe modelboundary tones directly on elementsin the prosodic

structure.We no longer have to assumeemptystrings thatmodelboundary tones.

A basictunesystemthat implements theseideasfor SVO is thendefinedasfol-

lows. Alik e the modelswe constructed for word order asa structural indication

of informativity, we assumemarking with systemic ordering. Because we only

dealwith the interaction between(non-systemic) word orderandtunein the next

section, thedefinition belowconcernssystemicword order only.

Definition 33 (BasicSVO tune). We definehere an abstract, basicmodelof tune

that is basedon Steedman’s CCG-basedproposalin (2000a).

�f�5��.�Q�J�D�h�� ¢¡Q£� �¤�¥=¦0 �§�£�¨ª©c�f�«��.�P�J�D�h�� £h¬¤� �f¤�¡� �§>£?¨ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ íµ�¶i·�°�¸!¹mºO»�¼P²!½.½�D¾?�D�f�� £h¬¤ f¤�¡ ��¿&�.��D�h�� ¡P£ ¤�¥=¦0À ��H�Q�J�D�hí ¥¢£?Á&¬£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨ ©c�D¾��D�f�i £h¬¤ f¤�¡ ��¿&�.��D�h�� £?¬¤ h¤�¡�À ��.�Q�J�D�hí £?¬¤ h¤�¡ §>£?¨ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ·�´�µi¶�·>°�¸.¹mºO»�¼P²�D¾?�D�f�� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ � ¿&�H� �D�h�� ¥D£?Á&¬£ DÂ ¥PÀ � �.�Q� �D�h´� ¬£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨ ©c�D¾��D�f�i £h¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� £?¬¤ h¤�¡�À � �.�Q� �D�hí £?¬¤ h¤�¡ §>£?¨ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ·�´�µi¶�·>°�¸.¹mºO»�¼P²¾m�«� ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£�Á&¥¢£ DÂ ¥�À � �.�P� �D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ©c¾m�«� ¿&�H� �D�h�� £h¬¤ f¤�¡�À � �.�P� �D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ º�ÃJ��ÄL°�±�ÅQÆ¼PÇ�È¾m�«� ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£�Á&¥¢£ DÂ ¥�À � �.�P� �D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ©c¾m�«� ¿&�H� �D�h�� £h¬¤ f¤�¡�À � �.�P� �D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ º�ÃJ��ÄL°�±�ÅQÆ¼PÇ�È�D�f�� ¬£?Á�¥D£� Â ¥��¿&�.��D�h�� ¬£P �¤�¥%©c�D�f�i �£?¬¤& �f¤�¡��¿&�.��D�h�� ¬£� �¤�¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ º�ÃJ��ÄL°�±�ÅQÆ¼PÇ�È�D�f�i ¬£?Á�¥D£ Â ¥ �J¿&�H��D�h�� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ©c�D�f�i £?¬¤ f¤�¡ ��¿&�.��D�h�� ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ º�ÃJ��ÄL°�±�ÅQÆ¼PÇ�È¾m�«��.�P�J�D�h�� ¬£ ¤�¥�À ��.�P�J�D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ©c¾m�«��H�Q�J�D�h�� £h¬¤ f¤�¡�À ��.�P�J�D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ µi¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ¾��D�f�i ¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�H� �D�h�� ¬£ ¤�¥�À � �H�Q� �D�hí ¬£ ¤�¥ ©c¾��D�f�i £h¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� £?¬¤ h¤�¡�À � �.�Q� �D�h´� ¬£ ¤�¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ µi¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ¾m�«� ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£ ¤�¥�À � �.�P� �D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ©c¾m�«� ¿&�H� �D�h�� £h¬¤ f¤�¡�À � �.�P� �D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ µi¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ�D�f�i ¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£ ¤�¥ ©c�D�f�i £?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£ ¤�¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ µi¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ�D�f�i �¬£� �¤�¥��J¿&�H��D�h�� ¢¡P£� �¤�¥H¦�©c�D�f�i �£?¬¤& �f¤�¡��¿&�.��D�h�� ¢¡Q£� �¤�¥=¦ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ µi¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ

6More specifically, we assumethat we canmonotonically extendthe package we describeherewith a language-specificpackage that (a) instantiatesthe tunes,and(b) regulatestheir possibleco-occurrencesandmutualorderings- in away similar to for exampleVFinal’sXDep andNDep pack-ages.


�D�f�i ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�H� �D�h�� ¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ ©Ê�D�f�i £h¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£�Á&¥D£ DÂ ¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ¯�¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ�D�f�i �¬£! Â ¥��¿ ¤ �0�D�h�� ¬£?Á�¥D£� Â ¥�©Ê�D�f�i �£h¬¤� �f¤�¡��¿ ¤ �0�D�h�� ¬£?Á�¥D£� Â ¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ¯�¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ�D�D�f�i ¤�¥ ��¿&�.�� ¬£ ¤�¥ ©Ê�f�i ¤�¥ ��¿&�.��D�h�� ¬£ ¤�¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì.ÍP°�»HÎ!Ï6½.Ä À È�D�D�f�� DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.� �� ¬£ ¤�¥ ©Ê�f�i DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£ ¤�¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì.ÍP°�»HÎ!Ï6½.Ä À È�D�D�f�� DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.� �� ¬£ DÂ ¥ ©Ê�f�i DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£ DÂ ¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸.Ì.ÍP°�»HÎ!Ï6½.Ä À È�D�D�D�f�i ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�H� �� ¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ ©Ê�D�f�i ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£�Á&¥D£ DÂ ¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸.Ì.ÍP°�»�ÑÒÌ=»HÎ�Ï5½.Ä À È�D�f�«� �H�Q� �� ¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ ©Ê�D�f�i ¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ � �H�Q� � ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸.Ì.ÍP°�»�ÑÒÌ=»HÎ=½.Ä�Ó À È�D�D�f�i �¤�¥��J¿&�H�0�� ¢¡P£! �¤�¥=¦�©Ê�f�i �¤�¥��¿&�.��D�h�� ¢¡Q£� �¤�¥=¦ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì�Ô�ÍQÕ»HÎ.Ï6½.Ä À È�D�f�«�i�H�Q�� ¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ ©Ê�D�f�i ¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ ��H�Q�i� ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì�Ô�ÍQÕ»HÎD½.Ä�Ó À È�D�D�f�i DÂ ¥ � ¿&�H� �� ¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ ©Ê�f�i DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì�Ô�ÍQÕ»HÎ.Ï6½.Ä À È�D�f�«� �H�Q� �� ¥D£�Á%¬£ DÂ ¥ ©Ê�D�f�i ¥D£�Á%¬£ DÂ ¥ � �H�Q� � ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸.Ì.ÍPÌ=»�ÑÒ°�»=Î¢½.Ä�Ó À È�D�D�f�i ¤�¥H¦ � ¿&�H� �� ¥D£�Á%¬£ DÂ ¥ ©Ê�f�i ¤�¥=¦ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¥¢£?Á&¬£ DÂ ¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸.Ì.ÍPÌ=»�ÑÒ°�»=Î!Ï5½.Ä À ÈÖRemark 29 (Explanation of the SVO.Tunepackage). With the

SVO.Tune packageasabove we provide an illustration, ratherthana fully devel-

opedpackage. It illustrates how (an importantpart of) Steedman’s modelof tune

canbeformulatedin DGL, at points in a moreelegantway (i.e. without having to

resortto emptyelements).

The rules are divided into linkage (or “specification”) rules and percolation

rules.Thelinkagerules assign nuclearstress (either in canonical or non-canonical

position), project the focusor the topic, andassignboundaries. The percolation

rules just percolate the verbal head’s featuresover the entirestructure. Note that

all theserules are definedover the headed ×&Ø modes- non-systemic ordering is

addressedin thenext section. Thedefinition thusprovidesa basicformalization of

theuseof tuneto realizetheinformation structure’s focusproper in a canonical or

noncanonical focus position, without resorting to any word order-relatedmeans.

Theexamplein (247) illustratestherealizationof aso-called“out-of-the-blue”

sentence, using tune as the structural indication of informativity. Reading top-

down, we first realize the focus proper in the canonical focus position, and then

project thefocusall theway leftwards.

(247)

.

.

.�D�D�actor

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ �J¿&� Â ¾��D� tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡ ��Ù Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ f¤�¡�À §�£�¨zÚ ½�D�D�actor

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&�.� ¾?�D�tverbti

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ � Ù Â � �D� patient £?¬¤ h¤�¡ À §>£?¨ Ú ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ

�D¾��D�actor

£?¬¤ f¤�¡ ��¿&�.��D�tverbti

£?¬¤ h¤�¡�À �iÙ Â � �D� patient £?¬¤ f¤�¡ §>£?¨zÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ


£?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�tverbti

£h¬¤ h¤�¡�À � �H�Q� �D�patient

£?¬¤ f¤�¡ §�£�¨kÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ�D¾��D�

actor £h¬¤ f¤�¡ ��¿&�.��D�

tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡ À ��.�Q�ª�D�

patient ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ §�£?¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ´�µi¶�·>°�¸.¹mºO»�¼P²!½!½.È


�£?¬¤% �h¤�¡��J¿&�H��D�tverbti

D¬£. �¤�¥ À ��H�Q�J�D�patient

¢¡Q£. �¤�¥=¦0 �§�£�¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ µi¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ�D¾��D�

actor ¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�.� �D�

tverbti ¬£ ¤�¥PÀ � �.�Q� �D�

patient ¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ §>£?¨kÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²Q³ µ�¶�¼�ÄHÉQÈ

�D�D�D�D�actor

¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�.�tverbti

¬£ ¤�¥ � �.�Q� �D�patient

¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ §�£?ëÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì.ÍP°�»=Î�ÏR½HÄ À È�D�D�D¾��D�

actor ¬£ ¤�¥ ��¿&�.�

tverbtiÀ �i�.�P�J�D�

patient ¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£ ¤�¥ §>£?¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì.ÍP°�»=Î=½.Ä�Ó À È

�D�D¾��D�actor

�¬£! �¤�¥��¿&�.�tverbti

À �i�.�Q�J�D�patient

=¡P£� �¤�¥=¦0 �¬£. �¤�¥ Ú-Ü�Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü Ý Û�È�D¾��D�

actor ¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�H�

tverbtiÀ � �H�Q� �D�

patient ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£iÚaÜ Ý ¤�¥ Ü Ý §>£?¨ ½ ® Ü Ý Û�È

¾��D�actor

¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�.�tverbti

À � �.�P� �D�patient

¡P£ ¤�¥=¦�ÚaÜ Ý ¬£ Ü Ý ¤�¥ Ü Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü�Ý Û�È

Next, wepresenttwo proofs with thenuclearstress in canonical focusposition,


but realizing a different information structureby placing boundaries. Theseproofs

illustratethebasic ideabehind formalizing boundarytonesin a moreelegantway.

In (248) theverb is realizedwith a boundary tone,andin (249) theverbal head is

still partof thefocussotheActor is realizedwith a boundarytone.

(248)

.

.

.�D�D�actor

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&� Â ¾?�D� tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡ �iÙ Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ h¤�¡�À §�£�¨kÚ ½�D�D�actor

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&�H� ¾��D�tverbti

£h¬¤ h¤�¡ � Ù Â � �D� patient £?¬¤ h¤�¡�À §>£?¨kÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ


£?¬¤ f¤�¡ ��¿&�.��D�tverbti

£h¬¤ h¤�¡�À �iÙ Â � �D� patient £?¬¤ h¤�¡ §>£?¨kÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ


£?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�tverbti

£h¬¤ f¤�¡�À � �H�Q� �D�patient

£?¬¤ f¤�¡ §>£?¨zÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ�D¾��D�

actor £h¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�

tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡�À � �.�Q� �D�

patient ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ §�£?ëÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ íµi¶�·>°�¸.¹mº�»?¼Q².½!½.È


�£?¬¤% �f¤�¡��¿&�.��D�tverbti

¢¬£?Á�¥D£! Â ¥ À ��.�P�J�D�patient

=¡P£! �¤�¥=¦0 �§>£?¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ º�ÃJ��ÄQ°�±�ÅLÆ¼PÇ�È�D¾��D�

actor ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�H� �D�

tverbti ¬£�Á&¥D£ DÂ ¥PÀ � �H�Q� �D�

patient ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨kÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ¯�¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ


¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.�tverbti

¬£�Á&¥D£ DÂ ¥ � �H�Q� �D�patient

¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨kÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍQ°�»�ÑÒÌ=»HÎ!Ï6½.Ä À È�D�D�D¾��D�

actor ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.�


patient ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£�Á&¥¢£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨kÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍQ°�»�ÑÒÌ=»HÎ¢½.Ä�Ó À È


�¬£! Â ¥��¿&�.�tverbti

À �i�.�Q��D�patient

=¡P£! �¤�¥H¦0 �¬£?Á�¥D£! Â ¥ ÚaÜ�Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü Ý ÛPÈ�D¾?�D�

actor ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�H�


patient ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£�Á&¥D£�ÚaÜ Ý Â ¥ Ü Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü Ý Û�È

¾��D�actor

¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.�tverbti


¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦�ÚaÜ Ý ¬£�Á&¥¢£ Ü Ý Â ¥ Ü Ý §>£?¨ ½ ® Ü�Ý Û�È

(249)

.

.

.�D�D�actor

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&� Â ¾?�D� tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � Ù Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ h¤�¡�À §�£�¨kÚ ½�D�D�

actor £?¬¤ h¤�¡ �J¿&�H��¾��D�

tverbti £h¬¤ h¤�¡ ��Ù Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ h¤�¡�À §>£?¨kÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ�D¾��D�

actor £?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�

tverbti £h¬¤ h¤�¡�À � Ù Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ §>£?¨kÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ�D¾��D�

actor £?¬¤ f¤�¡ ��¿&�.��D�

tverbti £h¬¤ f¤�¡ À �i�H�Q�J�D�

patient £?¬¤ f¤�¡ §>£?¨ Ú ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ


£h¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�tverbti

£?¬¤ h¤�¡�À � �.�Q� �D�patient

¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ §�£?ëÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ íµi¶�·>°�¸.¹mº�»?¼Q².½!½.È�D¾��D�

actor £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&�H� �D�

tverbti ¬£ ¤�¥PÀ � �H�Q� �D�

patient ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ µi¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ


¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.� �D�tverbti

¬£ ¤�¥�À � �.�Q� �D�patient

¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ º�ÃJ�iÄQ°�±�ÅQÆ¼PÇ�È�D�D�D�D�

actor ¬£?Á�¥D£ Â ¥ �J¿&�H�

tverbti ¬£ ¤�¥ �i�H�Q�ª�D�

patient ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�ÌHÍQ°�»HÎ�Ï5½.Ä À È

�D�D�D¾��D�actor

¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�H�tverbti

À � �.�Q� �D�patient

¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£ ¤�¥ §�£�¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�ÌHÍQ°�»HÎ=½.Ä>Ó À È�D�D¾��D�

actor ¬£�Á&¥¢£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�H�


patient ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£ ¤�¥�ÚaÜ Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü�Ý ÛPÈ

�D¾?�D�actor

¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.�tverbti


¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£�ÚaÜ Ý ¤�¥ Ü Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü Ý Û�È¾��D�

actor ¬£?Á�¥D£ Â ¥ �J¿&�H�

tverbtiÀ �i�.�Q�J�D�

patient ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ÚaÜ Ý ¬£ Ü Ý ¤�¥ Ü Ý §>£?¨ ½ ® Ü Ý Û�È

Finally, we canrealize a focusproper that is in canonical word order position

but which is not sentence-final. In this case,the nuclearstress occursin a non-

canonical focusposition. Theproofsbelow illustratetwo simplecaseswhereeither

the Actor (250) or the verbal head (251) is the focus proper in the underlying

informationstructure. Not resorting to word order, we canrealize themherejust

using nuclear stress, like is done for example in English.


(250)

.

.

.�D�D�actor

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&� Â ¾��D� tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡ ��Ù Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ f¤�¡�À §�£�¨zÚ ½�D�D�

actor £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&�.� ¾?�D�

tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � Ù Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ À §>£?¨ Ú ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ�D¾��D�

actor £?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�

tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡�À �iÙ Â � �D� patient


actor £?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�

tverbti £h¬¤ h¤�¡�À � �H�Q� �D�

patient £?¬¤ f¤�¡ §�£�¨kÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ

�D¾?�D�actor

¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ � ¿&�.� �D�tverbti

¥D£?Á&¬£ Â ¥ À � �.�Q� �D�patient

¬£ Â ¥ §�£�¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ·�íµ�¶i·�°�¸!¹mºO»�¼P²!½!½HÈ�D�D�D�D�

actor ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ �J¿&�H�

tverbti ¥D£?Á&¬£ DÂ ¥ ��.�Q�J�D�

patient ¬£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍQÌ=»�ÑÒ°�»HÎ!Ï6½.Ä À È

�D�D�D¾?�D�actor

=¡P£! �¤�¥H¦��J¿&�H�tverbti

À �i�.�Q�ª�D�patient

�¬£! Â ¥P D¥D£�Á&¬£. Â ¥P �§�£�¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍQÌ=»�ÑÒ°�»HÎ¢½.Ä>Ó À È�D�D¾��D�

actor ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ � ¿&�.�


patient ¬£ DÂ ¥ ¥¢£?Á&¬£ DÂ ¥�ÚaÜ Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü Ý ÛPÈ


¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ � ¿&�.�tverbti


¬£ Â ¥ ¥D£�Á%¬£ Ú-Ü Ý Â ¥ Ü Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü�Ý Û�È¾��D�

actor ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ �J¿&�H�

tverbtiÀ ��H�Q�J�D�

patient ¬£ DÂ ¥JÚaÜ Ý ¥D£�Á&¬£ Ü Ý Â ¥ Ü Ý §>£?¨ ½ ® Ü Ý Û�È

(251)

.

.

.�D�D�actor

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&� Â ¾��D� tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � Ù Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ f¤�¡�À §�£�¨zÚ ½�D�D�

actor £?¬¤ h¤�¡ ��¿&�.��¾?�D�

tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡ ��Ù Â � �D� patient

£?¬¤ h¤�¡�À §>£?¨zÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ�D¾��D�

actor £?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�

tverbti £?¬¤ h¤�¡�À � Ù Â � �D� patient


actor D£?¬¤& �f¤�¡��¿&�.��D�

tverbti ¢£h¬¤% �h¤�¡ À �i�H�Q�J�D�

patient �£?¬¤& �f¤�¡� �§�£�¨ Ú ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼�ÅQÈ


£?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿&�.� �D�tverbti

¡P£ ¤�¥=¦0À � �.�Q� �D�patient

¥D£?Á&¬£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨kÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ·�íµ�¶i·�°�¸!¹mºO»�¼P²!½!½HÈ�D¾?�D�

actor ¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�H� �D�

tverbti ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦0À � �H�Q� �D�

patient ¥D£�Á%¬£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ µi¶�¼PÄHÉPÈ


¬£ ¤�¥ ��¿&�H�tverbti

¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ��H�Q�J�D�patient

¥D£�Á&¬£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì�Ô�ÍLÕ»HÎHÏR½HÄ À È�D�D�D¾?�D�

actor D¬£. �¤�¥��¿&�H�

tverbtiÀ ��H�Q�J�D�

patient D¥D£�Á&¬£! Â ¥� ¢¡P£� �¤�¥=¦0 �§�£�¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�Ì�Ô�ÍLÕ»HÎ�½.Ä�Ó À È


¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�.�tverbti


¥D£?Á&¬£ DÂ ¥ ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦�ÚaÜ Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü Ý ÛPÈ�D¾?�D�

actor ¬£ ¤�¥ � ¿&�H�

tverbtiÀ � �.�Q� �D�

patient ¥D£�Á%¬£ DÂ ¥ ¡P£iÚ-Ü Ý ¤�¥=¦ Ü Ý §�£?¨ ½ ® Ü�Ý Û�È

¾��D�actor

¬£ ¤�¥ ��¿&�.�tverbti

À ��H�Q�J�D�patient

¥¢£?Á&¬£ DÂ ¥�Ú-Ü Ý ¡Q£ Ü Ý ¤�¥=¦ Ü Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü Ý ÛPÈ

5.4 INTERACTING TUNE AND WORD ORDER

The informativity hypothesesin Chapter 3 predict interaction betweentune and

wordorderasstructural indicationsof informativity. In Chapter4 weprovidedthe

architectures for word order asa structural indications of informativity, andin the

current chapterwediscussedtune.Whatboth accountshavein commonis thatthey

havebeendefined, notrelatively to themodesindicatinggrammatical relationslike

subject or object, but relatively to systemicordering. In otherwords,weextend the

Praguianview relating word order asa structural indication of informativity and

systemicordering to cover tuneaswell. Thereis a definiteadvantagein doingso.

We cannow describe the interactionbetween tuneandword order in theseterms

aswell. All we need to do is elaboratethemodelpresentedin Definition 33 such

thattuneis sensitive to bothsystemicandnon-systemic ordering.To roundoff this

chapter, we just illustratetheprincipal ideason a smallsetof rules,(252).


(252)

�D¾m�«� ¤ �� À � ¤ �P� ´� §�£�¨ ©Þ�D¾m�5� Ù Â � � À � Â � í §>£?¨ ® ÛQ±�Õ³ ·>ÄQ±�ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼PÅQÈ�f�5� ¿ ¤ � �� §�£�¨ ©Þ�f�6� ¿ Ù Â �� §�£?¨ ® ÛQ±�Õ³ ·>ÄQ±�ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼PÅQÈ�D¾m�«��¿ ¤ �Q� À � ¤ �P��´� �§�£�¨�©Þ�f�6��¿ ¤ ��¾f�R�� Â �i´ À �§�£�¨ ® ÛQ±�Õ³ ·>ÄQ±�ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼PÅQÈ�D¾m�5��¿&�.�L� À � ¤ �P��´� �§�£�¨�©Þ�f�6��¿&�H��¾f�5� ¤ ��i´ À �§>£?¨ ® ÛQ±�Õ³ ·>ÄQ±�ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼PÅQÈ¾m�5��¿&�.�� À � ¤ �P�i´Ò©ß�«�J¿&�H��¾f�6� ¤ ��´ À ® ÛQ±�Õ³ ·>ÄQ±�ºOÇ0½�Ã�¼PÅQÈ�D�f�5��.�Q�� ¬£ ¤�¥ ©Þ�D�f�� ¬£ ¤�¥ ��H�Q�i� ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾m±�ÌHÍP°�»HÎ=½HÄ�Ó À È�D�f�«� ¤ �P� �� ¬£ DÂ ¥ ©Þ�D�f�� ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¤ �P� � ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍP°�»HÎD±�½>Ó À È�D�f�5� ¤ �� ¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ ©Þ�D�f�� ¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ � ¤ �� ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍP°�»�Ñ«Ì=»HÎ¢±�½�Ó À È�D�D�D�f�i ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿ ¤ � �� ¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ ©Þ�D�f�� ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿ ¤ � �D�h�� ¬£�Á&¥¢£ DÂ ¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍP°�»�Ñ«Ì=»HÎ!Ï6±�½ À È�D¾Ð�6� ¤ �P��D�h�� ¬£�Á&¥D£P Â ¥ À � ¤ �P��D�h´� ¢¡P£P �¤�¥=¦0 �§�£�¨ª©Þ�D¾m�5� ¤ �P��D�h�� £h¬¤� �f¤�¡ À � ¤ ��D�hí ¢¡Q£� �¤�¥=¦0 �§�£�¨ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ·�º%Ã��iÄQ°�±�ÅLÆ0¼QÇLÈ�D¾Ð�6��¿ ¤ ��D�h�� ¬£�Á&¥D£ DÂ ¥PÀ � ¤ �P��D�h´� ¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨ ©Þ�D¾m�5�J¿ ¤ ��D�h�� £h¬¤ f¤�¡�À � ¤ ��D�hí ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ·�º%Ã��iÄQ°�±�ÅLÆ0¼QÇLÈ¾��D�f�i ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&�.� �D�h�� ¬£ DÂ ¥�À � ¤ �� D�hí ¬£�Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ ©Þ¾��D�f�i £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿&�H� �D�h�� £h¬¤ f¤�¡�À � ¤ �P� �D�hí ¬£�Á&¥D£ DÂ ¥ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ¯�¶�¼�ÄHÉQÈ�f�5� ¤ �P� �D�h�� ¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨ ©Þ�f�6� ¤ �P� �D�h�� £?¬¤ h¤�¡ §>£?¨ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ íµ�¶i·�°�¸!¹mºO»�¼P²!½.½.È

For completeness, (252) repeatssomeof the rulesdefinedin InfSVO for de-

scribing theeffect of mixed word order on systemic ordering. We usetheserules

in the examplebelow, (253). Besidesthese rules, we describe the placementof

nuclearstress andof boundaries,topic projection over non-systemic ordering,and

thenecessarypercolation rules.

(253)

.

.

.�D�D�patient

£?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿ Ù Â ¾��D� tverbti £h¬¤ h¤�¡ � � Â � �D� actor

£h¬¤ f¤�¡�À §�£?ëÚ ½�D�D�

patient £?¬¤ h¤�¡ �J¿ ¤ �0¾��D� tverbti

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ �� Â �J�D� actor £?¬¤ h¤�¡�À §>£?¨zÚ ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ·>ÄQ±�ºOÇ0½!Ã�¼�ÅLÈ

�D¾��D�patient

�£?¬¤& �h¤�¡��J¿ ¤ ��D� tverbti D£?¬¤& �h¤�¡ À � ¤ ��J�D� actor

D£?¬¤& �f¤�¡� �§�£�¨ Ú ½ ® ÛP±�Õ0³ ·>ÄQ±�º�Ç�½�Ã�¼�ÅLÈ�D¾��D�

patient £?¬¤ f¤�¡ � ¿ ¤ � �D� tverbti

£?¬¤ f¤�¡�À � ¤ �P� �D� actor ¡P£ ¤�¥H¦ §�£?¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ´�µi¶�·>°�¸.¹mºO»�¼P²!½!½.È

�D¾��D�patient

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ � ¿ ¤ � �D� tverbti ¬£�Á&¥¢£ DÂ ¥�À � ¤ �P� �D� actor

¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨kÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ·�º�ÃJ�iÄQ°�±�ÅQÆ¼PÇ�È�D¾?�D�

patient ¬£ DÂ ¥ ��¿ ¤ �0�D� tverbti

¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥PÀ � ¤ ��D� actor ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ §�£�¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ ¯�¶i¼�ÄHÉQÈ

�D�D�D�D�patient

�¬£! Â ¥��¿ ¤ � tverbti ¢¬£?Á�¥D£� Â ¥�� ¤ ��D� actor

¢¡Q£. �¤�¥=¦0 �§�£�¨ Ú ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍQ°�»�Ñ-Ì=»HÎ�Ï6±�½ À È�D�D�D¾?�D�

patient ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿ ¤ � tverbti

À � ¤ �P� �D� actor ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£�Á&¥¢£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨zÚ ½ ® ¯�°�±�²L³ Ë�¾Ð¸!ÌHÍQ°�»�Ñ-Ì=»HÎ=±�½�Ó À È

�D�D¾��D�patient

¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿ ¤ � tverbtiÀ � ¤ �P� �D� actor

¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£�Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥�ÚaÜ Ý §�£�¨ ½ ® Ü�Ý ÛPÈ�D¾?�D�

patient ¬£ DÂ ¥ ��¿ ¤ � tverbti

À � ¤ ��J�D� actor ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£?Á�¥D£iÚ-Ü Ý Â ¥ Ü Ý §�£?¨ ½ ® Ü Ý Û�È

SUMMARY

In this chapter, we first discussedSteedman’s theory integrating tuneinto a CCG of En-

glish. We criticized Steedman’s useof emptystringsto model boundarytones,andpre-

sentedan abstractmodel of Steedman’s account of tune that shows how we canmodel

boundarytonesascomplex feature labels.A furtherdistinctionis thatthemodelinterprets

tuneson wordgroups relative to whetherthesewordsappearin systemicordering. This

perspective takesthePraguian view on therelationbetweenword order andsystemicor-

deringto tune. Theadvantageof doing so is that the interactionbetweentuneandword

ordercanbe(formally) describedin termsof how tunesshouldbe interpretedrelative to

systemicallyandnon-systemicallyorderedwordgroups. Weendedthechapterwith abrief

discussionof suchadescription,andshowedanexampleinvolving theinteractionbetween

tuneandmixednon-systemicallyorderedrealizations of dependentsin anSVO language

type.

CHAPTER 6

DGL, TOPIC/FOCUS, AND DISCOURSE

A hybrid logic modelingTF-DRT

This chapter explains how we formalize the interpretation of a sentence’s linguistic meaning,

with its information structure, in thecontext of a largerdiscourse.Wearguewhy notonly infor-

mationstructure but alsodependency relationsarefundamentally importantto discourseinter-

pretation. To illu stratetheargument,we proposea rudimentary information structure-sensitive

discoursetheory like (Kruij ff-Korbayova,1998)thathooksup with DGL, andin which we for-

malizethebinding of varioustypes of anaphors. Theoverall effort enablesusto –in principle–

cover theentire trackfrom sentential form to linguistic meaningto discourseinterpretation.

It is theabstractive power of ordinaryspeech

which rendersit morelogically powerful than

any algebraof logic hithertodeveloped.

– CharlesS.Peirce,Logic Notebook, 1898

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Information structure is an essential aspect of a sentence’s linguistic meaning. It

indicateshow thesentence’s linguistic meaning is beingpresentedasbothdepen-

denton theprecedingdiscoursecontext, andhow thatmeaning affects thecontext.

In Chapter 2 we already explainedhow the important ingredients of information

structure (contextual boundness) are representedin DGL, and how we derive a

topic-focusarticulation from thecontextual boundnessof theindividual nodesin a

linguistic meaning. Chapters 3 through 5 elaboratedon how we cananalysestruc-

tural indicationsof informativity asreflecting theunderlying informationstructure.

As an example, consider the proof in (254) and the representation of the corre-

sponding linguistic meaning in (255).

171

172q DGL, topic/focus,anddiscourse

(254)

à ³elijah á Ü Ý £?¬¤ Ü Ý h¤�¡�â&ã Â £ ± ä%²!åæ ³ç�elijah

£?¬¤ á Ü Ý f¤�¡ â ã Â £ ± Ü Ýè ¾?é Àê ³ç�D�elijah

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ á â ã Â £ ± Ü Ý è ¾Ðë Àì ³kathy á Ü Ý £?¬¤ Ü Ý h¤�¡�â ã ÙPÙPí�± ä%²!åî ³ç�kathy

£?¬¤ á Ü Ý f¤�¡�â ã ÙPÙ�í± Ü Ý è ¾Ðï Àð ³ç�D�kathy

£?¬¤ h¤�¡ á â ã ÙPÙ�í ± Ü Ýè ¾mñ Àò ³letters á Ü Ý £?¬¤ Ü Ý h¤�¡�â�ó�ã £ ± ä%²!åô ³ç�letters

£h¬¤ á Ü Ý h¤�¡�â ó�ã £ ± Ü Ýè ¾mõ Àö ³ç�D�letters

£h¬¤ h¤�¡ á â ó�ã £ ± Ü Ý è ¾Ð÷ Àà=ø ³r ùzá ± ú�ÇQËà�à ³ �r ù ã Â £ á â ã Â £ ± â Û�¾ à=ø ÀàHæ ³

sent á Ü Ý £?¬¤ Ü Ý h¤�¡ Ü Ý0ûQü0ý ã Ù�¾�¾?¾ â&ã Â £ ±�þ0¿&� Â ½ À ÍQÙ Â � âOó�ã £ ± À Í Â � â ã ÙQÙ�í0± À ä%²!åà=ê ³ �sent £?¬¤ á Ü Ý f¤�¡ Ü Ý ûLü�ý ã Ù ¾?¾�¾ â ã Â £ ±�þ ¿&� Â ½ À Í Ù Â � â ó�ã £ ± À Í Â � â ã ÙPÙPí ± À Ü Ýè ¾?é!ë Àà ì ³ �D�

sent £?¬¤ h¤�¡ á Ü Ý ûLü�ý ã Ù�¾?¾�¾ â%ã Â £ ±�þ¿&� Â ½ À ÍLÙ Â � â�ó0ã £ ± À Í Â � â ã ÙPÙ�í0± À Ü Ýè ¾?é!ÿ ÀàHî ³ �D�D�

sent £?¬¤ h¤�¡ ûQü0ý ã Ù á ¾�¾ â ã Â £ ±�þ ¿&� Â ½ À Í Ù Â � â ó0ã £ ± À Í Â � â ã ÙPÙ�í ± Ü Ýè ¾?é!ï Àà=ð ³

q �>á ± ú�ÇQËà ò ³ �q � ã ÙQÙ�í á â ã ÙPÙ�í ± â Û�¾ à=ð Àà=ô ³ �D�D�

sent £?¬¤ h¤�¡ ûLü�ý ã Ù � Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í á ¾ â ã Â £ ±�þ ¿&� Â ½ À ÍQÙ Â � â ó�ã £ ± Í è ¾ àHî Î à ò Àà=ö ³

s � á ± ú�ÇQËæ!ø ³ �s � ó�ã £ á â ó�ã £ ± â Û�¾ à=ö ÀæLà ³ ¾��D�D�

sent �£?¬¤% �f¤�¡� ûQü0ý ã Ù � Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í À ��Ù Â � � s � ó�ã £ á â&ã Â £ ±�þ0¿&� Â ½ Í è ¾ à=ô Î æ!ø Àæ�æ ³ �

r ù ã Â £ � ¿&� Â ¾�¾��D�D� sent £?¬¤ h¤�¡ ûQü0ý ã Ù � Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í À � Ù Â � � s� ó�ã £.À á ½ þ è ¾ à�à Î æLà Àæ!ê ³ �

r ù ã Â £ �J¿&� Â ¾��D�D� sent £h¬¤ h¤�¡ � Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í ûQü0ý ã Ù ��Ù Â � � s� ó0ã £!À á ½ Ë�¾��².Æ0Å�Î��f¸ªÓ À ¾ æ�æ Àæ ì ³ �

r ù ã Â £ � ¿&� Â �D¾��D� sent £h¬¤ h¤�¡ � Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í À � Ù Â � � s � ó�ã £ ûQü0ý ã Ù á ½ Ë�¾��².Æ0Å�ÎDÅL¸ªÓ À ¾ æ!ê Àæ�î ³ �D�

r ù ã Â £ ��¿&� Â ¾?¾��D� sent £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í À ��Ù Â � � s � ó�ã £ À ûQü0ý ã Ù á ½ Ë�¾��².Æ0Å�Î!Ï6½.¸ À ¾ æ ì Àæ!ð ³ �D�

r ù ã Â £ � ¿&� Â ¾?¾��D� sent £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í À � Ù Â � � s � ó�ã £.À §�£?¨ á ½ �5Æ»�¼��få�h½%Ì=Æ0½�f¸&º��ÃR¾ æ�î Àæ ò ³ �D�

r ù ã Â £ � ¿&� Â ¾?¾��D� sent £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í À �iÙ Â � �D� letters

£?¬¤ h¤�¡�À §>£?¨ á ½ â è ¾ ö Î à=ö Î æ!ð Àæ!ô ³ �D�r ù ã Â £��¿&� Â ¾?¾��D� sent

?£?¬¤% �h¤�¡�� Â � � q � ã ÙPÙ�í À �iÙ Â � �D� letters �¬£! Â ¥ À �§>£?¨ á ½ ¹?¾��h±�Õ�ÍQ»�°�±%Î�¸!ÌHÍQ°�» À ¾ æ ò Àæ!ö ³ �D�

r ù ã Â £ � ¿&� Â ¾?¾��D� sent £?¬¤ h¤�¡ � Â � �D� kathy

£h¬¤ h¤�¡ À �iÙ Â � �D� letters ¬£ Â ¥ À §>£?¨ á ½ â è ¾ ð Î à=ð Î æ!ô Àê�ø ³ �D�

r ù ã Â £��¿&� Â ¾?¾��D� sent ?£?¬¤& �h¤�¡ª� Â � �D� kathy

=¡P£! �¤�¥=¦ À ��Ù Â � �D� letters �¬£! Â ¥ À �§�£�¨ á ½ ¹?¾��h±�Õ�ÍQ»�°�±%ÎD±�Ì�Ô�ÍQÕ» À ¾ æ!ö Àê�à ³ �D�

r ù ã Â £ � ¿&� Â ¾?¾��D� sent ¬£�Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ � Â � �D� kathy

¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦0À � Ù Â � �D� letters ¬£ DÂ ¥QÀ §>£?¨ á ½ ¹?¾��h±�Õ�ÍQ»�°�±%Î�¸!ÌHÍQ°�»�Ñ-Ì=» À ¾ ê�ø ÀêPæ ³ �D�

r ù ã Â £ ��¿&� Â ¾?�D� sent� Â � �D� kathy

¡P£ ¤�¥=¦ ¬£�Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ ��Ù Â � �D� letters ¬£ DÂ ¥PÀ §�£�¨ á ½ Ë�¾Ð¸.Ì.ÍP°�»�ÑÒÌ=»HÎ �f¸JÓ À ¾ ê�à Àê�ê ³ �D�

r ù ã Â £ � ¿&� Â �D�D¾ sent� Â � �D� kathy

¡P£ ¤�¥=¦0À � Ù Â � �D� letters ¬£ DÂ ¥ ¬£�Á&¥¢£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨ á ½ Ë�¾Ð¸.Ì.ÍP°�»�ÑÒÌ=»HÎ¢ÅL¸JÓ À ¾ êPæ Àê ì ³ç�D�D�

elijah £?¬¤ h¤�¡ �J¿&� Â �D�D¾ sent

� Â � �D� kathy ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦0À ��Ù Â � �D� letters

¬£ DÂ ¥ ¬£�Á&¥D£ DÂ ¥ §�£?¨ á ½ â è ¾ ê Î à=ø Î ê�ê ÀêPî ³ç�D�D�elijah

¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&� Â �D�D¾ sent� Â � �D� kathy

¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦0À � Ù Â � �D� letters ¬£ DÂ ¥ ¬£�Á&¥D£ DÂ ¥ §�£?¨ á ½ ¹?¾��h±�Õ�ÍQ»�°�±%Î�¸!ÌHÍQ°�» À ¾ ê ì Àê�ð ³ç�D�D�D�D�

elijah ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&� Â ¾?¾ sent

� Â � �D� kathy ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦0À � Ù Â � �D� letters

¬£ DÂ ¥PÀ ¬£?Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ §�£�¨ á ½ Ë�¾Ð¸.Ì.ÍP°�»�ÑÒÌ=»HÎ�Ï5½.¸ À ¾ êPî Àê ò ³ç�D�D�D�elijah

¬£ DÂ ¥ ��¿&� Â ¾�¾ sent� Â � �D� kathy

¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦0À �iÙ Â � �D� letters ¬£ DÂ ¥�À ¬£�Á�¥D£ DÂ ¥ á Ü Ý §�£�¨ ½ Ü Ý Ûi¾mÿ�� Àê�ô ³ç�D�D�

elijah ¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&� Â ¾�¾ sent

� Â � �D� kathy ¡Q£ ¤�¥=¦0À �iÙ Â � �D� letters

¬£ DÂ ¥QÀ ¬£�Á�¥D£ á Ü Ý Â ¥ Ü Ý §�£�¨ ½ Ü Ý Ûi¾mÿ�õ Àê�ö ³ç�D�elijah

¬£ DÂ ¥ � ¿&� Â ¾�¾ sent� Â � �D� kathy

¡P£ ¤�¥=¦0À � Ù Â � �D� letters ¬£ DÂ ¥QÀ á Ü Ý ¬£�Á&¥¢£ Ü Ý Â ¥ Ü Ý §>£?¨ ½ Ü Ý Ûi¾mÿL÷ ÀÖ

(255) Linguistic meaning of (254):�� n CB o �� "!#� n CB o�$ ACTOR % �'&(��)* +�,.-/!� n NB* o�$ PATIENT % �'01��23,546-87"!#� n NB o�$ ADDRESSEE % �9:��);�<4�4��=6!>!with topic-focusarticulation:?�@�A�B

CB C A�D�E�� "!#EFBCB C�$ ACTOR % A'&(E��)* +�,.-/!

G BNB C�$ ADDRESSEE % A9HEI)��J4�4��<=K!LEFB

NB* C�$ PATIENT % A'0ME�23,54N-87/!>!

Weneed to makeonefurtherstep. Wealready indicatedin Chapter2 that arep-

resentation of theform?O@�AP G(Q !

is interpreted dynamically. In thenext section

we definethis processof information structure-sensitive dynamic interpretation,

andin R 6.3we presenta basic approachto binding.

6.2 DYNAMIC INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION STRUCTURE

The proper placefor describing the interpretation of informationstructure is dis-

course,andwith that in mind we proceedin the current section asfoll ows. First,

DGL, topic/focus,anddiscourse /173

weconsideraninformation structure-sensitivediscourserepresentation theory. The

principal ideasbehind ourproposalcomefrom Kruijf f-Korbayova (1998). Wenote

afew problemsfor thetyped approachtaken in (Kruijf f-Korbayova,1998), andwe

discusshow they areovercome(alreadyin DGL). Thereafter, wedefinethemodel-

theoretic dynamic interpretation of informationstructure,giveninformationstruc-

ture-sensitivediscourserepresentations. Thisthemeis continuedin thenext section

(6.3). With that,we have essentially arrivedat a proposalthat in principle covers

theentire track between a sentence’s surface form andits eventual interpretation-

in-context, all from aPraguianview, (without theclaimof course thattheproposal

is any way complete).

Kruijf f-Korbayova (1998) proposesto split DRT’s discourserepresentation struc-

ture (DRS) into two parts - a topic-partanda focus-part.1 Technically, the focus-

box andthe topic-box aredefinedas S -DRSs(Kuschert, 1996). Theboxestyped

non-rigidly, in that it dependson thestructureof thetopic andthefocus which el-

ementsact asargumentsandwhich asfunctors.2 Abstractly, Kruijf f-Korbayova’s

TF-DRS take theform asin (256).

(256) TOPICG

FOCUS

An exampleTF-DRSis given in (257), (Kruijf f-Korbayova, 1998)(p.72-73).

Werepeat Kruijf f-Korbayova’s notation of dependency relations.

(257) a. Czech

Muzman-nom

potkalmeet-Past

vin

parkupark

DIVKU.girl-acc

“The manmeta girl in a park.”T U(Actor :manVXW'Y�Z T [ (meetV�\�Y (Locative:parkVX\�Y (Patient:girl V�\�Y�Z

1As Peregrin notes,thereis anearlierattemptto accountfor topic-focusarticulationin a frame-work at leastsimilar to DRT. This account is Peregrin & Sgall (1986). QuotingPeregrin, “[i]n thisframework, eachsentenceis associatedwith a situation-like structure(the“content” of a sentence);the“meaning”of asentenceis thenunderstoodastheclassof all theembeddingsof the“content” intothemodel.A sentencearticulatedinto atopicandafocusis consideredastrueif everyembeddingofthe“content” of its topic is meaningfullyextensibleto anembedding of the “content” of thewholesentence.” (Peregrin, 1995)(p.237).Kruijf f-Korbayova stayswith DRT (thatis, ] -DRT), developinganintensionallogic aroundPeregrin’s (1995)extensionalaccount of topic-focusarticulation,andisthefirst to proposeto split a DRSrepresentationinto a topic-partanda focus-part.

2This presentsan attemptat generalizingJackendoff’s ideaof viewing the focusalways asanabstraction,anideawhich is alsofollowedin (Peregrin, 1995).

174 DGL, topic/focus,anddiscourse

b. S`_ .

x

man(x)

x=?

P(x)

G S8a�bcSede, y, p

f(meet(e, Actor:u,Patient: y))

Locative(e,p)

park(p)

A TF-DRSlike theonegivenin (257b) canberelaxedto simulatea S -DRS.To

obtain a S -DRS,weregardG

as S -DRT’sapplication operator“@”, afterwhichwe

can g -reducetheduplex T/F-condition into a gih -normalform, (Kruijf f-Korbayova,

1998)(p.84).

However, asentence’stopic-focusarticulation is usually notasneatly separated

as in (257), with just one element in the topic - or the complementcase, with

just oneelementin the focus. For example, consider (258), (Kruijf f-Korbayova,

1998)(p.86).

(258) a. Czech

Muzman-nom

dıvkugirl-acc

potkalmeet-Past

vin

PARKU.park

“The manmeta girl in a park.”T U(Actor :manVXW'Y (Patient:girl VXW'Y'Z T [ (meetV�\�Y (Locative:parkV�\�Y'Z

In the approach that Kruijf f-Korbayova takes, examples like (258) present a

problem. Thedependentswehavein thetopicyield separatepartial S -DRSs.Each

of thesepartial S -DRSsneedto be combined with the verb’s predicative S -DRS.

However, asKruijf f-Korbayova notes,that would meanthat therewould have to

be multiple functional applications joining the topic-partandthe focus-part. Un-

fortunately, the verb’s S -DRS belongs to the focus (in the caseof (258)), andso

the functional applicationdoes not take place in the TF-DRS construction. Con-

sequently, we could potentially end up with multiple S -DRS for eachpart of a

TF-DRS. Kruijf f-Korbayova notesthatthis is undesirable.

Thereareseveral options opento solve this problem. From the viewpoint of

type logic we could think of using pairing andprojection. Alternatively, Peregrin

(p.c.) proposesto usemultiple S -abstraction and conversion in which multiple

argumentscanbe absorbed in a single application andconversionstep. Kruijf f-

Korbayova suggestsa “wrapping operation” (1998)(p.87) that inserts a dummy

variable into thetopicwhich is of thesametypeasthetypeof thepredicative focus


S -DRS, and vice versa. The result of this operation is that we obtain a partial

S -DRS that contains a variable for the material belonging to the focus, and the

predicative focus S -DRScontainsvariablesfor thematerial belonging to thetopic.

Theproblemwith Kruijf f-Korbayova’sproposalis that, asa result of thewrapping

operation, we obtain two S -DRSsthat areno longer g -reducible: Their types can

no longer beappliedto oneanother.

In DGL’s representationsof linguistic meaningwith topic-focusarticulation, there

is no suchproblem. I usenominals to maintain the original dependency-based

relational structure. This meansthat -in a trivial way- we can obtain the same

effect as g -reduction/application overG

(as in TF-DRT) because we never took

anything apartin thefirst place. Thus,“representation” is no longer a big concern

here– therelevant representationsof sentential linguistic meaning we already get

from the grammarin the caseof DGL. I proposeto employ these representations

immediately asTF-DRSs. Chapter ?? already discussedthe useof hybrid logic

for modelingdiscourserepresentations.RecallthatthereI proposedto conceiveof

nominalsas-essentially- discoursereferents,andof thepropositionsholding at the

statesidentified by thenominals asthediscourseconditions.

The more interesting issues concern the interpretion of theserepresentations

in the context of a larger discourse. To that end,we have to establish the effect

ofG

on interpreting thecontext dependentpartand thecontext affecting partof a

sentential linguistic meaning andits informationstructure. Consider (259) below.

I have added the more elaboratespecification of the verb’s causal and temporal

structure,(259c).

(259) a. Thecatatea SAUSAGE.

b. jlk<m T CB Z'n ACTOR opm;q.rtsNuwvxVzy TNB Zm {|rt}Kuwv~V<r T NB Zn PATIENT opm;��r��u�8��u�<}wV�V

c. jlk<m T CB Z'n ACTOR opm;q�r1s�uwvxV�y TNB Z'm�{�r�jl� W�� }Kuwv�rMj�� W��c��c��x�x�x�

r�n PAST o��Kq��'��N��'�Vtr TNB Zn PATIENT opm;��r��u�.��u��}wV�V

Following earlierproposalslike(Peregrin,1995) or (Kruijf f-Korbayova,1998),

we consider information structure-discourseinterpretation to be defineddynami-

cally. That is, we first try to update the context with the topic, andonly if that

succeeds,we try to theupdate thecontext with the focus. Now, to beableto pro-

vide this definition, we have to make sure it is clear what a representation like

(259c) includes.

Each representation is considered from a particular “vantage point” - � in

(259c). Fromthis point, everything is related, starting with theevent nucleus. As


we already saw earlier, e.g. on page??, the internal structureof aneventnucleus

is like (260).

(260) j � W��|n PREPo��Kq> J� � � ��¡H��¢ �|r�j � W k ��£��p£'¤¥£'\x�"n CONSo¦qp§ ¢ � �~¨~©3��¢ �When we unfold (259c)’s

Dinto (260), it should be clear that the ª<«�¬��®J�¬�¯

nominal is the sameasthe nominal in the event nucleus. Furthermore, from the

specification of the verbal tense, we know that the activity occured in “the” past.

To bemoreprecise, from?±°eA�D�EI?t²>³'´ @¶µp@ ´¸·N��¹5º(EI?|²>³'´ @¶µp@ ´¸·6»¼�½

E¿¾PAST À�ª�«�¬��®<�¬�¯5Á it follows that

?Â°e¾PAST À�ª�«�¬��®<�¬�¯ , i.e. ª<«�¬��®J�¬�¯ refers to a

point in thepastof � . Furthermore,we of course have thedependents. Theseare

related to � through their dependency relation, andtheir informativity (CB/NB).3

Theway we canview this intuitively is asfollows. Basedon theunderstanding of

the modeling of CB/NB asB�Ã C modals, � is the vantage point from which the CB

andNB setthecontexts in which thedependents areto beinterpreted.

To recapitulate,whenwe interpreta sentence’s linguistic meaning, we have to

dosoformally from theviewpoint of � . This ideaformsthebasisfor thedefinition

of dynamicdiscourseinterpretation we present below.

Definition 34 (Dynamic discourseinterpretation). We definea discoursestruc-

ture D as a structure¾�Ä#Å~Æ�ÇÉÈ�ÊÅ�Ë±Ì¥Å�Í À . HB is a hybrid logical back-and-forth

structurewith spatial extension, asdefinedin Definition?? (page??). P is a sorted

structure on which we interpret objects and properties, which mayoverlap with

HB’s sorted spatial structure.Ä

is a setof nominals points in a discourse, andÆ�ÇÎÈ�Êis a setof relationsmodelling modelsin D.

Æ�ÇlÈ�Êincludesat least Ï , there-

lation thatdefinesa total order over thenominals in D. A discoursemodelÐ È is a

tupleAXÑ±Å�Ò Á with D a discoursestructureand

Òa hybrid valuation. To interpreta

sentence’s linguistic meaning representedas?�°5AP G(Q Á , Ð ÈiÅ�Ó�Ô ÕÖ?|°eAP G(Q Á

withÓ

thedenotation of � iff Ð ÈiÅ�Ó×Ô Õ�?|°eAP Á .ØDefinition 34 givesthebasics for a dynamicmodelof interpretation, modelingG

in a way similar to (Kruij ff-Korbayova, 1998)(p.79ff) or the dynamic conjunc-

tion discussedin (Muskens et al., 1996). The important stepnow is to definea

notion of discourseaccessibility, which first andformostrelieson how we under-

stand contextual boundness.We already provideda very basic definition of acces-

sibility in Definition ?? on page??. Herewe refineDefinition ?? in the light of3Recall that it furthermoreholds that they arerelatedto the verbalheaddirectly throughtheir

dependency relation.


Definition34andamoredetailedspecificationof themodel-theoreticsemanticsofBCB C�Ù Å�B NB C�Ù .

Definition 35 (Discourse accessibility). We already provideda verybasic defini-

tion of accessibility in Definition??onpage??. HerewerefineDefinition?? in the

light of Definition 34. For Ð ÈÚÅ�Ó×Ô Õ�?|°5AP Á to holdweneedto specify themeaning

of contextual boundness. We first of all have thefollowing standard definitions:

Ð Å�Ó×Ô Õ Ù E×Ûiff Ð Å�ÓÜÔ Õ Ù:ª<ÝiÞ|Ð Å�ÓÜÔ Õ�Û

Ð Å�Ó×Ô ÕÜ¾ß À�Ù iff à ÓÂá'A�ÓÉÇ|â�Óãá�ä Ð Å�ÓÉáÚÔ Õ Ù¦ÁÐ Å�Ó×Ô ÕÜB ß C�Ù iff å Ó á A�ÓÉÇ|â�Ó á`æ Ð Å�Ó á Ô Õ Ù¦Á

For themodalrelation CB wedefine theaccessibility relationsÇ ³�ç

asfollows:ÓÉÇ ³�ç Ó á ä Ð Å�Ó á Ô Õ Ù meansthat there is a stateè inÄ

, èÎÏ Ó , such that at è we

either havethat Ð Å è Ô ÕéBCB C�Ù or Ð Å è Ô ÕFB

NB C�Ù . Theaccessibility relationÇ ê ç

connectsÑ

withË±Ì"Å�Í

, over which it modelsuniversal accessibility. For CB* we

require that?±°5B «xë�ìxC ªîí A�?t°eB «~ë�ìxC ª Eï?|°eB «xë�ìxC;ë EñðO? ² ëxÁ , i.e. if there existsan

accessibleantecedent ª thenthere existsanother accessibleantecedent ë different

from ª .Next, for a dependency relation ò wehavethat theaccessibility relation

Ç5óis

defined fromË�Ì�ô(Í

toË±Ì�ôõÍ

, interpreting¾ ò6À�Ù on a state ö that is of the right

sort given Ù .

Hence, if weconsider thegeneric discourse(modal) relation ÷ to bemodeled

with Ï asits underlying accessibility relation, then wecanspecify discourseacces-

sibility in more detail asfollows.

?�ø5¾�ùûú À�ª�í ?�ø5¾�ùûú À�ª EI?|@XB�ü C ¾ ò6À è Eý?±þ¾ ÷LÀ� Eý?±þJB�ü á C ¾ ò á À�ª ,for any ò Å ò á ÿ��

,üXÅ�ü á�ÿ Æ «xë Å ÝÚë Ê .Ø

Remark 30 (The nature of contextual boundness). The idea that Definitions

34 and 35 describe with so many words is rather simple: A contextually bound

item is an item that wasintroducedearlier in the discourse, and possibly refered

to after its introduction. Consider Figure 6.1. The discourse“progresses” from

left to right, with �:Ït� á Ï�� á á . Under � we introducean Actor ª , asan NB item.

Subsequently, we have a linguistic meaning (under � á ) in which theActor is CB -

referring to theearlier, newly introduced ª , along (1). Finally, we referonce more


to thecontextually bound item,under � á á - but notethatDefinition 35 enablesusto

just ‘return’ along(2) to thelatestreferenceto ª (which is at ª á under � á ). In other

words,contextual boundnessis a relation over itemsreferedto, or introduced into,

thediscourse.By quantifying over this (transitive) relation we canformally define

thePraguian notion of salience.

Discourse progression

h h’ h"

E

NB

+Actor

Actora

CB

+Actor

a’

NB+Patient

p

E’

NBNB

=

CB+Actor

NB

Actor

E"

a"

= (1)

(2)

Figure6.1: Thenature of contextual boundness

Ø

Definition 36 (Salience). Thesalienceof an item � at a current point in the dis-

course, � , is defined as follows. If � is NB under � , then the salienceof � is 0:

Salience(hBNB C x)=0. If � is CB under � , thenthe salienceof � is defined as fol-

lows.Let Ï�� bethenon-reflexive transitive closure of Ï . Let � ê ç A � Å �� bethelength

of thepathfrom � to � á , with � á Ï � � and � NB under � á . Let � ³�ç A � Å �� bethelength

of thepath from � to � á á , with � last CB-referedto under � á á . If there is no h”, then� ³�ç A � Å �� =0. Thesalienceof a CB item � under � is calculated as in (261), after

(Sgall et al., 1986).

(261) Salience(hTCB Z x)=

� � \�Y m; ��V - � W'Y m� ��V if � is realizedasa pronoun�if � is realizedasa definitenoun

Ø

Remark 31 (The useof salience). Basedon Definition 36 we canestablish the

salience of the items in Figure 6.1 as follows. Assumethat ª á is realized as a

definite nominalhead,and ª á á asa pronoun. Then,thesalienceof ª á is 1, andthe


salienceof ª á á is �� =1 aswell. Notethatif wewouldhaveasubsequent reference

to ª , ª á á á , realizedasanotherpronominalexpression, thenthesalienceof ª á á á would

be � . This constitutesa slight differencewith Sgall et al’s proposal,who would

assignª á á á a salienceequalto its previousvalue, i.e. � .Therole salienceplays in thediscoursetheorywe proposehereis thatof pro-

viding anordering over possibleantecedents, from a givenpoint in thediscourse.

If for a CB item under � thereareseveral possible antecedentsto which it could

bereferring, thenby definition we take themostsalientpossible antecedent asthe

antecedentfor thereference.ØFinally, to round off our discussion in this section, we addressthe issue of

how sentential linguisticmeaning getsactually merged with thealreadyestablished

discourse.

Definition 37 (Merging sententialmeaningwith discourse). Givena specifica-

tion of sentential linguistic meaning,?/°5AP G Q � anda discourse � , bothformu-

latedashybrid logical formulas. By definition wehave that Ð ÈõÔ Õ � . Theempty

discourseis modeled as � . Themerge-operator � for merging � and?8°eAP GõQ � ,�� ?|°eAP GõQ � is definedasfollows.

i. If � Õ � , then take a nominal Þ ÿ Ñ, designate Þ as � �"!#! ��8º<A Þ$� , and

interpret?&%AP G Q � (equating Þ and � ,

?'% � ) as per Definition 34. Let� Õ�?(%AP GõQ �ii. If �*)Õ � , thentakea nominal Þ ÿ Ñ for which it holdsthat Þ á ÏÞ , � �+!#! �3�8º<A Þ á � .

Evaluate?,%AP GõQ � asperDefinition34. Let � Õ � E:?'%.-�¾ ÷LÀ�Þ EM?(%<AP G

Q � , andset � �+!/! �3�8º�A Þ0� .Ø

Examplesfollow in thenext section, afterwehavediscussed(anaphoric) bind-

ing in moredetail.

6.3 BINDING ACROSS (CLAUSAL) BOUNDARIES

In the previous sections we discussedin detail how informationstructure(topic-

focusarticulation) is represented in linguistic meaning, andhow it guidestheinter-

pretation of linguistic meaning in a discoursecontext. Particularly, we described


dynamic,informationstructure-sensitive interpretation,how that interpretation re-

lies on contextual boundnessand salience, and how a discoursecontext can get

extended.In thecurrentsection, we put thesedefinitionsto use.

Ouraimhereis to look in moredetail atthebindingof anaphora. Intrasentential

binding of anaphoraalready hasreceivedafair amountof attention in thecategorial

grammarcommunity andbeyond. Thereis, asOehrle(1999) remarks,already a

well-developed account of bindingphenomena, building onwork by BachandPar-

tee,andChierchia,anddevelopedfurther by people like Szabolcsi, Morrill (1990;

1994), Hepple(1990), Dowty, Jacobson, and -most recently- Jager (to appear).

The commonthreadthrough the various accountsseemsto be to treata pronoun

(or anaphor) asa type that enablesthe pronoun to “travel” through the structure,

copy thesemanticsof its anchor, andthen “travel” backto thepointwhereit should

reside in the structure. Oehrlepoints out various theoretical aswell asempirical

issues(pp.222-223, (Oehrle,1999)) thatcouldberaised against suchanaccount.

Oehrlehimself exploresa different avenue, alongthe lines of dynamic inter-

pretation.4 Thebasicideais to discern two types of bindersin thecontext, namely

a setof discoursebindersÄ

anda setof local binders 1 , andcarry information

from ananchor (a localor adiscoursebinder) in thecontext to theanaphor. Oehrle

achieves this as follows. Firstly, eachelementin the lexicon is marked with a

unary modalthat indicatesits sensitivity to (referential) context, i.e. in whatset(s)

of bindersits antecedent could be looked for. Secondly, different modesof com-

position areusedto control the dynamics(or influence) of contexts in a way that

is similar to theboxesin DRT controlling accessibility. Thirdly, associatedto each

distinguishedunary modalis a rewrite rule thatspecifies how it dependsonÄ

and1 , andhow it affects them. Oncea proof completes,andwe have obtaineda syn-

tactic structureandits correspondingmeaning representation,wecantry to rewrite

the representation we have obtained. Rewriting goesby the rewrite rules for the

unary modals,and results in a representation that hasan input context, filled-in

semantics for antecedents(by meansof “discoursereferents”), andan output (or

updated) context.

Thus,Oehrleprovidesan account of binding that involvesan explicit notion

of context, which in principle enables us to lift the account to the level of dis-

courseand dealwith both intrasentential and intersentential reference. Interest-

4Oehrlepresentsanaccountof bindingphenomenathatcombinescategorial type logic with theideaof dynamicinterpretationasarguedfor by e.g.CrouchandVanGenabithor in this dissertation.Oehrle’s accountdatesbackto 1995. It wasdeveloped independentlyof theaccount in (CrouchandvanGenabith,1998).


ingly enough, Jager(to appear) discussesa type-logical reformulation of Jacob-

son’s variable-free treatmentof anaphoric reference,andbriefly exploressucha

possible extension to type-logical grammar to cover intersentential anaphoraas

well.

TheapproachI proposehereemploysmechanismsthatwecanapply to modelboth

intrasentential and intersentential binding.5 The basicideabehind thesemecha-

nismswasalreadyintroducedin Chapter ?? - usenominals andjump-operatorsto

modelcontextual reference.For example, recall from page?? that we canmodel

pronominal referenceabstractly asA32ÎE ?54�¾�ù ú À A32 á E76 «98NÝiÞJ�¬��86ÝÚö#�.� : Fromthe

pronoun’s state2

we needto beableto relate to anù ú

accessiblestate2 á

where

«:86ÝiÞJ�¬��8NÝÚö hold.

The differentiation we make hereis in the context wherewe can look for a

nominalto jumpto. Essentially, wefollow uphereontheideato distinguish alocal

anda global context, asemployed for examplein Oehrle(1999). To bring about

this distinctionwemake adifferencebetween discourseaccessibilit y relationsthat

canreach over ÷ (relating different sentences,i.e. global context) andthosethat

cannot (local context). For example, we have specified the accessibility (modal)

relationùûú

asfollows (262).

(262) An antecedent � is accessibleto an anaphor ; if that antecedentis a dependent

occurringunder a headto which ; ’sheadis relatedin theestablishedcontext.?�øe¾�ù ú À�ª�í ?�øe¾�ùûú À�ª EI?�@XB�ü C ¾ ò6À è EI?Âþ¾ ÷LÀ� Eý?±þB�ü á C ¾ ò á À�ª ,for any ò Å ò áiÿ��

,üXÅ�ü áiÿ Æ «xë Å ÝÚë Ê .

If we would specify thesemantics for a reflexive personalpronounusingùûú

asabove (??), thenwe would allow for it to be bound by an antecedent outside

the sentence it appearsin. Clearly, this is not what we want – a reflexive pro-

nounshould be bound locally. Instead ofùûú

we proposeto usea local context

accessibilit y relation � ù ú . � ùûú cannot reachover ÷ .

(263) A dependent < realizedasa reflexivepronoun canbebound by a dependent = of

typeActor, Patientor Addresseethatmodifiesthesamehead� as < does.?±þ<¾ � ù ú À 2 í ?Âþ¾ � ùûú À 2�EI?�@�B�ü C ¾ òKÀ 2�EI?|@XB�ü á C ¾ ò á À?> ,

for any ò ÿ Æ Actor , Patient, Addr esseeÊ, ò á ÿ��

,üXÅ�ü á ÿ Æ «xë Å ÝÚë Ê .

5A disclaimerapplieshere:I do not provide a modelof quantifiersin this dissertation,andthusany interplaybetweenquantifier binding andanaphoric binding is left out of the discussion. Forcategorial grammar-basedproposals for how to treat suchphenomena, seefor example (Morrill,1994),(Moortgat,1997a),(Oehrle,1999),(Jager, to appear).


The pure formula in (263) statesthat a node2

is locally accessible from >if > and

2aresisters under the samehead,regardlessof their individual contex-

tual boundness,and2

is either an Actor , Patient, or Addr essee(cf. Petkevic

(in prep)(p.98)andreferencestherein to work by Hajicova andby Panevova). If

we give a reflexive pronoun a lexical meaning of the formA32îE ?�4�¾

LXSÀ A32 á E6 «986ÝiÞ�¬��86ÝÚö �.� thenweareableto handle examples like (264).

(264) English

Elijah SHAVES himself.

(265) i.? @ A�B

NB C A�D�E×�/@Ú¹BA.� � EïBCB C ¾ ACTOR À A'¼ EDCFE?G H�¹�@JIDK ª0� ¼ �IML

CB N ¾ PATIENT À9Ocè IQP±ø5¾LXSÀ9Oª IRK ª0� ¼ �.�.�

ii. i. + (263) í P&S O L NB N�OUT IWVX@ ¹BAZY � I[LCB N ¾ ACTOR À9O ¼\I�C(E?G H�¹Z@WI]K ª0� ¼ �IML

CB N ¾ PATIENT À9Ocè IQP±ø5¾LXSÀ9O ¼ÎJK ª0� ¼ �.�.�

iii.P_S O L NB N�OUT I`VX@ ¹BAZY � IaL

CB N ¾ ACTOR À9O ¼Î`CFE?G H�¹�@DIJK ªB� ¼ �IMLCB N ¾ PATIENT À9Ocè IQP±ø5¾

LXSÀ9O ¼Î`CFE?G H�¹�@DIJK ª0� ¼ �.�.�However, how about examples like (266)?

(266) English

Elijah told Christopherthatheshaveshimself.

We canmake various observationsabout (266). First of all, theantecedent of

the anaphor bZc canbe locally resolved as eitherElijah or Christopher, or glob-

ally to any suitable antecedent. To achieve that, we have to make it possible fordfeto do so– on (262)only a suitable antecedent in theglobal context would be

found. Secondly, by binding the reflexive pronoun to the Actor , andthe anaphor

to its antecedent, thereflexive pronounshould alsobecomeboundto theanaphor’s

antecedent. Theadditional rule in (267) achievesthepossibility to locally bind an

anaphor. Therule coversthesimplesituationwheretheantecedent is a dependent

of thesameheadthattheembeddedclauseis a dependentof.

(267) If theanaphor occurs in an embeddedclause(a type g -dependent)under a headh, thena dependentsister (of type g�i ) of that dependentunder

hcan serveas

antecedent.P(jlkXSmon�p PFqrLts3u u N k3vXu u m Lts N k3v mow IQP(q�Lts?u N k3vXu mon IQP(j k

XSmonfor any

v�Åxv9u'ÅxvXu u�y�z,sXÅ{s3u'Å{s?u u�y}|X~��NÅ.�"��

.

A morecomplex situation is illustratedin (268).


(268) English

Elijah liked thesausagethathebought for himself.

Therule in (269)coversthismorecomplex situation. wheretheanaphor occurs

in anembeddedclause(a typez

-dependent)that modifiesanotherdependent (of

typev u

), a dependentsister of whom(typev u u

) canserve asantecedent.

(269) If theanaphoroccurs in anembeddedclause(a type g$i i i -dependent)thatmodifies

another dependent(of type gli ), thena dependentsister(of type gli i ) of that depen-

dentcanserveasantecedent.�(jlkXSmon�p ��k3v�u u u m9� sU��k3v mow�� (q � s?u��k3vXu m ~ � �(q � s3u u��k3vXu u mon�� Fjlk

XSmonfor any

v�Åxv9u'Åxv�u u'ÅxvXu u u�y�z,s�Å{s?uÅ{s3u u�y}|X~��NÅ.�"�X�

.

Finally, asaresult of theinferencetrying to establish antecedentsfor contextual

referencesin asentence’s linguisticmeaning weobtainfirst of all links. This is dif-

ferentfrom traditional approaches, wherewe fill in themeaning of theantecedent

ratherthankeeping explicit the relation betweenreference andreferent. By defi-

nition we rule that if we have that a dependent w of typev

refersto an accessible

antecedent n , thentheheadof w alsorelates viav

to n .

(270) If a reference� hasasantecedent� , and � is a dependentof type g modifying a

headh, then� canbeconsideredtobethe g dependentof

h.

�'�rkU� mon�� (q � s?��k3v m��p �(q � s?��k3v monfor any

v�Åxv u y�z,s\y}|X~��Å.�"�X�

,��y}|X� d}e Å dfe �

Thus, for (264) we obtain the representation as in (271), basedon applying

(270)to (265).

(271)��.� � NB

��U� �D�/�"�B�Z �¡¢�£� CB��k

ACTOR m � c¤�D¥F¦?§ ¨��J�D©ªn � c#¡�M� CB��k

PATIENT m � c^�`¥F¦?§ ¨X��D�J©ªn � c#¡.¡To recapitulate,we distinguish global andlocal contexts by differentiating the

(discourse)accessibility relations thatcan(or cannot) rangeover them. Whenthe

lexical meaningof a (reflexive) pronoun states that it needs to have an accessible

antecedent,thenthis meaning canonly be interpretedif thereis indeed an acces-

sible dependentthat canserve asantecedent. Depending on the kind of pronoun

we aredealing with, the antecedenthasto be in thesamesentence(e.g. reflexive

pronoun case)or maybefound in precedingsentences.Finally, given therulesin

(262) through (270), it is easyto verify that we obtain the usualnondeterminism

for sentenceslike (266). Like (Oehrle, 1999) we obtainthreereadings,(272).

184« DGL, topic/focus,anddiscourse

(272) ¬® ¯�° CB ±?¯�²�³W´¶µ:· ¸�¸�¹º´�° CB ±3» ACTOR ¼½¯¿¾¢´�ÀÁ¸�Â Ã:ÄlÅ¶´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹´Ç° CB ±3» ADDRESSEE ¼x¯�È�´ÊÉ,Å�Ë�Â¿Ìxµ:Í Î�ÅZ·#ËÏ´�ÆªÄl¸�· ¹´Ç° CB ±3» PATIENT ¼½¯�° NB ±3¯Ð²ZÑ¢´�Ì{ÅÒÄ/ÓB·l¹´Ç° CB ±3» ACTOR ¼½¯Ô��´Ê¬ÖÕl» XS¼½¯¿�7´�ÆªÄ ¸�·/¹�¹´Ç° CB ±3» PATIENT ¼½¯Ô�0iÁ´×¬ ÕxØ » XS¼x¯�� i'´�ÆªÄl¸�·#¹�¹�¹�¹a. Applying (267), (270), (263),(270):¬ ¯�° CB ±?¯�² ³ ´�µ{· ¸�¸¿¹�´Ç° CB ±?» ACTOR ¼x¯�¾Ù´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ¶´�Æ�Äl¸�·#¹´Ç° CB ±3» ADDRESSEE ¼x¯�È�´×É,ÅZË�Â�Ì{µ{ÍBÎÒÅÒ·#Ë¢´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹´Ç° CB ±3» PATIENT ¼x¯�° NB ±3¯Ð²ÒÑÚ´�Ì:ÅZÄ/ÓB·l¹´�° CB ±?» ACTOR ¼x¯�¾Ù´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ¶´�Æ�Äl¸�·#¹´�° CB ±?» PATIENT ¼x¯�¾Ù´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ¶´�Æ�Äl¸�·#¹�¹�¹b. Applying (267), (270), (263),(270):¬' ¯�° CB ±?¯�²�³W´�µ{· ¸�¸¿¹�´Ç° CB ±?» ACTOR ¼x¯�¾Ù´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ¶´�Æ�Äl¸�·#¹´Ç° CB ±3» ADDRESSEE ¼x¯�È�´×É,ÅZË�Â�Ì{µ{ÍBÎÒÅÒ·#Ë¢´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹´Ç° CB ±3» PATIENT ¼x¯�° NB ±3¯Ð² Ñ ´�Ì:ÅZÄ/ÓB·l¹´�° CB ±?» ACTOR ¼x¯�È�´ÊÉ,ÅZË9Â¿Ìxµ:Í Î�ÅÒ·/ËÏ´�ÆªÄl¸¿·#¹´�° CB ±?» PATIENT ¼x¯�È�´ÊÉ,ÅZË9Â¿Ìxµ:Í Î�ÅÒ·/ËÏ´�ÆªÄl¸¿·#¹�¹�¹c. For somesuitableantecedentÛ that is accessible in theglobal context,

applying (262),(270), (263), (270):¬ ¯�° CB ±?¯�² ³ ´�µ{· ¸�¸¿¹�´Ç° CB ±?» ACTOR ¼x¯�¾Ù´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ¶´�Æ�Äl¸�·#¹´Ç° CB ±3» ADDRESSEE ¼x¯�È�´×É,ÅZË�Â�Ì{µ{ÍBÎÒÅÒ·#Ë¢´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹´Ç° CB ±3» PATIENT ¼x¯�° NB ±3¯Ð² Ñ ´�Ì:ÅZÄ/ÓB·l¹´�° CB ±?» ACTOR ¼x¯¿Üf´ÞÝÚ´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹´�° CB ±?» PATIENT ¼x¯¿Üf´ÞÝÚ´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹�¹�¹Reflecting on the rules presentedin (262) through (270), we canobserve that

we mostly leave the dependency relations and the informativity of both the an-

tecedent and the (reflexive) pronoun unspecified (except (263)). The criticism

could now beraisedthatthere“thus” would seemlittle usein contextual reference

resolution for a dependency-basedspecification of linguistic meaning.

Ratherthanbeinganunnecessary evil, it –naturally– is a nice feature thatcan

be conveniently usedto deal with intricate phenomena. For example, consider

(273) adaptedfrom (Steedman, 1996)(p.16).

(273) English

a. Thepicturesof herself/her in NewsweekembarrassedKathy.


b. Thepicturesof *himself/him in NewsweekembarrassedKathy’smother.

Example(273a) illustratesanexemptanaphor. This is a type of anaphor that

canusually besubstituted by anordinary pronoun,makingit differentfrom thenor-

mal bound anaphora. Mostly, exemptanaphorstake astheir antecedents what the

literaturecalls“perceivers”or “experiencers”. Hereweunderstandthemto referto

a Patient. Usinga narroweddown version of rule (263)we cancaptureprecisely

this behavior, (274). If weassign anexemptanaphor a lexical meaning of thekind� Û&� �(ßBkUàÒ� dfe m � Û u �]á ~9â#� wlãåäoã â#�"æ ¡.¡ , then(274) explains theuninterpretability of

(273b).

(274) A dependent ç realizedasan exemptanaphor canbeboundby a dependent Ü of

typePatient thatmodifiesthesameheadè as ç does.�êéBkUàZ� d}e mëÛÚp �êélkUàÒ� dfe mëÛÊ� � � � s?��k PATI ENT mëÛ�� s u ��k3v u m?ì ,

for anyv9u�y�z

,sXÅ{s3u�y}|X~��NÅ.�"��

.

The examples I have presented so far deal with the resolution of (contextual)

referencewithin thescopeof asinglesentence.Theapproacheasily anduniformly

extends to the resolution across sentential boundaries. To round of this chapter, I

discussa simpleexample thatcaptures,in a nutshell, themechanismsdiscussedin

this chapter.

Example (From sentenceto discourseinterpretation). Consider the tiny dis-

course givenin (275).

(275) English

a. Elijah wentTO A STORE.

b. Elijah bought COWBOY BOOTS for himself.

c. He LIKES them.

The grammaranalysesof the sentencesin (275) are trivial. Therefore, we

immediately turn to thelinguistic meaning. First,consider(275a).Wecananalyze

thisasanall-focussentence,whichresults in thelinguisticmeaninggivenin (276).

(276) a.�,q�� NB

��U� �Jí�î�¡¢�M� NB��k

ACTOR m � c^�`¥F¦?§ ¨��D�Qï¤��¦U 0¡�a� NB��k

DIRECTION:WHERETO m �3æ �`��ðXî�ñ# ò�`ï^�Z¦¿ $¡b. linguistic meaning with topic-focusarticulation:�Fq��åó�ô � NB

��U� �DíZî�¡¢�a� NB��k

ACTOR m � c^�`¥(¦?§ ¨��Z�D�`ï¤��¦U 0¡�a� NB��k

DIRECTION:WHERETO m �3æ �`��ðXî�ñ# ò�`ï^�Z¦¿ $¡


Merging (276b) with a new discourse õ givesusthediscoursein (277).

(277) õDö �,jl�åó�ô � NB��U� �`í�î�¡Ú�a� NB

��kACTOR m � c^�`¥F¦U§ ¨X��D�Qï^��¦U $¡�a� NB

��kDIRECTION:WHERETO m �3æ �J��ðXîZñ/ ò�Qï¤��¦U 0¡ ,

curr ent(d).

Next, consider thelinguistic meaningfor (275b) given(278). This time,Elijah

is CB, asis theBeneficiary realizedasa reflexive pronoun. Theverbalheadand

thePatient cowboyboots areNB.

(278) a.��qr� � NB

��U� �`÷ùø"ú5¡¢�a� CB��k

ACTOR m � c^�J¥(¦?§ ¨��Z�J�Qï^��¦U B¡�M� NB��k

PATIENT m �3� �Jûlî0ü�÷\î0ú}ýþ÷\î�î�ðX�þ�Jÿ5¦?ø"ñ#��¦3¡�M� CB��k

BENEFICIARY m � �� kLXSm � n��`ï¤��¦U 0¡.¡.¡

b. linguistic meaningwith topic-focus articulation:�(qr� � CB��k

ACTOR m � c\��¥F¦?§ ¨X��W�Úï^��¦U $¡��[� CB��k

BENEFICIARY m � �º� �(�rkLXSm � n_��ï¤��¦U 0¡.¡ô � NB

��U� ��÷ùø"úù¡Ò�� NB��k

PATIENT m �3� �Wûlî0ü�÷ îBú7ýþ÷\î�î�ðX�\�Wÿ5¦?ø"ñ#��¦3¡.¡c. Resolvedlocal contextual reference:�(qr� � CB

��kACTOR m � c\��¥F¦?§ ¨X��W�Úï^��¦U $¡��[� CB

��kBENEFICIARY m � c\��¥(¦?§ ¨��Z�W��ï¤��¦U 0¡ô � NB

��U� ��÷ùø"úù¡Ò�� NB��k

PATIENT m �3� �Wûlî0ü�÷ îBú7ýþ÷\î�î�ðX�\�Wÿ5¦?ø"ñ#��¦3¡.¡Merging (278c) with the existing discourse(277) is straightforward. Thereis

no conflict in updating (277)with thetopic�+q$� � CB

��kACTOR m � c^�`¥(¦?§ ¨��Z�� ï¤��¦U 0¡¤� � CB

��kBENEFICIARY m � c×� ¥F¦?§ ¨�� *ï^��¦U B¡ . The new discourse

thenbecomesasin (279).

(279) õDö�(jl�åó�ô � NB��U� �`í�î�¡Ù�£� NB

��kACTOR m � c^�J¥F¦?§ ¨X��J�`ï^�Z¦¿ $¡�a� NB

��kDIRECTION:WHERETO m �3æ �J��ðXîZñ/ ò�Qï¤��¦U 0¡ Å� �(jlk � mow u� �Fj�� CB��k

ACTOR m � c\��¥F¦U§ ¨X��W��ï¤��¦U 0¡Ò�ª� CB��k

BENEFICIARY m � c ��¥(¦?§ ¨��Z�W�Wï¤��¦U 0¡ô � NB��U� ��÷5ø�úÖ¡Á�� NB

��kPATIENT m �3� ��ûlî0ü�÷ îBú}ýþ÷\î�î�ðX� ��ÿ5¦Uø+ñ#��¦3¡.¡

curr ent(d’).

Finally, consider (275c). Only the verb is NB, whereas the two anaphora are

CB, (280).

(280) a.��qr� � NB

��U� �Q¦?§��Z $¡¢�a� CB��k

ACTOR m � �� _��kXSm � n��`ï¤��¦U 0¡.¡�M� CB

��kPATIENT m � � u � � � � k

XSm � n u �`ÿ5¦Uø+ñ#��¦3¡.¡.¡


b. linguistic meaning with topic-focusarticulation:�Fq�� CB��k

ACTOR m � �� kXSm � n��`ï^��¦U $¡.¡� � CB

��kPATIENT m � � u � � � � k

XSm � n u �Dÿù¦?ø+ñ/�Z¦?¡.¡ ô � NB��U� �R¦?§�� ¡.¡

Updating thediscourseof (279) with the topic of (280b) meanswe have to be

ableto resolve thereferentsfor thetwo anaphora.

(281) i. ��¬�/¯�� ^° NB ±?¯�²ò´�BÍ$¹�´Ç° NB ±3» ACTOR ¼½¯¿¾¢´�ÀÁ¸�Â Ã{Ä Åò´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹´�° NB ±3» DIRECTION:WHERETO ¼½¯��¢´�Ì{µ{ÍBË�·7´�ÆªÄ ¸�·/¹��´Ê¬ »��º¼��#i´º¬ Ø ¯�° CB ±3» ACTOR ¼½¯¿¾�´FÀ®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ(´FÆªÄl¸¿·#¹0´]° CB ±3» BENEFICIARY ¼½¯�¾�´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ(´FÆªÄl¸¿·#¹ ^° NB ±3¯Ð² ´��Ò¹F´�° NB ±?» PATIENT ¼½¯�� ´��XÍ! "�"Í!�$#%�"Í�ÍBµ{Ì]´¶ÎÒ¸��Ë�Äl¸U¹�¹´Ê¬� Ø »&�º¼��#i i¬ Ø Ø ¯�° CB ±3» ACTOR ¼x¯t��´Ê¬ÖÕl» XS¼½¯¿�7´�Æ�Äl¸�·#¹�¹´�° CB ±?» PATIENT ¼½¯t�0i'´Ê¬\ÕxØ�» XS¼½¯¿� iÁ´òÎ�¸'�ZË9Ä ¸¿¹�¹�¹

ii. Usingrules(262) and(270), resolvefirst theantecedentfor � , andreplacefor

theantecedent’s meaning:

��¬ )( �� ^° NB ± ( ²ò´�BÍ$¹�´Ç° NB ±3» ACTOR ¼ ( ¾¢´�ÀÁ¸�Â Ã{Ä Åò´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹´�° NB ±3» DIRECTION:WHERETO ¼ ( �¢´�Ì{µ{ÍBË�·7´�ÆªÄ ¸�·/¹��´Ê¬ »��º¼��#i´º¬� Ø ( ° CB ±3» ACTOR ¼ ( ¾�´FÀ®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ(´FÆªÄl¸¿·#¹0´]° CB ±3» BENEFICIARY ¼ ( ¾�´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ(´FÆªÄl¸¿·#¹ ^° NB ± ( ² ´��Ò¹F´�° NB ±?» PATIENT ¼ ( � ´��XÍ! "�"Í!�$#%�"Í�ÍBµ{Ì]´¶ÎÒ¸��Ë�Äl¸U¹�¹´Ê¬ Ø »&�º¼��#i i¬ Ø Ø ( ° CB ±3» ACTOR ¼ ( ¾Ï´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅò´�ÆªÄ ¸�· ¹´�° CB ±?» PATIENT ¼ ( �0i'´Ê¬ ÕxØ » XS¼ ( � iÁ´òÎ�¸'�ZË9Ä ¸¿¹�¹�¹

iii. Next, usingagainrules(262) and(270), resolve first the antecedent for �®i ,andreplacefor theantecedent’s meaning:

��¬ )( �� ^° NB ± ( ²ò´�BÍ$¹�´Ç° NB ±3» ACTOR ¼ ( ¾¢´�ÀÁ¸�Â Ã{Ä Åò´�ÆªÄl¸¿·/¹´�° NB ±3» DIRECTION:WHERETO ¼ ( �¢´�Ì{µ{ÍBË�·7´�ÆªÄ ¸�·/¹��´Ê¬�/»��º¼��#i´º¬ Ø ( ° CB ±3» ACTOR ¼ ( ¾�´FÀ®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ(´FÆªÄl¸¿·#¹0´]° CB ±3» BENEFICIARY ¼ ( ¾�´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅ(´FÆªÄl¸¿·#¹ ^° NB ± ( ² ´��Ò¹F´�° NB ±?» PATIENT ¼ ( � ´��XÍ! "�"Í!�$#%�"Í�ÍBµ{Ì]´¶ÎÒ¸��Ë�Äl¸U¹�¹´Ê¬� Ø »&�º¼��#i i¬� Ø Ø ( ° CB ±3» ACTOR ¼ ( ¾Ï´�À®¸¿Â Ã:ÄlÅò´�ÆªÄ ¸�· ¹´�° CB ±?» PATIENT ¼ ( �]´*�/Í! "�"Í!�+#,�+Í�Í µ:Ì�´�Î�¸'�ZË9Ä ¸�¹�¹

Thus,we cansuccessfully update thediscoursewith thetopic of (280b). Sub-


sequently, we cancomplete the discourse with the focus, after which we obtain

(282).

(282) õDö�(jl�åó�ô � NB��U� �`í�î�¡Ù�£� NB

��kACTOR m � c^�J¥F¦?§ ¨X��J�`ï^�Z¦¿ $¡�a� NB

��kDIRECTION:WHERETO m �3æ �J��ðXîZñ/ ò�Qï¤��¦U 0¡.-� �(jlk � mow u� � j � � � CB��k

ACTOR m � c\��¥F¦U§ ¨X��W��ï¤��¦U 0¡Ò�ª� CB��k

BENEFICIARY m � c ��¥(¦?§ ¨��Z�W�Wï¤��¦U 0¡ô � NB��U� ��÷5ø�úÖ¡Á�� NB

��kPATIENT m �3� ��ûlî0ü�÷ îBú}ýþ÷\î�î�ðX� ��ÿ5¦Uø+ñ#��¦3¡.¡� � j ��k � mow u u� j � � � � CB

��kACTOR m � c^�`¥F¦?§ ¨��J�`ï¤��¦U 0¡�Ê� CB

��kPATIENT m �3� � ûlî0ü�÷\î0ú}ýþ÷\î�î�ð/� � ÿ5¦?ø"ñ#��¦3¡ ô � NB

��U� � ¦?§�� r¡.¡curr ent(d”).

This concludestheexample. /

SUMMARY

In this chapterwe presenteda basisfor aninformationstructure-sensitivediscourserepre-

sentationtheory a la (Kruijf f-Korbayova, 1998). Within that proposal,we exploredhow

we cancould give an account for binding anaphora. The approachwe take is different

from moretraditionalproposalslike Morrill (2000) or Jager(to appear), whereresolution

of various kinds of anaphorais performeddirectly in the derivation. Here,alike Oehrle

(1999), we consideranintegrationwith a moredynamicperspective.

The proposalwe advance maintainsa closerelationbetweenthe representationsthe

grammar delivers, andthestructureswe handle in the discoursetheory. We have depen-

dency relations andinformationstructure, bothof which arefundamentallyimportant to

explain variousaspectsof discourseinterpretation: for example, informationstructurefor

coherence,anddependency relations for resolutionof exempt anaphora.

A distinct advantageof our approachis that we areableto relategrammaranddis-

coursewithout having to assumean indexing mechanism that bypassesresolution, like

(VanEijck andKamp,1997) do. At the sametime, we canprovide a compositional ap-

proachto explaining the interpretationof a sentence,bothgrammatically (leading to lin-

guisticmeaning) andasrelatedto discourse(leading to anupdateddiscoursemodel).

CHAPTER 7

AN EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF SENTENCE

PROCESSING MODELS

An investigationof center embeddingsin Hindi

Data from Hindi center-embedding constructions (CECs)are usedto evaluate threesentence

processing models:Joshi’s EmbeddedPushdown Automaton (EPDA), Gibson’s Syntactic Pre-

diction Locality Theory(SPLT), andLewis’ InterferenceandConfusabilit y Theory(ICT). The

SPLT andICT (but not theEPDA) arefoundto correctly predict several processingfacts about

Hindi. However, the experimental results also reveal a problemfor thesetwo current, wide-

coverage theories: neither modelappears to be ableto account for differences in reading time

observedat nounphrasesin Hindi CECs.A sentenceprocessing modelis proposedin thenext

chapterthatcanin principlebeintegrated with theICT to provideaunifiedaccount of processing

difficulty in thelanguagesinvestigated.

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Several cross-linguistically applicable modelsof sentence processinghave been

proposedover thelastdecadethatattemptto account for processingdifficultiesex-

periencedby humans. Center-embedding constructions(describedbelow in detail)

have beena centerpiece,so to speak, of these models. In this chapter, we discuss

the predictionsof three modelsusingcenter embeddings in Hindi, andshowthat

thesemodelsmake several incorrect predictions regarding the Hindi data. In re-

sponse to this gapbetweenthedataandtheexisting theories,we present a model

of processing(seenext chapter); this model can account for the Hindi data,as

well asthe existing setof dataavailable for Dutch,German,andJapanesecenter

embeddings.

We begin by describing the performanceissues relating to center embeddings

in general. Thenwe present threemodels of sentenceprocessing(developedby

Joshi, GibsonandLewis) andtheir respective predictions for Hindi. Finally, we

evaluate thesemodels usingnew experimentaldatafrom Hindi.

189

190« An empirical evaluation of sentenceprocessingmodels

7.2 WHAT ARE CENTER EMBEDDINGS AND WHY ARE THEY

INTERESTING?

Center-embedding constructions(CECs)involvesentencesin which linguistic ma-

terial is embedded inside another clause. An example is the center embedding

(295a), which has one embedded clause. Chomsky and Miller (Chomsky and

Miller, 1963), amongothers, have observed that double center embeddings like

(295b), which have two embeddedclauses, aremore difficult for English native

speakers to processthan single embeddings (295a) or right-embedded construc-

tions like (295c).

(283) a. Therat [that thecatchased] atethemalt.

b. Therat [that thecat[that thedogchased] killed] atethemalt.

c. Thedogchased thecat[that killed therat [that atethemalt]].

A widely-heldview is that limitationson humanworking memory1 imposestrong

constraints on theprocessingof complex structures like CECs.Theassumption is

that thenoun phrasesmustbetemporarily stored in working memoryuntil verbal

informationclarifies the sentencestructure. Two wide-coveragetheories of sen-

tence processing, Gibson’s Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory (SPLT) (Gibson,

1998; Babyonyshev andGibson, 1999), andLewis’ InterferenceandConfusability

Theory (ICT) (Lewis, 1998), specifically appeal to working memoryconstraints

in explaining the processing of syntactic structures like CECs.Joshi’s Embedded

PushdownAutomaton(EPDA) doesnot appeal to working memoryconstraintsdi-

rectly, but it does rely on thenotion of temporary storageof material. Gibson and

Lewis’ modelsareableto account for many processingfactsin languagessuchas

Dutch(KaanandVasic, 2000), German(Bachet al., 1986), Japanese(Nakatani et

al.,2000), andKorean(UeharaandBradley, 1996), andJoshi’scando thesamefor

a smaller rangeof languages.

Clearly, many other languagesneedto be investigated before theories of sen-

tenceprocessing canclaim truly universal coverage(asthesemodelsaspire to do).

This is the motivation for studying the processing of CECsin Hindi.2 This is a

1Weassumethatworkingmemory, or short-termmemory, is “. . .ashort-durationsystemin whichsmall amountsof informationaresimultaneously storedandmanipulatedin the serviceof accom-plishinga task” (CaplanandWaters,1999).

2Hindi, alsoknown asUrdu,or Hindi-Urdu,is anIndo-Aryan languagespokenprimarily in SouthAsia; it hasabout 424million speakersin India(source:1991Censusof India,www.censusindia.net),andabout10 million in Pakistan(source:www.sil.org).

An empirical evaluation of sentenceprocessingmodels /191

useful languageto investigatesinceit hascertain propertiesnot seenin previously

studied languages. Welook at thesepropertiesnext. Consider first thesingle center

embedding in example(284):

(284) Siitaa-neSita-erg

Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaab(-ko)book(-acc)

khariid-ne-ko]buy-inf

kahaatold

‘Sita told Hari to buy thebook.’

Here,theergativecasemarker -nemarkstheagent,3 andtheothernounphrases

(NPs)aremarked by theobliquecasemarker -ko, regardlessof theNP’sgrammat-

ical role asindirect or direct object. However, casemarkingon the direct object

(kitaab) is optional: whenpresent, it marksthe NP asspecific, andwhenabsent,

theNPcould bespecificor non-specific(Mohanan, 1994).

For example, in a sequenceof utteranceslike (285), the direct objectkitaab

cannot have casemarking whenit is not salient in the discourse (285a), but can

have it onceit hasbeenmentioned(285b).

(285) a. SiitaaSita

auraand

Hari-neHari-erg

dukaanshop

mein

ekone

kitaabbook

dekhiisaw

‘Sita andHari saw a bookin a shop.’

b. Sita-neSita-erg

Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaab(-ko)book-acc


kahaatold


The interesting fact for us is that, in example(284), if -ko casemarking is

present on the direct object (kitaab), the second and third NPswill have phono-

logically thesamesuffix. This is interesting becausepreviousresearchon adjacent

similarly case-markedNPsin JapaneseandKoreanCECsUeharaandBradley (Ue-

haraandBradley, 1996; Lewis andNakayama,1999) have shown thatnominative

casemarkingon adjacent NPsresults in increasedprocessingdifficulty, presum-

ably due to working memoryoverload (this is discussedin detail below). How-

ever, it is an openquestion whethercasemarkings other than nominative affect

processingsimilarly.

Hindi alsohasrather freewordorder in general; thereis only oneconstraint on

the5! orders for thesingle centerembedding in (284): thedirectobject of themost

deeply embeddedverb mustnot appear to the right of this verb,asthe following

exampleshows(unlike analogousEnglishsentenceslike Thecat thedog bit died,3Hindi is a split-ergative language, with an ergative-absolutive casemarkingsystemin the per-

fective aspect.


S

NP0ruci-ne

NP1siitaa

�-ko

VP 0S

NP1PRO

�NP2

hariié-ko

VP1S

NP2PRO

éNP3

kitaab(-ko)

VP2V 2

khariid-ne-ko

V 1bol-ne-ko

V 0kahaa

Figure7.1: Example(287)

examples like (286a)areverynatural in Hindi andoccurquitefrequently in a large

text corpus (Vasishth et al., in preparation)).

(286) a. Siitaa-neSita-erg

Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaabbook


kahaatold

‘Sita told Hari to buy a/the book.’

b. * Siitaa-neSita-erg

Hari-koHari-dat

[khariid-ne-kobuy-inf

kitaab]book

kahaatold


This near-absenceof constraints on word orderturnsout to be very useful in

evaluatingtheexisting modelsof sentenceprocessing,aswe shall presently see.

A third property of Hindi center embeddingsis thatthesearecontrol construc-

tions. Thatis, thestructureof adoubleembedding like (287) is asshown in Figure

7.1 (single embeddingshave a similar structure).

(287) Ruci-neRuci-erg

Siitaa-koSita-dat

[Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaab(-ko)book(-acc)


bolne-ko]tell-inf

kahaatold

‘Ruci told Sitato tell Hari to buy thebook.’

That is, the indirect object of a clause at a given level (matrix or embedded)obli-

gatorily controls a PRO in subject position in theclauseembedded within it. The

syntax of theseconstructionsis discussedin detailelsewhere(Vasishth,2002).


Thesethreeproperties(phonologically similar casemarking with dative and

accusative case,relatively free word order, andcenter embeddingsbeingcontrol

constructions)becomerelevant aswe look at Hindi CECsto testthepredictionsof

the EPDA, SPLT, andICT. We will show that the SPLT andICT canonly partly

account for theHindi processing factsandthat theEPDA fails almostcompletely.

Specifically, Gibson’sSPLT canonly partlyaccount for certain reading timediffer-

encesfor NPs. On theother hand, Lewis’ ICT appears to be noncommittal about

NPreading time differences:it assumesthat theprimarysourceof processingdif-

ficulty for CECsoccurs in the retrieval stage,4 asNPsstored in working memory

are retrieved and integratedwith information about the verb. However, findings

from self-pacedreading experimentspresentedin this paper (seeSection4) indi-

catean additional, earlier, moreprominent source of processingdifficulty in the

NPencoding/storage5 stage.On this basis,we arguethatworking-memoryrelated

constraintson parsing areaffectedby bothencoding andretrieval.

Let usnow turn to thethreesentenceprocessingmodels in question.

7.3 THREE MODELS OF SENTENCE PROCESSING

7.3.1 JOSHI ’ S EMBEDDED PUSHDOWN AUTOMATON (1990)

Joshi (Joshi, 1990) presentsa computational model of processingbased on the

results of (Bachet al., 1986); the latter paper showed that Dutch crossed depen-

dencieswereeasierto processfor native Dutch speakersthanGermannested de-

pendenciesarefor nativeGermanspeakers.Examplesof crossed Dutchandnested

Germandependenciesareshownbelow:

(288) a. JanJan

PietPiet

MarieMarie

zagsaw

latenmake

zwemmenswim

‘Jansaw Pietmake Marie swim.’

NP1NP2NP3V1 V2 V3

b. . . .dass. . . that

HansHans

PeterPeter

MarieMarie

schwimmenswim

lassenmake

sahsaw

‘. . . thatHanssaw Petermake Marie swim.’

NP1NP2NP3V3 V2 V14By ‘retrieval’ wemeantheprocessof integrationof NP informationwith a verb.5We usethe term ‘encoding’ to refer to thestagepreceding storageof NPsin working memory

wherebythe NPs are convertedinto somerepresentationalform suitablefor storage. GathercoleandBradley (GathercoleandBaddeley, 1993)presenta discussionrelatingto theworking memoryprocessesassumedhere.


The Dutch CECsarecalled “crossed”becauseof the fact that the dependencies

between the verbsandthe subjects form crossing chains(NP1 NP2 NP3 V1 V2

V3), andthe GermanCECsarenested sincethe pattern is NP1 NP2NP3V3 V2

V1.

(Bachet al., 1986) “. . . show that the pushdown automaton (PDA) cannot be

theuniversalbasis for thehumanparsing mechanism” (Joshi, 1990). Theproblem

for the PDA is that in the caseof German,NP3 and the immediately following

V3 cancombine together, but there is no way to tell wherethat structurebelongs

until onegetsto the endof the sentence,andso this structure(and,similarly, the

NP2-V2-(NP3-V3)sub-structure)hasto bestoreduntil ahigherstructurebecomes

available. By contrast, in Dutch, the sub-structures can be built and integrated

incrementally.

Joshi proposesa PRINCIPLE OF PARTIAL INTERPRETATION to overcomethis

problem with PDAs. As heputsit (Joshi, 1990, 4-5):

1. The structure should be a properly integratedstructure with respect to the

predicate-argumentstructure(i.e.,only predicatesandargumentsthatgo to-

gethershould be integrated:ad hocpackagingof predicatesandarguments

is disallowed),andthereshould bea placefor it to go, if it is expectedto fit

into anotherstructure(i.e., thestructureinto which it will fit musthave been

poppedalready).

2. If astructurewhichhasaslotfor receiving anotherstructurehasbeenpopped,

then thestructurethatwill fill this slot will bepoppednext.

Joshi thendevelops an embedded PDA (EPDA) andshows that it canhandle

theDutchandGermanprocessingfacts. Thesignificanceof this is thatEPDAs are

equivalent to the syntactic formalisms TAGs, HPSG,andCCG,all of which are

capable of providing syntactic analysesfor crossedandnesteddependencies.

In the foll owing discussionof Joshi’s model, we assume that the readerhas

a working knowledge of PDAs (see,e.g.,(Hopcroft andUllman, 1979, 107-124)

for details). In an EPDA, the pushdown store is a sequenceof stacks, and new

stacksmaybecreatedaboveor below (to theleft or right) of thecurrent stack. The

specific behavior of EPDAs describedbelowis basedon (Joshi, 1990).

1. Stack head: This is always at the top symbolof the top stack. If the stack

head ever reachesthe bottom of a stack, thenthe stackhead automatically


movesto the top of the stack below (or to the left) of the current stack, if

thereis one.

2. Transition functionv u

: Givenaninput symbol,thestateof thefinite control

andthestacksymbol, thisspecifies(a) thenew state;(b) whetherthecurrent

stackis pushedor popped;and(c) new stacksto becreatedabove or below

thecurrent stack.vXu(input symbol, currentstate,stack symbol) =

(new state,æ#� 04- æ#� 1!-4545456- æ/�.7 , push/popon current stack,

æ ä809- æ ä:1!-454545 æ ä<; )where

æ#� 04- æ/� 1=-4545456- æ#�.7 are the stacks introduced below the current stack,

andæ ä�04- æ ä:1=-454545 æ ä<; arethestacks introduced above it.

Notethatduring eachmove,push/popis carried outonthecurrent stack, and

pusheson thenewly createdstack(s).

Next, weillustrateprocessingof theDutchcrossed dependency sequence:NP1

NP2NP3V1 V2 V3 with thefigurebelow showing thevariousstates.Thecolumn

“Stacksequence” contains thenewly created stacks, “Stack” is thestackwe begin

with, andthe column “Pop action” shows how the interpretation is incrementally

built up. Finally, “No. of (input) items” lists a numberthat Joshi usesasa com-

plexity measure to account for the differencein processing Dutch andGerman–

this just involvesadding up the total numberof input itemsin the EPDA at each

move,andlooking at thelargestnumber(in theDutchcase,3).

Input headat Stacksequence Stack Popaction No. of itemsNP1 0NP2 NP1 1NP3 NP1NP2 2V1 NP1NP2NP3 3V1 NP3 NP1NP2 3V1 NP3 NP2 NP1 3V1 NP3 NP2 NP1 3V2 NP3 NP2 V1(NP1,S1) 2V3 NP3 V2(NP2,S2)=S1 1

V3(NP3)=S2 0

Figure7.2: EPDA processingof Dutchdependencies


The way this proceedsis as follows. First, NP1 is readin andpushed on to

thecurrentstack,thesamegoesfor NP2andNP3. ThenNP3,NP2,andNP1are

successively poppedout of the current stack andpushed into sequencesof stacks

at the left of the current stack. Then,each NP is popped out of the EPDA and

incrementally builds up the predicate-argument structuresstarting with V1 up to

V3. Thecomplexity never goesbeyond 3.

TheproblematicGermancase(problematicfor PDAs), wheretheorder of NP

andV sequencesis NP1NP2NP3V3 V2 V1 is handledasshown below. In each

case, V > � is a possibly underspecified structureencoding V�

andits argument(s)

(NP�

andpossibly alsoS).Thatis, V > 3 = V1(NP3),V > 2= V2(NP2,S2),andV > 1=

V3(N1,S1).Notethatthemaximumnumber of input itemsin this caseis 6, higher

thanthat in Dutchcrosseddependencies.

Input headat Stacksequence Stack Popaction No. of itemsNP1 0NP2 NP1 1NP3 NP1NP2 2V3 NP1NP2NP3 3V3 V > 3 NP1NP2 4V3 V > 3 V > 2 NP1 5V3 V > 3 V > 2 V > 1 6V2 V > 3 V > 2 V1(NP1,S1) 4V1 V > 3 V2(NP2,S2)=S1 1

V3(NP3)=S2 0

Figure7.3: EPDA processingof Germandependencies

Joshi also discussesthe case of mixed dependencies in German,where the

sequencesare like NP1 NP2 NP3 V1 V3 V2. The complexity measure for this

kind of dependency is claimedto be intermediate between that for crossed and

nesteddependencies(presumablydueto the larger numberof total steps involved

in mixed dependencies). In sucha case, the EPDA behavesexactly like that for

nested dependenciesin Germanuntil we reach V1. Thenit mustbehave like the

EPDA for crosseddependencies.A schematic view is shownbelow:

Onepoint to note hereis that whenV3 is popped out, its argument(NP) is

uninstantiated. This only getsinstantiated when NP3 is popped out in the final

move. Another important point: whenthe input headis at V2, the precedingV3

hasbeeninsertedto theleft of NP2by creating anew stackbehing thestackholding


Input headat Stacksequence Stack Popaction No. of itemsNP1 0NP2 NP1 1NP3 NP1NP2 2V1 NP1NP2NP3 3V1 NP3 NP1NP2 3V1 NP3 NP2 NP1 3V1 NP3 NP2 NP1 3V3 NP3 NP2 V1(NP1,S1) 2V2 NP3 V3 NP2 3

NP3 V3 V2(NP2)=S1 2NP3 V3(NP) 1

NP3 0

Figure7.4: EPDA processingof Germanmixeddependencies

NP2,andinserting V2 into this new stack. Thesemovesareallowedby theEPDA

andaccordwith thePPI.

7.3.2 PREDICTIONS OF THE EPDA MODEL FOR HINDI CECS

Joshi’s account raises someinterestingquestionsfor Hindi center-embedding con-

structions.Recalltheissueof specificity markingonthedirectobject, i.e.,minimal

pairslike thefollowing:


Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaabbook


kahaatold

‘Sita told Hari to buy a/thebook.’

b. Siitaa-neSita-erg

Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaab-kobook-acc


kahaatold


c. Siitaa-neSita-erg

Hari-koHari-dat

[Ravi-koRavi-dat

[kitaabbook


bol-ne-ko]tell-inf

kahaatold

‘Sita told Hari to tell Ravi to buy a/thebook.’

d. Siitaa-neSita-erg

Hari-koHari-dat

[Ravi-koRavi-dat

[kitaab-kobook-acc


bol-ne-ko]tell-inf

kahaatold‘Sita told Hari to tell Ravi to buy a/thebook.’


Consider now theparsesfor (289a,b):

Input headat Stacksequence Stack Popaction No. of itemsNP1-ne 0NP2-ko NP1-ne 1

NP3-? /-ko NP1-neNP2-ko 2V2 NP1-neNP2-ko NP3 3V1 V > 2 NP1-ne 4

V > 2 V1(NP1-ne,S1) 3V2(NP2-ko,NP3)=S1 0

Figure7.5: Hindi examples (289a,b)

Basedon Table7.5, it is easyto seethat the EPDA predicts the following for

Hindi center embeddings:

@ No difference in processing difficulty at NP3 with respect to specificity-

marking.

@ No differencein processingdifficulty at V2 in bothsentences.

@ Greatest difficulty at final (matrix) verb.

We will presently show thatnone of these preductions areborneout.

7.3.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS REGARDING THE EPDA MODEL

Consider againthe Dutch vs. Germanconstrast. Bachet al. showed that Dutch

crosseddependenciesareeasier to processfor Dutchnative speakers,but German

nested dependenciesareharderfor Germannative speakers. The EPDA models

momentby momentprocessing difficulty (Joshi, personal communication), so it

would predict that thehighestprocessingcostis at the innermostverb in both the

Dutch and Germancases, since in the EPDA the most time is spentthereand

the numberof items present in the EPDA at this point is the largest. However,

experimentalwork hasshownthatthis is not true,at leastnot for Dutch(Kaanand

Vasic, 2000): in Dutch,asin Hindi, themostcostly region seemsto beat thefinal

NP.

Moreover, in the EPDA, structurebuilding doesnot begin until the verbsare

reached; until that point, the NPsaresimply stored in the stack. NPs,however,

generatepredictions(see,e.g.,(Scheeperset al., 19),andreferencescited therein),


they arenot just merelystoredin atemporarybuffer (presumablyEPDA is intended

to modelworking memory). Gibson’s SPLT, discussednext, addressesthis issue

of incrementalprocessingandpredictionsat theNPs.

In sum,thereareseveral empirical problemsin theEPDA model: theinability

to predict momentby momentreading timescorrectly for Hindi andDutch(there

arenoreading timestudiesfor GermanCECs,asfarasweknow), andtheassump-

tion of simplestorageof theNPsbefore theverbsareencountered.

7.3.4 GIBSON’ S SYNTACTIC PREDICTION LOCALITY THEORY (1998/1999)

Gibson’s syntactic prediction locality theory (SPLT) (Gibson, 1998; Babyonyshev

andGibson, 1999) hasasomewhatdifferent processing costmetricthantheEPDA.

The SPLT hastwo cost components: INTEGRATION COST and MEMORY COST.

Integration cost is the distancebetween the head-to-be-integrated(e.g., an NP)

and the headto which it connectsin the current structure (e.g.,a verb). This is

quantified in termsof thenumber of discoursereferentsseparating thetwo heads.

Memory cost is the number of all required syntactic headsat a given point. The

memorycost for eachpredictedsyntactic head b increasesas linguistic material

not matching b is processed. The prediction of the top-level predicate (matrix

verb) is assumedto becost-free(sincemostutterancesareheadedby a predicate),

andfor all requiredsyntacticheadsotherthanthetop-level predicate, memorycostA �U� ¡Öö �, where

�is thenumberof new discoursereferentsprocessedsincethat

syntactic headwasiniti ally predicted.6

We illustratethe model’s predictionsby giving a derivation for Hindi double

embeddings.7 In (290), casemarking or the absence thereof on NP3 is indicated

by ? (no casemarking) and-ko. In this discussion, we focuson the memorycost

alonefor easeof exposition; sinceintegrationcostis a function of memorycostin

theSPLT, therelative processingcosts that interest usremainthesame.

(290) NP1-neNP2-ko NP3-ko NP4-? /ko V3-inf V2-inf V1

Here,thepredictedslowestpoint during real-time processingis over NP4,and

no differencebetween thetwo variants (NP4-? versusNP3-ko) is predicted.

6Only finite verbsintroducediscoursereferentsin thismodel(Gibson,personalcommunication).7We follow Babyonyshev andGibson’s derivation for Japanesecenter-embeddings andassume

that the obliquepostpositions/casemarkers for the embeddedverbsarealsopredictedduring realtimeprocessing; however, nothinghingeson this assumption.


Prediction NP1-ne NP2-ko NP3-ko NP4-? /ko V3 inf2 V2 inf1 V1V1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0V2 - M(0) M(1) M(2) M(2) M(2) * - -Inf1 - M(0) M(1) M(2) M(2) M(2) M(2) * -V3 - - M(0) M(1) * - - - -Inf2 - - M(0) M(1) M(1) * - - -

—- —- —- —- —- —- —- —- —-0 0 2 6 5 4 2 0 0

Figure7.6: Processingof (290)

However, wewill presently show thattheslowestreading time is over thefinal

NPonly if it has-ko marking. Thus,thepredictionsof theSPLT appear to beonly

partly correct.

7.3.5 LEWIS’ INTERFERENCE AND CONFUSABILITY THEORY (1998/1999)

This model treats parsing asa short-term memorytask. In the context of center-

embeddingconstructions,thecentral idea is thatretrieval ataverbof anNPduring

real-time processingis affected by two factors: (i) POSITIONAL CONFUSABIL-

ITY; and (ii) RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE (RI) and PROACTIVE INTERFER-

ENCE (PI).

Positional confusability is the probability of correctly retrieving an NP from

amonga list of NPsseenup to a givenpoint. For example, if NP1NP2NP3NP4

is thelist of NPsseensofar, andif NP3is to beretrieved,theprobability of correct

retrieval will decreaseif NP3andNP4aresimilarly casemarked.This decreasein

probability is dueto theassumption thatitem-recall is with respect to theend-points

(thefirst andlastitem) of a list (independent motivation for this assumption comes

from thepsychology literature, e.g.,(Henson, 1999)). If anend-point NPis similar

to the item being recalled (in our case,‘similar’ meanssimilarly casemarked),

thentheprobability of correct retrieval decreases.Conversely, if theend-point NP

is dissimilarly casemarkedcompared to theNP to beretrieved,theprobability of

correctretrieval increases(i.e, positional confusability is reduced).

Pro-andretroactive interference aredefinedasfollows. Proactive interference

(PI) occurs whentheretrieval of anNP thatsuffers from interference by anNP or

NPspreceding theNPto beretrieved.Retroactive interference(RI) is theopposite:

theretrieval of anNPsuffersfrom interferencefrom itemsthatfollow theNP. There

is a great dealof evidencein the psychology literature for PI andRI in intertrial


list recall (see, e.g.,(Muller andPilzecker, ) and(KeppelandUnderwood, 1962)

for someof the earliest findings). It is an assumption of the model that PI and

RI occur within a list of NPs(see(Humphreys andTehan,1998), which provides

independent evidencefor proactive interferencewithin trials).

Wenow illustratethemodel’s behavior.

(291) BC0DB�1E54545DBF; dHG 0 G 1E54545 G 7JIIfI

is thecurrentword(averb),andasyntactic relation needsto beestablished

betweena constituent projected fromI

anda constituent headed by a prior wordd(anoun), thetotal amountof interferenceat

Idependsonthenumber of similar

itemsinterveningbetweend

andI

(RI) andthenumberof similar itemsprecedingd(PI). ‘Similarity’ is understoodto be syntactic similarity, which is determined

by thestructural role to beassignedtod

. For example, ifd

is to beassignedthe

structural position of subject, thenRI occurs due to allG 0 G 1E54545 G 7 which could

alsofill subject positions, andPI occurs dueto all B)0DB�1E54545DBF; which could also

fill subject positions. In addition, positional confusability increasesifd

andG 7

or

BK0 (i.e., oneof theendpoints) is similar tod

. Thetotal amount of retrieval diffi-

culty atI

is thesumof thetwo kindsof interferenceandpositional confusability.

For easeof exposition, we assignsimplenumerical valuesto eachcomponentof

processingcost: e.g.,if therearetwo elements causingRI, thenRI=2, if oneend-

point is increasing positional confusability (POS),thenPOS=1,etc. In theactual

computational implementation, thecostsarenot necessarily simpleintegervalues.

The predictions for Hindi CECs illustratethe model’s operation. The pattern

in (292a) is predictedto beeasier than(292b).

(292) a. NP1-neNP2-ko NP3-ko NP4-? V3 V2 V1

b. NP1-neNP2-ko NP3-ko NP4-ko V3 V2 V1

The following tables illustratehow the modelworks. In eachtable, the first

column lists the item to be retrieved (d

in the template above) at a particular

verbI

, with the itemsG 0 G 1L54545 G 7 interveningbetween

dand

I, andthe items

BK0.B�1E54545DBF; precedingd

. For eachI

theFigurelists thecost of RI andPI,andthe

uparrow( M ) indicatestheitem(s)involvedin causingRI or PI at retrieval.

Here, the retrieval of a subject at a verb results in the other underlying subjects

causing RI or PI.

In the next section we show that Lewis’ model correctly predicts increased

retrieval difficulty at the innermostverb. However, there is another dimension of


Retrieveditem NP1-ne NP2-ko NP3-ko NP4-? V3 V2 V1NP3-ko BK0 B�1 d G 0 I

POS=0RI=0

M M PI=2NP2-ko BK0 d G 0 G 1 I

POS=0M RI=1

M PI=1NP1-ne

d G 0 G 1 G 2 IPOS=0

M M RI=2PI=0

Figure7.7: Processing of (292a)

Retrieveditem NP1-ne NP2-ko NP3-ko NP4-ko V3 V2 V1NP3-ko BK0 B�1 d G 0 I

POS=1M RI=1

M M PI=2NP2-ko BK0 d G 0 G 1 I

POS=1M M M RI=2

PI=1NP1-ne

d G 0 G 1 G 2 IPOS=1

M M M RI=3PI=0

Figure7.8: Processingof (292b)


processingdifficulty in suchsentences: encoding difficulty of theNPsincreasesif

similarly case-marked NPsareadjacent to eachother. Lewis’ model is agnostic

aboutprocessing difficultiesat NPsandis thusunable to account for this fact.

Weturn now to theexperimentalevidencefrom Hindi.

7.4 CENTER EMBEDDINGS IN HINDI : THREE EXPERIMENTS

Thesecond author of thesenotes (Vasishth) conductedthree experimentto evalu-

atevarious predictions of these three models. Theseexperimentswereconducted

at Jawaharlal NehruUniversity, New Delhi, India during September 2000. There-

searchwasfunded partly through theproject, “EstablishingOhio Stateasa Major

Centerfor LanguageProcessing Research, Ohio StateCenterfor Cognitive Sci-

ence,Departmentof Linguistics, and Department of Computer and Information

Science”andpartly by the Departmentof Linguistics,The Ohio StateUniversity

(OSU),andwasconductedin accordance with thehumansubjectsresearch proto-

col number80B0433specified by theHumanSubjects InstitutionalReview Board,

OSU.8

7.4.1 EXPERIMENT 1

Method and materials

Experiment 1 hada NPOQN factorial design, thetwo factorsbeing level of embedding

(singleor double;compare(293a,b)and(293c,d)),andabsenceor presenceof case

markingon thefinal NP(compare (293a,c)and(293b,d)). In thetestsentences, all

but thefinal NPswereproper names;the final NP wasalways an inanimatecom-

monnoun,suchas‘book’ or ‘letter’. Thiswasapaper questionnaire wheresubjects

wereaskedto rateeachsentenceon a scale from 1 (completely unacceptable)to 7

(completely acceptable).


Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaabbook


kahaatold



Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaab-kobook-acc


kahaatold


8All comparisonspresentedhereafterhave p R .05,unlessotherwisestated.

204S An empirical evaluation of sentenceprocessingmodels

c. Siitaa-neSita-erg

Hari-koHari-dat

[Ravi-koRavi-dat

[kit aabbook


bol-ne-ko]tell-inf

kahaatold

‘Sita told Hari to tell Ravi to buy a/the book.’


Hari-koHari-dat

[Ravi-koRavi-dat

[kit aab-kobook-acc


bol-ne-ko]tell-inf

kahaatold‘Sita told Hari to tell Ravi to buy a/the book.’

Four lists were prepared in a counterbalanced, Latin Squaredesign, and 32

fillers wereinsertedbetween16 target sentencesin pseudorandomizedorder. The

fillers consisted of eight examplesof four syntactic structures: relative clauses,

medialgapping constructions,simpledeclaratives,andsentenceswith that-clauses

(all the stimuli andfillers areavailable from the author on request). Fifty-three

native speakersof Hindi participatedin the experiment. Nineteenof these were

Hindi-speaking students at theOhio StateUniversity, andwerepaid 5 US Dollars

eachfor completing the questionnaire; the remaining thirty-four wereundergrad-

uateandgraduatestudentsat Jawaharlal NehruUniversity, New Delhi, India, and

werepaid80 Indian Rupees each(approximately 1.7USDollars).

Predictions

This experiment tested thefollowing predictions:

T Acceptability will decreasewith increasinglevel of embedding. All three

models predict this.

T Lewis’ modelpredicts that direct-object markingwill result in reduced ac-

ceptability, but Gibson’s and Joshi’s models predict that the direct object

marking will have no effect on acceptability.

Results

As Figure7.9shows, theresults indicatethat increasingtheamountof embedding

reducesacceptability ((293c,d)werelessacceptablethan(293a,b)),aspredictedby

Joshi’s,Gibson’s,andLewis’ models. However, casemarking on thefinal NPalso

results in reduced acceptability ((293b), (293d) werelessacceptablethan(293a),

(293c) respectively), whichLewis’ modelpredicts,but Joshi’sandGibson’sdonot.

Thedetails of thestatistical analysisareasfollows: A repeatedmeasuresanalysis


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No Yes

Mean a

ccepta

bili

ty r

ating

U

Case marking on final NP

Embedding

Single embeddingDouble embedding

Figure7.9: Resultsof Experiment 1

of variance (ANOVA) wasdone for subject (F1) anditem (F2) means, with level

of embedding and presence or absence of casemarking on the final NP as the

within-subject factors.Themeanrating for sentenceslike (293a) wassignificantly

higher (mean:6.162) thanthat for sentenceslike (293b) (mean:4.179), F1(1,52)

= 130.969, rating for sentenceslike (293c) wassignificantly higher (mean:3.189)

thanfor sentenceslike (293d) (mean:2.553),F1(1,52)= 13.447,

7.4.2 EXPERIMENT 2

Method and Materia ls

This was a noncumulative self-pacedmoving window reading task (Just et al.,

1982); exactly the samematerials wereusedasfor Experiment 1 (seeexamples

(293)for thefour conditions).

A G3 laptop Macintosh running PsyScope(Cohen et al., 1993) was usedto

present the materials to subjects. Forty-six native speakersof Hindi participated

in theexperiment; no subjects from Experiment1 participated in this experiment.

Thetaskwasto pressthespacekey in orderto seeeach successiveword;eachtime

thekey waspressed, thepreviouswordwould disappear. Readingtime(msec)was

takenasa measureof relative momentaryprocessingdifficulty. A yes/no compre-

hension question waspresentedafter each sentence; these weremeantto ensure

thatsubjectswereattending to thesentences.


Predictions

This experiment tested thefollowing predictions:

T Readingtimeattheinnermostverbwouldbeslowerin exampleslike(293a,c)

than in exampleslike (293b,d). This wasbasedon Lewis’ interferencethe-

ory, which statesthat the probability of correct retrieval of the final NP de-

creasesasits positional confusability with anadjacentNP increases.

T Reading time would be slowesteitherat (i) the last NP (SPLT), or (ii) the

innermostverb(EPDA). Prediction (i) is basedon theSPLT, asdiscussedin

Section 7.3.4.Prediction (ii) comesfrom thefact that in theEPDA process-

ing of examples like (293b,d)will proceedasin Germancenterembeddings

(seeFigure7.3),with ahighestcostof 7 at theinnermostverb(sincethere is

onemoreNPthanin theGermanexamplein Figure7.3).

T TheEPDA andSPLT bothpredict thatreading time over thelastNPwill be

unaffectedby whether theNPhascasemarkingor not.

Results

Residual reading time were calculated for eachregion by subtracting from raw

reading timeseachparticipant’s predictedreading time for regions with the same

numbers of characters;this in turn is calculatedfrom a linear regressionequation

acrossall of aparticipant’ssentencesin theexperiment(FerreiraandClifton, 1986;

Trueswellet al., 1994). This was donein order to factor out the effect of word

length on reading time. However, the raw reading timesgave identical results to

theonesdiscussedbelow.

As shown in Figures 7.10 and7.11, the results indicatethat (a) reading time

(RT) increasesat the second of two adjacentsimilarly case-marked NPs; (b) RT

remains slow if two -ko marked NPsarefoll owed by a third -ko marked NP; (c)

RT is fasterif a non-case-markedNP(rather thana case-markedNP) follows a -ko

marked NP; (d) RT at the innermostverb is slower if the last NP is casemarked

thanwhenit isn’t; and(e)theslowest RT is in theregion of thefinal NP, particularly

if it is casemarked.

Thus,thefirst prediction (Lewis’ model),that RTs would beslower at the in-

nermost verb in sentenceswith case-markedfinal NPsthanin sentenceswith non-


-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

NP1 NP2 NP3 V2 V1

Mean R

esi

dual R

eadin

g T

ime (

mse

c)

Position

Case Marking

Non-case marked final NPCase-marked final NP

Figure7.10:SingleEmbeddings

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

NP1 NP2 NP3 NP4 V3 V2 V1

Mean R

esi

dual R

eadin

g T

ime (

mse

c)

Position

Case MarkingCase MarkingCase Marking

Non-case marked final NPCase-marked final NP

Figure7.11:DoubleEmbeddings

case-markedfinal NPs,wasborneout.9 Thesecond prediction (Gibson’smodel’s),

that the slowest RT would be at the final NP was partly confirmed,and Joshi’s

model’s prediction that the slowestRT would be at the innermostverb, wasdis-

confirmed.Thethird prediction (Gibson’s andJoshi’s models’), thatRT at thelast

NPwould beunaffectedby casemarking, wasdisconfirmed.

Thus,Lewis’ andGibson’smodelsmakeseveral correct predictions. However,

9It is possiblethat the longerreadingtime at the innermostverb is dueto spillover to the verbregion from processingdifficulty at theNPs.We intendto investigatethis questionfurther in futureresearch.


both modelsareunable to capturesomeof theHindi facts:Lewis’ ICT makesno

predictions for the NP reading times,10 and Gibson’s model cannot account for

the different RTs on the final case-marked vs. non-case-marked NPs. Thus, it is

clear that encoding/storing NPsis a componentof processingthat neither model

canaccount for.

We proposeto extend Lewis’ modelso that it canaccount for encoding and

retrieval difficulty; this is discussedin the next chapter. We choose to augment

Lewis’ model rather than Gibson’s because the former makes few assumptions

about the encoding componentof processing andit is straightforward to incorpo-

ratethe ideasproposedin the next chapter, which provide a fairly robust account

of difficulty dueto encoding processes.

We now consider another aspect of Lewis’ model. RecallthatLewis identifies

two sourcesof retrieval difficulty: positional confusability andinterference (Sec-

tion 7.3.5). In experiment 2, therewasno way to distinguish betweenthe two. In

experiment 3 below, we attempt to find evidencefor positional confusability . We

usethe fact that positional confusability predicts that processingwill improve if

similarly case-markedNPsaremadenon-adjacent,by, e.g.,scrambling. We there-

fore testedthis prediction in Experiment 3 by manipulatingadjacency.

7.4.3 EXPERIMENT 3

Method and Materi als

Thiswasanoffline acceptability rating tasksimilar in design to Experiment 1. The

testsentencesweresingle embeddings;onefactorwaspresenceor absenceof case-

markedfinal NPs,andtheother factor wasscrambled(NP2-ko NP1-neNP3(-ko))

or unscrambled(NP1-ne NP2-ko NP3-(ko)) first andsecond NPs(seeexamples

(294a,b)).

Participantsweregiven a paperquestionnaire andasked to rateeachsentence

on a scaleof 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). Sixty-

seven native speakers of Hindi participated; nonehad participated in the earlier

experiments.Therewere16 testitemsand32 fillers.

(294) a. siitaa-neSita-erg

hari-koHari-dat

kitaabbook

khariid-ne-kobuy-inf

kahaatold

‘Sita told Hari to buy a/the book.’10Lewis (personalcommunication) informsmethatthisclaimis incorrect;Lewis’ ICT doesindeed

make predictionsfor NP readingtimes. However, at the time of writing this we do not possessadescriptionof theprecisepredictionsmadeby theICT.


b. hari-koHari-dat

siitaa-neSita-erg

kitaabbook


kahaatold


c. siitaa-neSita-erg

hari-koHari-dat

kitaab-(ko)book-acc


kahaatold


d. hari-koHari-dat

siitaa-neSita-erg

kitaab-(ko)book-acc


kahaatold

‘It wasHari who Sitatold to buy thebook.’

The conditions (294a) and(294b) wereincludedto establish whether scram-

bled sentencesare in general lessacceptable than unscrambledoneswhen pre-

sentedout of context. It is well-known that scrambled sentences(presentedout

of context) are lessacceptable in languageslike English,German,Finnish,and,

Hungarian, (see(Hyona andHujanen, 1997) for a discussion andreferences).We

would thereforeexpect scrambledsentences(in null contexts) to be involve some

processingcost.Onekey question is whetherpositionalconfusability hasagreater

costcompared to the processingcostof scrambling. If increasingpositional con-

fusability hasahigher relativecostthanscrambling,wewill have evidenceconsis-

tentwith theconfusability theory.

Predictions

Scramblingwas expected to result in reduced acceptability; in addition, adding

casemarkingto the final NP in a scrambledsentencsis predicted by Lewis’ con-

fusability theory to result in a smallerdecreasein acceptability than when case

markingis added to thefinal NP in unscrambled sentences. That is, theunscram-

bledorder NP1-neNP2-ko NP3is predictedto bemoreacceptablethanthescram-

bled order NP2-ko NP1-ne NP3, and the reduction in acceptability whenan NP

sequence like NP1-ne NP2-ko NP3-ko is scrambled to NP2-ko NP1-ne NP3-ko

should be smaller than the casewherea sequence like NP1-ne NP2-ko NP3 is

scrambled to NP2-ko NP1-ne NP3. This is becausethe confusability theory pre-

dicts that in a sequencelike NP2-ko NP1-ne NP3-ko therewill be lessretrieval

difficulty at a verbsincethetwo -ko markedNPsareno longer adjacentandareat

the two endsof the list of NPs(asdiscussedin Section7.3.5,the two ends of the

NP-list aretheindexing positionsfor recalling itemsin a list).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No Yes

Mean a

ccepta

bili

ty r

ating

U

Case marking on final NP

Word orderWord order

CanonicalScrambled

Figure7.12:Experiment 3 results

Results

Results showedthat itemswith two -ko marked NPswerelessacceptable(repli-

cating findings in Experiment 1). Furthermore, as predicted by Lewis’ model,

scrambling sentenceswith two -ko marked NPsresulted in a smaller decreasein

acceptability thanscrambling sentenceswith only one -ko marked NP; i.e., there

wasaninteractionbetweenthefactors (F1(1,66)= 7.5).

7.4.4 DISCUSSION

Consistent with Lewis’ theory of positional confusability, reducing similarity of

adjacentNPsresulted in asmaller decreasein acceptability. Thus,thedatasuggest

that Lewis’ ICT is completely ableto account for the retrieval-relatedprocessing

facts for Hindi, andthat thetwo key componentsin theICT play a role in account-

ing for thedata.

7.5 CONCLUSION

Weempirically evaluatedthreesentenceprocessingmodelsandshowedthatLewis’

model makes the bestpredictions for the Hindi data. We alsoshowthat Lewis’

model appears to be unable to predict all the processing facts in Hindi. In the

next chapter, weproposeamodelof encodingthatcanbeincorporatedinto Lewis’

sentenceprocessingtheory.

An important point is thatalthoughtheEPDA modelclearly failsfor Hindi cen-


terembeddings,this is notsoclearfor Gibson’smodel.Recallthat all thesentences

in all theexperimentswerepresentedoutof context, andsinceweweremanipulat-

ing specificity of theNP, it is possiblethatsubjectswereunable to “accommodate”

thespecific referent. If this wasindeed thesourceof processingdifficulty, thenthe

SPLT’s predictions may turn out to be correct if the sentencesarepresentedwith

appropriatepreceding context. Experimentsarecurrently in progressto determine

whetherthis is thecase. Theinterestedreader is invited to consult (Vasishth, 2002)

for thelatest results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by the Departmentof Linguistics and the Department

of ComputerandInformationScience,OSU.The experimentswereconductedat

Jawaharlal NehruUniversity, New Delhi, India; we thank ProfessorsAyeshaKid-

wai, andR. S. Gupta,andAarti Venkataramanfor logistical help. Without their

cooperation, this research would have beenvery difficult to carry out. We arealso

grateful to ChrisBrew, Michael Dickey, David Dowty, EdwardGibson, Martin Jan-

sche,Aravind Joshi, EdithKaan,KeithJohnson,NealJohnson,BrianJoseph, Ruth

Kempson,Marcus Kracht, Bob Levine, RichardLewis, EdsonMiyamoto, Mine-

haruNakayama,GeraldPenn,ShariSpeer, andHansUszkoreit. Versionsof this

chapter werepresentedat the CUNY 2001sentenceprocessing conferenceat the

Universityof Pennsylvania, at a talk in theDepartment of Computational Linguis-

ticsandPhonetics,TheUniversityof Saarland, Germany, andat the13thEuropean

SummerSchoolfor Logic, Language, andInformation held at Helsinki, Finland;

thanks go to the audiences at thesevenues for their commentsand suggestions.

Any errorsarethesoleresponsibility of Shravan Vasishth.


CHAPTER 8

PROCESSING AS ABDUCTION+DEDUCTION:

A SENTENCE PROCESSING MODEL

A sentence processing model is presented, basedon abductive and deductive inference. We

show that the modelmakescorrect predictions for an arrayof datainvolving Dutch, German,

Japanese, and Hindi center-embedding constructions. It hascomparable or better empirical

coverage with respectto several other theories of sentence processing, and canbe integrated

into anexisting wide-coveragemodel,Lewis’ InterferenceandConfusability Theory, to obtain

anintegrated theory of working memoryconstraints on humanlanguageprocessing.

8.1 INTRODUCTION

A well-knownfactabout English(Chomsky andMiller, 1963) is thatcenter-embedded

constructions (CECs)like (295a) are more difficult for humans to processthan

right-embedded constructionslike (295b).

(295) a. The salmon[that the man[that the dog chased] smoked] fell off the

grill .

b. The dog chased the man [that smoked the salmon[that fell off the

grill ]].

SuchCECsoccur in several languages,suchasDutch,German,Japanese, and

Hindi, asthefoll owing examplesdemonstrate.

(296) a. (dat)that

AadAad

JantjeJantje

dethe

leraresteacher

dethe

knickersmarbles

lietlet

helpenhelp

opruimencollect

‘(that) Aad let Jantje help theteacher collect themarbles.’ ((Kaanand

Vasic, 2000))

b. (dass)that

diethe

Mannermen

habenhave

HansHans

diethe

Pferdehorses

futternfeed

lehrenteach

‘(that) the men have taught Hansto feed the horses.’ ((Bach et al.,

1986))

213

214S ProcessingasAbduction+Deduction: A SentenceProcessingModel

c. Keiko-gaKeiko-nom

Tadashi-gaTadashi-nom

Kenji-oKenji-acc

kiraida-tohates-comp

omotteiruthinks

‘K eiko thinks thatTadashihatesKenji.’ ((Uehara andBradley, 1996))


Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaabbook

khariid-ne-ko]buy-inf-acc

kahaasaid

‘Sita told Hari to buy a/the book.’ ((Vasishth,2001))

Several experimental studieshave investigatedDutch,German,Japanese,and

Hindi (see, for example, (Bach et al., 1986), (Kaan and Vasic, 2000), (Lewis,

1998), (BabyonyshevandGibson, 1999), (Ueharaand Bradley, 1996), and (Va-

sishth, 2001)), andasa resultwe now have a body of interesting, empirically de-

terminedfacts aboutrelativedifficultiesin processing these kind of sentences,and

reading time differencesduring real-time processing.

Two theoriesthataddressthequestion of a cross-linguistically robust account

of CEC processing are: Babyonyshev and Gibson’s (Babyonyshev and Gibson,

1999) Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory(SPLT), based on integrationcostand

memorycost; and Lewis’ (Lewis, 1998) Interference and Confusability Theory

(hereafter, ICT), which relies on constraints on working memoryduring compre-

hension.1 Thesetheoriesmake correct predictions for several languages, but are

unable to account for all the processing difficulties in Hindi CECs. This is dis-

cussed in detail in (Vasishth, 2001) (this volume),which showed that (i) although

the ICT canaccount for processing difficulty of verbs, it is unable to account for

differencesin processingnouns;and(ii) theSPLT, whosecomplexity metricrelies

on thenumberof discoursereferents introduced in a sentence,cannot account for

somekey Hindi processing facts.

SinceLewis’ ICT lacks a metric for the processing difficulty of nouns (i.e.,

before the verbsareencountered), but makes the correct predictions for the pro-

cessing of verbs for all thelanguagesunderconsideration, onepossibility is to add

sucha metric to the ICT; this hasthe advantageof maintaining the wide cover-

ageof the ICT andof extending it to account for the Hindi data. We proposethe

abductive-inferencebased modelassuch anaddition to theICT.

The structure of the paperis as follows. Section8.2 outlines the main pro-

posal: an algorithm, a complexity metric, and the relationship betweenthe two;

Section8.3 illustratestheoperationof themodelby giving severalderivations for

theDutch,German,Japanese,andHindi facts; andSection8.4concludesthepaper.1This is by no meansanexhaustive list of theoriesrelatingto sentenceprocessing–we chooseto

discussthesetwo theoriesbecausethey have wide empiricalcoveragefor thequestions we addresshere.

ProcessingasAbduction+Deduction: A SentenceProcessingModel /215

8.2 PROCESSING AS ABDUCTION+DEDUCTION: THE MAIN

PROPOSAL

Theprocessingmodelweproposefor explaining thecomplexity of center-embedded

constructionsis basedon a combinationof abduction anddeduction.

The basic idea is as foll ows. We assume that we have a grammar, V , for a

particular natural language, W . V defineswhat types of functional categories (or

predicate-valency frames)we can encounter in W , and how thesefunctions can

combinewith their arguments.Throughout this paperwe will assumethat V is a

categorial grammar, andthatthebasictypesof functionalcategoriescanbederived

directly from V ’s lexicon.

We canextract thelist of types of functionalcategoriesfrom V ’s lexicon. Dis-

regarding the specific words that eachof thesefunctional categories have been

assignedto in thelexicon, wecanconsiderthis list essentially asproviding uswith

schemaselucidating how words (of particular categories)canbe combined. For

example, the intransitive verbs give us the schema XZY8[]\_^ , the transitive verbs

XZY8[`\$a!b�[]\cNd^ , andsoon. We regardthis list asour collection of hypothesis for-

mers, e . We employ e in thefoll owing way.

Whenwe processa sentence,we do soby starting at thebeginning of thesen-

tence,andproceeding word by word towardsthe endof the sentence.2 In center

embeddings,we encounterNPsbefore we seea verb. TheseNPsarearguments

for oneor moreverbs.TheNPsthat we have encountered at a givenpoint during

real-timeprocessingresult in unconsciousabductive inferencesaboutthepossible

completion of the sentence(i.e., about the kind of schemaor schemasthat will

apply). Themodelrelieson theassumption thata greater number of abductive in-

ferenceswill result in increasedprocessing difficulty dueto anprocessingoverload

on humanworking memory.3

Putdifferently, whenever we encounter a word that is believed to be an argu-

mentof an asyet unseen verb (function), we assumea hypothetical function that

would explain the occurrence of that word asa (projected) argument. For exam-

ple, if weencounteranoun in nominative casebeforewehave encountereda verb,

we hypothesizea verbal category thatwould take a noun in nominative caseasits

2Computersdo notnecessarilyhave to do so- for examplewhenusinghead-cornerparsingalgo-rithms.

3Weassumethatworkingmemory, or short-termmemory, is “. . .ashort-durationsystemin whichsmall amountsof informationaresimultaneouslystoredandmanipulatedin the serviceof accom-plishinga task” (CaplanandWaters,1999).


argument.It is our list e thatprovidesuswith thepossiblehypothesis-candidates,

since e includesall the (basic) types of functions that we can conceivably en-

counter, given V .

Subsequently, whenever the parser encounters a verb, it tries to matcha hy-

pothesized function or functionsagainst theactual functional category of theverb.

If thereis a match,or if theverbal category subsumes(i.e., is moreinclusive than

but not inconsistent with; see(Shieber, 1986, 14-16) for a precise definition) the

hypothesized function, thenwe caninstantiate the hypothesisasthe encountered

verbal category, andcompose theverbwith thenounasits argument.

Abduction, then, is understood hereasthe kind of unconscious andinstanta-

neous reasoning we useto advancea hypothetical function asthebestexplanation

for the occurrence of an argument, acting on the assumption that we are trying

to processa grammatical sentence.Deduction is usedin theCategorial Grammar

sense, asthemeansto subsequently try to composeanactually encounteredfunc-

tion andany available,suitableargument(s). Theaccountof processing complexity

arises from the number of hypothesescurrently active, and how difficult it is to

matchthemagainstthefunctional categoriesof observedwords.

In the next subsections we discuss the notion of abduction in somemorede-

tail; thenwe present thealgorithm andthecomplexity metric,andtherelationship

between them.

8.2.1 ABDUCTION

Thecontemporary understanding of abduction, asa third form of logical reasoning

next to deduction andinduction (cf. (Josephson andJosephson, 1996)), is usually

traced back to its discussionby theAmericanlogician, Charles S.Peirce(Kruijf f,

1995; Kruijf f, 1998b). Peircedefined abductionasthefollowing kind of inference:

A surprising phenomenonO is observed;

but if H wereto bethecase, thenO wouldfollowasa matterof course.

Therefore, there is reason to believethat H.

Thus, whereas (intuitively speaking) deduction derives a consequence from

given axioms, and induction establishesa rule or generalization, abduction pro-

poses anexplanation for a surprising observation.

The surprise is the key, here. Being surprised meansthat either (a) we did

not expectto observe (anything like) f at all, or (b) we did expect to make some


observation, but it wasnot f . On (a), our knowledgeis incomplete,whereason

(b), our knowledgeis in someway incorrect. Either way, we do not at that time

havesufficient knowledgeto createahypothesisexplaining f - if weknewall along

that f would happen,how comewe got surprised?4 Peirce’s claim wasthat only

through abduction could we obtaingenuinely new knowledge(on theassumption

wewould let ourselvesbesurprised, andacknowledgethatfact).

Here,like in AI in general, we take in a substantially weaker (but morework-

able)position. We assumethatwe have at our disposalall hypothesisformersthat

couldbepossibly abduced.For our application, thelist is assumedto bethesmall-

estonegivenagrammar/lexicon - theset e discussedabove. Weassumethat e is

finite andclosed.5 Theseareall reasonable assumptionssince e cannot have any

redundanthypothesisformers(having beencreated from the grammarrules), and

the list of schemasextractedfrom the grammarwill be finite (if this werenot so,

thesetof grammarruleswould have to infinite).

e is createdon the basis of a compilation of the lexicon; in a lexicalist ap-

proach like Categorial Grammar, the lexicon determineshow words can be put

together. Structural rules, like thecombinatorsin Combinatorial Categorial Gram-

mar(CCG)(Steedman, 2000d) or themeaning postulatesin Multi-Modal Logical

Grammar(MMLG) (Moortgat,1997b), only vary theorder in which wordsoccur

grammatically.

Thecompilation of thelexiconis basedonaprocedureproposedfor linear logic

in (Hepple, 1998), andextendedin (Kruijf f, 1999b) to cover a larger rangeof mul-

tiplicative resource logics usedin MMLG. Originally, compilation wasproposed

for the purposesof efficient chartparsing with Lambek-style grammars,in order

to overcomeproblemswith earlier approaches(e.g.,(Hepple, 1992) and(Konig,

1990)). The result of the procedureis a set of first-order functions to represent

categories(i.e., there areno higher-orderformulas).

Oncewe have a compiled version of the lexicon, we abstractaway from indi-

vidual words, andretainthedifferent functional categoriesthataredefined.Taken

together, thesefunctional categories make up e . The list of hypothesis formers

e is assumedto be partially ordered by a simplicity criterion: simpler structures

4For that reason,Peirceadvancedthe ideathat a hypothesisis createdby a “guessinginstinct”becausewe cannotrely on reasoningfrom our knowledge as such. In this context it is perhapsinterestingto notethat Peircewasnot alonein postulatinga fundamentalrole for somethinglike a“guessinginstinct” in logic. Godeltook thesameline–cf. (Parsons,1995), andthebrief comparisonbetweenGodel’s ideasandPeirce’s in (Kruijf f, 1997).

5This is not to confused with thefactthatthesetof sentences is infinite.


appear beforethemorecomplex ones. Examplesof thesimplicity criterion: mon-

oclausalstructuresaresimpler thanbiclausalones,the intransitive-verbbased hy-

pothesisis simpler thantheditransitive verb-basedhypothesis.This assumption is

not arbitrary; it is based on experimentalevidencefrom (Yamashita, 1997), which

showed that (Japanese) subjects prefer to completesentenceswith verbsthat are

simpler (i.e.,verbsthatresult in monoclausalstructures)rather thanmorecomplex

ones. We take this result to indicate that simpler structuresare moreaccessible

thanmorecomplex ones, andmodel this assumption by the partial ordering (the

ordering is partial becauseit is possible thatthereis nowayto specify relativesim-

plicity betweena givenpair of hypotheses). We leave aside the issue of precisely

defining theordering criteriafor themoment.

8.2.2 SOME DEFINITIONS

Next, we definesometermsthatwe usein theproposedalgorithm.

Abducible structur e(s): An ABDUCIBLE STRUCTURE is a hypothe-

sisbasedon the informationavailablesofar; no morehypothesesare

selectedthanarejustified by the informationavailable up to a certain

point (this will bemadeprecisepresently).

New information results in the replacementof previoushypotheses.Abduced

functions Xhg arepart of the abducible structures that are taken from e , andthus

posit thepresenceof a word with a particular syntactic category. For example,in

Japanese,if only a nominative NP (we representthis as [`\ji kml=npo ) hasappeared

so far, XFg�Y8[`\ji kml=npo�^ is a syntactic hypothesisthat says: an intransitive verb X�gwith thenominative NPwill give a sentence.6

NotethatalthoughanominativecasemarkedNPis in principleconsistent with

aninfinite setof possible continuations,our modelallows for theselection of only

thosehypothesesfrom thehypothesisformers e that areminimallyconsistent with

thenominative NP. Wedefineminimal consistency asfollows:

Minimal consistency:

Therearetwo cases: (i) only a list of NPshasbeenseenso far, (ii) a

list of NPsanda verb,or only a verb,hasbeenseensofar.

6Thesubscripton q is merelya notationaldevice usedin the derivationsin Section8.3 for im-proving readability.


(i) If only a list of NPshasbeenseensofar: A list of hypothesesH’ ,

H’ r H, is minimally consistentwith a given list of nouns NPs

iff eachhypothesish s H’ is ableto take theNP’s asarguments

without positing any new, unseen arguments.

(ii) A list of hypothesesH’ , H’ r H, is minimally consistentwith a

verb,or agivenlist of nounsNPsandaverb,if f eachhypothesis

h s H’ is ableto take any of theseenNP’s asarguments (given

the valency-frame of the verb that hasbeenseen); if the verb

requiresany new, unseen argument(s) and/or is an argumentof

anotheras-yet-unseenverb X g , theunseenargument(s) and/or the

function Xhg areposited. Any unseen argumentsthat thefunction

X�g would require arealsoposited.

An example illustrating the first clauseabove of minimal consistency is as

follows. Suppose that, during the course of processing a Japanesesentence,we

have seenonly one nominative NP so far. In that case, a hypothesis satisfying

minimal consistency is Xtg:Y8[`\ji kml=npo�^ , andoneviolating minimal consistency is:

X�guY8[]\ji kml=npo�b�vC^ , where v is a hypothesized,new, unseenNP. By contrast,if, af-

ter we seethefirst nominative NP, we seea second nominative NP, theminimally

consistenthypothesesarenow X g Y8[]\$wdi kml=npo�b�[`\_xhi kml)npo�^ , where X g is a stative

verb,and Xyg&z|{4Y8[]\$wdi kml=npo�b}X�g&zC~dY8[`\_xhi kml)npo�^�^ , i.e.,acenter-embeddedstructure.

Thesecond clauseof minimal consistency canbeexemplifiedasfollows. Sup-

posewe are processinga sentence in Japanese,and we first seea verb V1 like

itta-to, ‘said[past]-complementizer’. Here,thehypothesiswill be X}g:Y�v�b.�,wdY��b��t^�^ ;sinceV1 is necessarily anembeddedverb(due to thepresenceof thecomplemen-

tizer), there is a function X�g (with somesubject NP v ) that takes a clause headed

by V1 asanargument,andV1 takes as-yet-unseenarguments� and � .Thereis somepsychological motivation for theminimalconsistency constraint.

Yamashita(Yamashita, 1997) hasconductedJapanesesentencecompletion tasks

whereshepresentedsubjects with incompletesentencescontaining only a series

of NPswhich they wereasked to complete. Shefound thatsubjects tended to use

verbsthat subcategorizedonly for theNPspresent, but notverbsthatwouldrequire

adding new, unseen NPs.Thefirst author of this paper obtainedasimilar resultfor

Hindi in a pilot study.

Turning next to the issueof processingverbsafter the nounshave beenseen,

the model usesa processof matching the verb to the hypothesized function or


functions, in themanner definedbelow.

Matching: A verbV MATCHES with a function X�g if f V hasa valency

that is identical with that of Xdg . An NP can matchwith a posited

NP argumentif f its casemarking, person, number, gender, andother

information, is consistentwith thatof theposited argument.

With thesedefinitionsin place,we turn next to thealgorithm, basedon which the

complexity metric is defined.

8.2.3 THE ALGORITHM

Theprocessing algorithm worksasfollows.

Init: Setthequeue datastructure � to � , setthescanning pointer to position 0.

Scan: Scanthenext word � g , moving thepointer to thenext position.

Lookup: Lookupthescannedword ��g in thelexicon of V .

Process: This is themainpartof thealgorithm.

if �� then

check thecategory C of �Zg :if C is a function category C then

��`� C �else

�� abduceY�e]b C b.�+ênd if

else �=��t�

if thecategory of ��g is a function category C then

�� deduceY C b.�+ôr (failing that) ��`� C �

else � C is not a function category C �� deduceY C b.�+ôr failing that �� abduceY�e`b C b.�+Îf thelatter stepfails, or wearriveat thelatter step

and ��g is thelastword in thesentence,thenFAIL.

end if


end if

�� deduceY C b.�+^ :

Givenacategory C andastructure � , if C is anargumentthen try to combine

it with a hypothesis or function in � , starting with the outermosthypothe-

sis/function first (FIFO). Else,C is a function, andtry to matchit againsta

hypothesis � in � , suchthat C is either equalto � or subsumesit. Failing

all that, throw anexception stating that theword with category C cannot be

combinedwith anything in thestructure.

�� abduceY�e]b C b.�+^ : Givena list of possible hypothesese , a category C, and

a structure � , find theminimally consistenthypothesis(or hypotheses)� in

e that takes � asan argument,andwhich canbe combinedwith � either

as an argumentof a hypothesis/function in � , or as a function taking the

outermosthypothesis/function in � asits argument.If no suchhypothesis�canbefound, then FAIL. Otherwise, integrateC and � into � andreturnthe

updated structure. The hypotheses abduced in this stepareorderedby the

simplicity criterion.

Processing starts with Init . Subsequently, we cycle through Scan-Lookup-

Process, either until we FAIL or until we arrive to theendof the sentence. If the

structure � contains no unmatched hypotheses,thenthe sentence is grammatical

andcanbeassigned � ; otherwise,thesentenceis consideredungrammaticalon V .

To repeat anearlier examplefrom Japanese:two nominative casemarkedNPs

starting a sentencecould be followed either by a stative predicate (8.2.3a), or a

nesteddependency construction with a single level of embedding (8.2.3b).

(297) a. XF~�Y8[]\$wdi kml=npo�b�[`\_xhi kml)npo�^b. X��Y8[]\$wdi kml=npo�b}X��Y8[`\_xhi kml)npo�^�^

Thesearetwo hypothesesselected from e . No other hypothesesareselectedbe-

causethesearetheonly two thatareminimally consistent, giventheinformationso

far. Thesehypothesesarebasedon thegrammatical possibilities in Japanese,and

sincea single clause sentencehasa simpler structurethana sentencewith anem-

bedded clause, the hypothesesareorderedasshown above. Next, the appearance

of an accusative case marked NP will result in thesehypothesesbeingdiscarded

andthenew hypothesisbeingselected:

(298) X��Y8[`\jwdi kml)npo�b}XC�dY8[]\cxhi kml=npo�b�[]\c�hi �t�9�.o�^�^


Sincethe numberof hypotheseshasfallen from two to one, the model predicts

faster processingat the accusative NP. This prediction is borne out, asdiscussed

further on. We turn next to thecomplexity metric.

The complexity metric

The complexity metric hastwo components: ABDUCTION COST, the costassoci-

atedwith theabductive process, andMISMATCH COST, thecostassociatedwith a

mismatchbetweenanencounteredverbandabducedfunctions.

Abduction cost: This reflectstheincreasingprocessingloadassentencefrag-

mentsappearincrementally. Theabduction costis thesumof thenumberof NPs

seenso far, the numberof functions X=g that areposited, andthe total numberof

distinct hypothesesabducedat a givenpoint. Thesethree sub-components arein-

tendedto reflecttheloadin working memoryof: (a) storing anincreasingnumber

of NPs;(b) positing functions;and(c) storing hypotheses.

Mismatch cost: We assumethat the (queued) hypothesesare unanalyzable

units at first, andthat whena word appears, the hypotheseshave to be examined

asa whole–hence, we assumea left to right depth first search. Every time a verb

fails to matchwith a hypothesizedfunction, thereis a mismatchcostof one.This

assumption also haspsychological motivation: Neal Johnson(personal commu-

nication) hasconducted experimentswherehe found that subjects tend to store

information in working memory(information suchaswords, diagrams,etc.) as

unanalyzable units. We take this to indicate thathypothesesarestoredin working

memoryasunanalyzablewholes.

The numerical valueassociatedwith eachsub-component in the metric is as-

sumedto be 1 and the components are assumedto be additive. This is merely

a convenience, andnothing crucial hingeson this assumption. In a fully imple-

mentedversion of this model, the unit costs associatedwith eachcomponentwill

beassociatedwith precisereading time predictions.

The complexity metric applies in conjunction with the application of the al-

gorithm: at eachstage whenthe algorithm incrementallybuilds/revisesthe list of

possible hypotheses, thecomplexity metric is usedto computetheprocessing cost

at thatpoint.

In thenext section, we provide someillustrationsof theempirical coverage of

this processing model.


8.3 THE EMPIRICAL COVERAGE

8.3.1 JAPANESE

Notethat in the following discussion, theverbsin nestedsentencesarenumbered

in reverseorder of occurrence,i.e., thematrix verb, which appearslast,is V1. The

numbersdo not reflectthe verbs’ valencies; this reversenumbering conventionis

merelyin order to highlight thedifferencefrom Dutch(discussed later).

Gibson’s (1998) data

Gibson(Gibson, 1998) hasshown that(299a) is lessacceptable than(299b).

(299) a. obasan-gaaunt-nom

bebiisitaa-gababysitter-nom

ani-gabrother-nom

imooto-osister-acc

izimeta-toteased-comp.

itta-tosaid-comp.

omotteiruthinks

‘The aunt thinks that the babysitter said that the elderbrother teased

theyoungersister.’

b. bebiisitaa-gababysttr.-nom

ani-gabrother-nom

imooto-osister-acc


itta-tosaid-comp.

obasan-gaaunt-nom

omotteiruthinks



First,consider theapplicationof thealgorithm for (299a):

Step1:

Input Abduction/deduction Abduction Cost mismatchcost

NP1-ga X�{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

Here,givenonly thefirst NP (obasan-ga), a sentencewith anintransitive verb

(IV), denoted by X�{ , is abduced. This contributes3 to our costso far (abduction

cost,composedof thenumber of NPsseensofar (1), plusthenumber of functions

abduced(1), plusthenumberof hypothesesabduced(1); mismatchcostis currently

0).

Step2:


Input Abduction/deduction Abduction Cost MismatchCost

NP1-ga X�{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

NP2-ga X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+3+2=7 0

X � (NP1,X � (NP2))

Given the second NP (bebisitaa-ga), andgiven that both the NPsseenso far

arenominative casemarked, the abducible structuresare: a stative predicatetak-

ing two nominative arguments( X ~ (NP1,N2)),anda center embeddedconstruction

( X � (N1,X � (N2))). Theabduction costhere is 7: 2 NPs,3 functions,and2 hypothe-

ses.

Step3:


NP1-ga X { (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

NP2-ga X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+3+2=7 0

X � (NP1,X � (NP2))

NP3-ga X � (NP1,X � (NP2,NP3)) 3+5+2=10 0

XK (NP1,XK¡ (NP2,XC¢ (NP3))

Wenow havethreenominativeNPs,andsoweeitherhaveanembeddedstative

predicate,asin Xh� (NP1,XC� (NP2,NP3)),or acenterembedding,asin Xt (NP1,XC¡ (NP2,XC¢ (NP3))).

Theabductioncostis now 10.

Step4:


NP1-ga X|{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

NP2-ga XC~ (NP1,NP2) 2+3+2=7 0

X � (NP1,X � (NP2))

NP3-ga X � (NP1,X � (NP2,NP3)) 3+5+2=10 0

XK (NP1,XC¡ (NP2,XC¢ (NP3))

NP4-o X|{¤£ (NP1,X|{�{ (NP2,X|{¤~ (NP3,NP4))) 4+3+1=8 0

X {¤£ (NP1,X {�{ (NP2,X {¤~ (NP3,NP4))) is abducedbecausethefourth NPis marked

with accusative case,andso there mustbe at least oneembedding with a transi-

tive embedded verb. The abduction cost is now 8; i.e., the model predicts that

processing will take lesstime at this fourth NP, comparedto thethird NP.

Step5:



NP1-ga X�{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

NP2-ga X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+3+2=7 0

X � (NP1,X � (NP2))

NP3-ga X�� (NP1,XK� (NP2,NP3)) 3+5+2=10 0

X (NP1,X ¡ (NP2,X ¢ (NP3))

NP4-o X|{¤£ (NP1,XL{�{ (NP2,X|{¤~ (NP3,NP4))) 4+3+1=8 0

V3 X|{¤£ (NP1,XL{�{ (NP2,V3(N3,NP4))) 4+2+1=7 2

Here, the next word is izimeta-to, ‘teased-complementizer’, and a deduction is

performedin thefoll owing manner:

(i). V3 tries to match X�{¤£ in

X|{¤£ (NP1,XL{�{ (NP2,X|{¤~ (NP3,NP4)))¥ failure.

This matching attempt fails becausetheoutermostfunction X6{¤£ hasa valency

framethatdoesn’t matchtheactual verb’s.

(ii). V3 triesto match X {�{ in

X {¤£ (NP1,X {�{ (NP2,X {¤~ (NP3,NP4)))¥ failure.

Here,again, thefailure occurs dueto thevalency frameof theverbnot match-

ing thatof thenext function.

(iii). V3 triesto match X�{¤~ in

X|{¤£ (NP1,XL{�{ (NP2,X|{¤~ (NP3,NP4)))¥¦X|{¤£ (NP1,XL{�{ (NP2,V3(N3,NP4)))

This succeedsbecausethe valency frameof the verb matchesthat of the next

function. The costnow is the sumof the abduction cost (7) plus the number of

failed matches(2): 9. Notice that the numberof abducedfunctions is now 2, not

3; this is becauseoneof the abducedfunctions hasalready beenresolved by its

matching with V3.

Step6:



NP1-ga X|{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

NP2-ga XC~ (NP1,NP2) 2+3+2=7 0

X � (NP1,X � (NP2))

NP3-ga XC� (NP1,XC� (NP2,NP3)) 3+5+2=10 0

X (NP1,X ¡ (NP2,X ¢ (NP3))

NP4-o X|{¤£ (NP1,X|{�{ (NP2,X|{¤~ (NP3,NP4))) 4+3+1=8 0

V3 X|{¤£ (NP1,X|{�{ (NP2,V3(N3,NP4))) 4+2+1=7 2

V2 X|{¤£ (NP1,V2(NP2,V3(NP3,NP4))) 4+1+1=6 1

Thedeductive processgoes asfollows:

(i). V2 triesto match X {¤£ in

X {¤£ (NP1,X {�{ (NP2,V3(N3,NP4)))¥ failure.

(ii). V2 triesto match X�{�{ in

X|{¤£ (NP1,X|{�{ (NP2,V3(N3,NP4)))¥¦X|{¤£ (NP1,V2(NP2,V3(NP3,NP4)))

V2 fails to match XC{¤£ , but successfully matchesXh{�{ . The cost is now 7 (the

abduction cost, 6, plusthemismatchcost,1).

Step7:


NP1-ga X|{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

NP2-ga XC~ (NP1,NP2) 2+3+2=7 0

XC� (NP1,X�� (NP2))

NP3-ga XC� (NP1,XC� (NP2,NP3)) 3+5+2=10 0

XK (NP1,XC¡ (NP2,XC¢ (NP3))

NP4-o X {¤£ (NP1,X {�{ (NP2,X {¤~ (NP3,NP4))) 4+3+1=8 0

V3 X|{¤£ (NP1,X|{�{ (NP2,V3(N3,NP4))) 4+2+1=7 2

V2 X|{¤£ (NP1,V2(NP2,V3(NP3,NP4))) 4+1+1=6 1

V1 V1(NP1,V2(NP2,V3(NP3,NP4))) 4+0+0=4 0

Thedeductionin this caseis immediate:


V1 tries to match XC{¤£ in

X|{¤£ (NP1,V2(NP2,V3(N3,NP4)))¥ V1(NP1,V2(NP2,V3(NP3,NP4)))

Here,V1 matchesthe outermostabduced function Xd{¤£ immediately, and the

parseis completed. Thecostat this stageis 4.

Thetotal cost(thesumof thecostsat eachstep)givesusthecomplexity of the

sentencerelative to othersentences.So,in this case, thetotal cost is 48.

By contrast, (299b)’s processingyields a lower total costof 38:

Step Input Abduction/deduction Abduction Cost MismatchCost

1 NP1-ga X { (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

2 NP2-ga X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+3+2=7 0

X � (NP1,X � (NP2)) 0

3 NP3-o X�� (NP1,XC� (NP2,NP3)) 3+2+1=6 0

4 V3 X�� (NP1,V3(NP2,NP3)) 3+1+1=5 1

5 V2 X ( v ,V2(NP1,V3(NP2,NP3))) 4+1+1=6 0

6 NP4-ga X� (NP4,V2(NP1,V3(NP2,NP3)) 4+1+1=6 0

7 V1 V1(NP4,V2(NP1,V3(NP2,NP3)) 4+0+1=5 0

Table1: (299b)

Note that in Step5 above, the appearanceof an embedded verb results in an

abduced hypothesisinvolving a matrix verb anda nominal argument. This is be-

causeV2 hasthe complementizer -to, which requiresit to be an embeddedverb;

i.e., thesecond clausein thedefinition of minimal consistency applies.

Nakatani et al. (2000)

(Nakatani etal.,2000) conductedseveral off-lineacceptability rating questionnaire

experimentswith Japanese;their results maybesummarizedasfollows:7

Nakatani et al. found that double embeddings are less acceptable than left

branching structures.Theexamplesbelowillustratetherelevantstructures.

7Note: theEnglishglossesaresometimesdifferentfrom (Nakataniet al., 2000).


(300) a. [obasan-waaunt-top

[bebiisitaa-gababysitter-nom

[imooto-gasister-nom

naita-to]cried-comp.

itta-to]said-comp.

omotteiru]thinks‘The auntthinks thatthebabysittersaidthattheyoungersister cried.’

b. [imooto-gasister-nom

naita-to]cried-comp.

bebiisitaa-gababysitter-nom

itta-to]said-comp.

obasan-waaunt-top

omotteiru]thinks



Our modelmakesthecorrect prediction about this setof examples,asthefol-

lowing two derivationsshow.


1 NP1-wa X { (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

2 NP2-ga X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+3+2=7 0

X � (NP1,X � (NP2))

3 NP3-ga X�� (NP1,XK� (NP2,NP3)) 3+5+2=10 0

XK (NP1,XK¡ (NP2,XC¢ (NP3)))

4 V3-to X� (NP1,XK¡ (NP2,V3(NP3))) 3+2+1=6 2

5 V2-to X� (NP1,V2(NP2,V3(NP3))) 3+1+1=5 1

6 V1 V1(NP1,V2(NP2,V3(NP3))) 3+0+1=4 0

Table2: Doublenesting, total costis 40 for (300a)8


1 NP1-ga X { (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

2 V3-to X�~ (V3(NP1),v ) 2+1+1=4 0

3 NP2-ga X�~ (V3(NP1),NP2) 2+1+1=4 0

4 V2-to X � (V2(V3(NP1),NP2),� ) 3+1+1=5 0

5 NP3-ga X � (V2(V3(NP1),NP2),NP3) 3+1+1=5 0

6 V1 V1(V2(V3(NP1),NP2),NP3) 3+0+1=4 0

Table3: Left branching, total cost is 25 for (300b)

8In exampleslike (300a),wepredicta fall in readingtimeat V3 dueto a hypothesisbeingelimi-nated.Wedo not have any datayet to confirmor disconfirm thisprediction.


Moreover, Nakatani et al. found that in double embeddings intransitive V3’s

aremoreacceptablethantransitive V3’s. Examplesof these structures areshown

below.

(301) a. haha-gamother-nom

titi -gafather-nom

fukigen-nafussy

akatyan-gababy-nom

naita-tocried-comp.

itta-tosaid-comp.

omotteiruthinks

‘My mother thinks thatmy fathersaidthatthefussybabycried.’

b. obasan-gaaunt-nom

syoojiki-nahonest

bebisitaa-gababysitter-nom

ani-gabrother-nom

imooto-osister-acc


itta-tosaid-comp.

omotteiruthinks

‘My auntthinks that thehonestbabysitter saidthatmy brother teased

my sister.’

The modelmakes the correct prediction since(301)a hascost40 and(301)b

hascost 48. Seeearlier derivations(Table 2 and the full derivation for (299a))

respectively).

Yamashita(1997)

Yamashita(Yamashita, 1997) investigated theeffect of word orderandcasemark-

ing on the processingof Japanese.Oneof her experimentsis a moving window

taskinvolving threeconditions:

Condition A. Canonical order, with 4NPsand2 verbs:

[NP1-nomNP2-dat[NP3-nomNP4-accV2] V1]

Condition B. Samestructureasin Condition A, but scrambled NP3andNP4:

[NP1-nomNP2-dat[NP4-accNP3-nomV2] V1]

Condition C. Samestructureasin Condition A, but scrambledNP1,NP2,NP3

andNP4:

[NP2-datNP1-nom[NP4-accNP3-nomV2] V1]

Theresults for Condition A areinterestingin thecontext of thepresent model;9

considertheexamplebelow.

9In this paper, we do not discusstheeffect of word ordervariationsincethis introducesissuesofpragmaticsthatthemodelcurrentlydoesnot takeinto account. Themodelcan,however, beextendedto incorporateconstraintsfrom pragmatics;essentially, theideawouldbeto includeinformationfromthepragmaticsof anutterancein theabductive process.


(302) [denwa-dephone-on

hansamu-nahandsome

gakusei-gastudent-nom

sensei-niteacher-dat

[tumetaicold

koibito-gagirlf riend-nom

nagailong

tegami-oletter-acc

yabutta-to]tore-comp.

itta]said

‘On the phone,a handsomestudent told the teacher that the cold-hearted

girlf riendhadtorn up theletter.’

Yamashita found that reading timesrosesteadily in suchexamplestill theac-

cusative markedNP, andthenfell at theaccusative NP.

Thepresentmodelpredicts this pattern,asshown below.


1 NP1-ga X { (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

2 NP2-ni X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+1+1=4 0

3 NP3-ga X � (NP1,NP2,X � (NP3)) 3+4+2=9 0

XC� (NP1, XC� (NP2,NP3))

4 NP4-o XC (NP1,NP2,XK¡ (NP3,NP4)) 4+2+1=7 0

5 V2 X (NP1,NP2,V2(NP3,NP4)) 4+1+1=6 1

6 V1 V1(NP1,NP2,V2(NP3,NP4)) 4+0+0=4 0Table5: (8.3.1)

Beforestep4, the reading time is predicted to rise steadily. At step4, a fall

in reading time is predictedsincethenumberof hypotheses falls from two to one,

andthenumberof functionsis now one.

8.3.2 DUTCH AND GERMAN

Dutch: Kaan et al. (2000)

Turning next to Dutch,KaanandVasic (KaanandVasic, 2000) conductedseveral

moving windowstudiesandfound thefollowing.

Fact 1: Double embeddingsharder than singleembeddings

Examplesof eachtypeareshownbelow:

(303) a. Dethe

leiderleader

heefthas

PaulPaul

SonyaSonya

hetthe

kompascompass

helpenhelp

lerenteach

gebruikenuse

tijdensduring

dethe

bergtochthike

‘The leader helped Paul teachSonya to usethe compass during the

hike.’


b. Metwith

aanwijzingendirections

vanof

dethe

leiderleader

heefthas

PaulPaul

SonyaSonya

hetthe

kompascompass

helpenteach

gebruikenuse

tijdensduring

dethe

bergtochthike

‘With the leader’s directions Paul taught Sonya to use the compass

during thehike.’

Doubleembeddingshavea costof 50:


1 NP1 X { (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

2 NP2 XC~ (NP1,NP2),X � (NP1,X � (NP2)) 2+3+2=7 0

3 NP3 XC� (NP1,NP2,NP3)) 3+6+3=12 0

XC� (NP1,Xm (NP2,NP3))

XC¡ (NP1,XK¢ (NP2,X|{¤£ (NP3)))

4 NP4 X {�{ (NP1,X {¤~ (NP2,NP3,NP4)) 4+5+2=11 0

X|{ � (NP1,XL{ � (NP2,XL{¤� (NP3,NP4)))

5 V1 V1(NP1,X�{ � (NP2,X|{¤� (NP3,NP4))) 4+2+1=7 0

6 V2 V1(NP1,V2(NP2,X|{¤� (NP3,NP4))) 4+1+1=6 0

7 V3 V1(NP1,V2(NP2,V3(NP3,NP4))) 4+0+0=4 0

Table6: total costis 50 for (303a)

Singleembeddingshave a lower costof 30.


1 NP1 X|{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

2 NP2 X ~ (NP1,NP2),XK� (NP1,X�� (NP2)) 2+3+2=7 0

3 NP3 XC� (NP1,NP2,NP3)) 3+6+3=12 0

XC� (NP1,Xm (NP2,NP3))

XC¡ (NP1,XK¢ (NP2,X|{¤£ (NP3)))

4 V1 V1(NP1,XC (NP2,NP3)) 3+1+1=5 0

5 V2 V1(NP1,V2(NP2,NP3)) 3+0+0=3 0

Table7: total costis 30 for (303b)

KaanandVasic found that RTs increasedwith eachincoming NP, andfell at

the innermostverb, which is what our modelpredicts. In the present model, the


NPreading timesarepredictedto risedueto theincreasein thenumber of abduced

functions, andafall in reading time is predictedat thefirst verbdueto theelimina-

tion of somehypotheses (seederivationsabove to seehow exactly this happens).

Dutch and German: Bach et al. (1986)

Bachet al. (Bachet al., 1986) showedthatDutchcrosseddependencieswereeas-

ier to processfor native DutchspeakersthanGermannesteddependenciesarefor

native Germanspeakers. Examplesof crossed Dutch andnested Germandepen-

denciesareshownbelow:

(304) a. NP1NP2NP3V1 V2 V3

JanJan

PietPiet

MarieMarie

zagsaw

latenmake

zwemmenswim

‘Jansaw Pietmake Marie swim.’

b. NP1NP2NP3V3 V2 V1

. . .dass

. . . thatHansHans

PeterPeter

MarieMarie

schwimmenswim

lassenmake

sahsaw

‘. . . thatHanssaw Petermake Marie swim.’

TheDutchCECsarecalled crossedbecauseof thefact that theverbs andthesub-

jects they link with form crossing chains (NP1 NP2 NP3 V1 V2 V3), and the

GermanCECsarenestedsince thepattern is NP1NP2NP3V3 V2 V1.

Our model predicts that Dutch center embeddings will be more acceptable

since, asshownin Tables6 and7, in Dutch, therewill be no mismatchcost; in

theanalogousGermanexampls,however, therewill beamismatchcostassociated

with eachembeddedverb.

8.3.3 HINDI

Vasishth (Vasishth,2001) conductedaself-pacedreading timestudy andfoundthat

in center embeddings, accusative casemarkingon direct objects in Hindi (which

marksspecificity in the caseof inanimateobjects), makesprocessingharder. Ex-

amplesof single center embeddingsareshownbelow.


Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaabbook


kahaatold




Hari-koHari-dat

[kitaab-kobook-acc


kahaatold


Themodelpredictsthatin thecaseof (305a),therewill beonly onehypothesis

by thetimethethird NPis processed, whereasin (305b),therewill betwo hypothe-

sesat the third NP. Thesetwo hypothesesarisebecauseof the fact that both the

dativeandaccusativecasemarkingsin Hindi aremarkedby thesuffix/postposition

-ko, andbecauseHindi hasextremely freeword order. Thephonologically similar

casemarking combinedwith thepossibility of reorderingNP2andNP3results in

two possible hypotheses.


1 NP1-ne X { (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

2 NP2-ko X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+1+1=4 0

3 NP3 X � (NP1,X � (NP2,NP3)) 3+2+1=6 0

4 V2 XC~ (NP1,V2(NP2,NP3)) 3+1+1=5 1

5 V1 V1(NP1,V2(NP2,NP3)) 3+0+0=3 0

Table8: total costis 22 for (305a)


1 NP1-ne X�{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

2 NP2-ko X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+1+1=4 0

3 NP3-ko X � (NP1,X � (NP2,NP3)) 3+4+2=9 0

XC� (NP1,XK� (NP3,NP2))

4 V2 XC~ (NP1,V2(NP2,NP3)) 3+1+1=5 1

5 V1 V1(NP1,V2(NP2,NP3)) 3+0+0=3 0

Table9: total costis 24 for (305b)

Similar predictionshold for double embeddings,but a discussionis omitted.

For details, see(Vasishth, 2001).

8.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

A hybrid abductive/deductive modelof humanlanguageprocessing is proposed,

basedon existing psycholinguistic results. An important observation is thatmany

of the mechanismsproposedhave correlatesin other theories. For example, the


number of NPsseenup to a givenpoint arecountedaspartof theabduction cost;

thiscorrespondsto thenumber of discoursereferents,whichis acriticalcomponent

in Gibson’smodel.Ourcontributionis to proposeaverygeneral general perceptual

mechanism–abduction– asthekey processthatallowsanincremental parse,given

a particular grammarV for therelevant languageW .

Themodelfaresbetter thanexisting accountsfor thedataconsidered here.For

example, noneof the existing theoriescancurrently account for the fall in read-

ing times at the accusative verb in Japanese, andat the first verb in Dutch; and

Gibson’s model(Gibson, 1998) appears to make incorrect predictions for the ris-

ing reading timesfor verbs (see(KaanandVasic, 2000)for details). However, it

remains to be seenwhetherthe predictions it makesareall borneout. For exam-

ple, the modelpredicts that therewill be a fall in reading time whenthe number

of abducedhypothesesis reduced in working memoryto oneasa result of new

incoming information. This happensto be the correct prediction for Yamashita’s

JapanesedataandKaanandVasic’s Dutch data,but we do not have enough data

yet to determinewhetherthis is prediction is borneout (for example) for (299b).

Further, we currently do not have a preciseaccount for the scrambling facts

(e.g.,thosepresentedin (Yamashita,1997)). Onereasonthatwe hesitate to extend

our modelfor scrambling is thatword ordervariation is almost always correlated

with a particular discoursecontext, andyet studieson scrambling andprocessing

like Yamashita’s (Yamashita, 1997) assume that processing of a scrambled sen-

tencepresentedto subjectsout of theblue(i.e.,without any discoursecontext) can

becomparedwith unscrambledcorrelates. Pilot sentencecompletionstudiesusing

Hindi, conductedby thefirst author, indicatethat subjectsfind scrambledsentences

lessacceptable thanunscambledones(these werepresented without any preced-

ing discoursecontext). Wemustthereforeawait furtherempirical work before any

valid conclusionscanbedrawn about theprocessingof scrambledsentences.

Therearesomefactsthatour modelfails to capture. For example,Nakatani et

al. found thatasingly nested,5 NPstackwasmoreacceptablethandoubly nested,

3-4NPstacks. Therelevant examplesaregivenbelow andthederivationfor (306a)

is shown in Table4.

(306) a. tuma-wawife-nom

kakarityoo-nichief-clerk-dat

uranaisi-gafortune-teller-nom

otto-nihusband-dat

seekoo-osuccess-acc

yakusoku-sita-topromised-comp.

ziman-sitaboasted

‘The wife boastedto thechief clerk thatthefortune-tellerpromisedthe


husbandthathe’d succeed.’

b. haha-gamother-nom

titi -gafather-nom

fukigen-nafussy

akatyan-gababy-nom

naita-tocried-comp.

itta-tosaid-comp.

omotteiruthinks

‘My mother thinks thatmy fathersaidthatthefussybabycried.’

c. obasan-gaaunt-nom

syoojiki-nahonest

bebisitaa-gababysitter-nom

ani-gabrother-nom

imooto-osister-acc


itta-tosaid-comp.

omotteiruthinks

‘My auntthinks that thehonestbabysitter saidthatmy brother teased

my sister.’


NP1-wa X|{ (NP1) 1+1+1=3 0

NP2-ni X�~ (NP1,NP2) 2+1+1=4 0

NP3-ga X � (NP1,NP2,X � (NP3)) 3+2+1=6 0

NP4-ni X�� (NP1,NP2,XK� (NP3,NP4)) 4+2+1 0

NP5-o X (NP1,NP2,X ¡ (NP3,NP4,NP5)) 5+2+1=8 0

V2-to XC (NP1,NP2,V2(NP3,NP4,NP5)) 5+1+1=7 1

V1 V1(NP1,NP2,V2(NP3,NP4,NP5)) 5+0+0 0Table10: total costis 41 for (306a)

Our modelincorrectly predicts that (306a) will be lessacceptable than(306b)

(which hascost40) (seeTable2), but correctly predicts that it will be moreac-

ceptable than(306c), which hascost48 (seethe first derivation presented in this

paper). However, we consider our modelto beprimarily a theory of theencoding

processesthat occurduring NP processing, andwe proposeto integrate this the-

ory of encoding-via-abductive-inferencewith Lewis’ InterferenceandConfusabil-

ity Theory(ICT) which is a theoryof the integration of encodedNPswith verbs.

Integrating thepresent theory with Lewis’ ICT givesusa complete account of en-

coding andretrieval processesduring sentenceprocessing;this integratedaccount,

we argue, makesmorecorrect predictions thanother current sentence processing

models.See(Vasishth, 2001) (this volume)for details.

Finally, in relation to other, similar accounts, we contendthat our account is

a useful generalization over accounts like the ones basedon pushdown automata


(Joshi, 1990), or incrementalprocessing by predictionof minimumvalency aspro-

posed in work by Scheepers et al. (Scheepers et al., 19). Implicit in all thesetreat-

mentsis theideaof abductive inference.Our proposalforegroundsabduction, and

demonstrates the considerable predictive power suchforegrounding makesavail-

able to us. In this sense,our model is lessa challengeto existing accounts than

a reformulation of these in more general (although very precise) terms. Future

work will consist of building a computational implementation of the integrated

ICT/abductive inferencemodel.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Rick Lewis andJohnJosephsonfor their detailed feedback, andto

Chris Brew, TakaoGunji, Martin Jansche, Keith Johnson,Neal Johnson,Brian

Joseph, Mineharu Nakayama,Mark Steedman,andShariSpeer, for many useful

comments. At the time of writing, the second author was a visitor at the Insti-

tute of Communicating andCollaborative Systems(ICCS),Division of Informat-

ics, University of Edinburgh, andwould therefore like to acknowledgehereMark

Steedman’s andBonnieWebber’s hospitality.

An earlier version of this paper waspresentedin Japan at theJapaneseCogni-

tiveScienceMeeting,2000,at theKobeShoinGraduateSchool,andattheESSLLI

2000 Linguistic Theory and GrammarImplementation Workshop, Birmingham,

UK; we thankthe audiencesthere for their comments. The authors alone arere-

sponsiblefor any errors.

REFERENCES

Anthony AdesandMark Steedman. 1982. On theorder of words.Linguistics& Philoso-

phy, 7:639–642.

Theodora Alexopoulou. 1999. The Syntaxof Discourse Functions in Greek: A Non-

Configurational Approach. Ph.D.thesis,Departmentof Linguistics,University of Ed-

inburgh,Edinburgh,UnitedKingdom, March.

Maria Babyonyshev andEdward Gibson. 1999. The complexity of nestedstructuresin

Japanese.Language, 75(3):423–450.

E. Bach,C. Brown, andW. Marslen-Wilson. 1986. Crossedandnesteddependenciesin

GermanandDutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes,

1(4):249–262.

JasonBaldridge. 1998. Local scramblingandsyntacticasymmetries in tagalog. Master’s

thesis,Universityof Pennsylvania.

Jason Baldridge. 1999. Strong equivalence of CCG and Set-CCG. Unpublished

manuscript,November.

JasonBaldridge.2000. A categorial account of extraction asymmetries in tagalog andtoba

batak.Unpublishedmanuscript, November.

GuyBarryandMartin Pickering. 1992. Dependency andconstituency in categorial gram-

mar. In Alain Lecomte,editor, Word Order in Categorial Grammar/L’OrdredesMots

dans lesGrammairesCategorielles, pages39–57. Adosa,Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Patrick Blackburn. 2000. Representation, reasoning, andrelational structures:a hybrid

logic manifesto.Journal of theInterestGroupin PureLogic, 8(3):339–365.

D. CaplanandG. S.Waters.1999. Verbalworkingmemory andsentencecomprehension.

Behavioral andBrain Sciences, 22:77–126.

Bob Carpenter. 1995. TheTuring-completenessof multimodal categorial grammar. Un-

publishedmanuscript. Carnegie Mellon University.

William Chafe.1976. Givenness,contrastiveness,definiteness,subjects,topicsandpoint

of view. In C. Li, editor, SubjectandTopic, pages25–55. Academic Press,New York,

NY.

NoamChomsky andGeorge Miller. 1963. Introductionto the formal analysisof natural

languages.In R. DuncanLuce,RobertR. Bush,andEugeneGalanter, editors,Hand-

book of Mathematical Psychology, pages269–321.JohnWiley.

NoamChomsky. 1957. SyntacticStructures. Mouton, TheHague, theNetherlands.

237

238S References

NoamChomsky. 1965. Aspectsof theTheoryof Syntax. TheMIT Press,CambridgeMas-

sachusetts.

SanderChung.1990. Vp’s andverb movementin Chamorro. Natural Language andLin-

guisticTheory, 8:559–619.

J. D. Cohen,B. MacWhinney, M. Flatt, andJ. Provost. 1993. PsyScope:An interactive

graphic systemfor designingandcontrolling experimentsin thepsychology laboratory

usingMacintoshcomputers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments andComput-

ers, 25:257–271.

William Croft. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.

Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom.

RichardCrouchandJosefvanGenabith.1998. Context change, underspecification, and

thestructureof gluelanguagederivations.In Mary Dalrymple,editor, Semantics and

Syntaxin Lexical Functional Grammar, pages117–189. TheMIT Press,Cambridge

Massachusetts.

OstenDahl. 1974. Topic-comment structurerevisited. In OstenDahl, editor, Topic and

Comment,ContextualBoundednessandFocus, number6 in Papersin Text Linguistics.

HelmutBuske,Hamburg, Germany.

Anthony R. Davis. 1996. Linking andthehierarchical lexicon. Ph.D.thesis,Department

of Linguistics,Stanford University, Stanford CA.

Paul Dekker and Herman Hendriks. 1994. Files in focus. In ElisabetEngdahl, editor,

Integrating Information Structure into Constraint-basedandCategorial Approaches,

DYANA-2 DeliverableR1.3.B.,pages41–79.Institutefor Logic, LanguageandCom-

putation(ILLC), Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.

ElisabethEngdahl andEnric Vallduvı. 1994. Informationpackaging andgrammararchi-

tecture:A constraint-basedapproach. In ElisabetEngdahl,editor, Integrating Infor-

mationStructureinto Constraint-basedandCategorial Approaches, DYANA-2 Deliv-

erableR1.3.B.,pages41–79. Institutefor Logic, LanguageandComputation (ILLC),

Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.

F. FerreiraandJr. Clifton, C. 1986. Theindependenceof syntacticprocessing.Journal of

MemoryandLanguage, 25:348–368.

JanFirbas.1992.FunctionalSentencePerspectivein WrittenandSpokenCommunication.

Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom.

JohnC.Foster. 1992. BetweenL andLP:A theory of wordorderin categorial grammar. In

Alain Lecomte,editor, WordOrderin Categorial Grammar. Adosa,Clermont-Ferrand.

L.T.F. Gamut. 1991. Logic, Language, and Meaning: Volume 2, Intensional Logic and

Logical Grammar. TheUniversity of ChicagoPress,Chicago, London.

SusanE. Gathercole and Alan D. Baddeley. 1993. Working Memory and Language.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Hove,UK.

GeraldGazdar, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pollum, andIvan A. Sag. 1985. Generalized

Phrase-Structure Grammar. Basil Blackwell,Oxford, UnitedKingdom.

References /239

EdwardGibson. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntacticdependencies.Cogni-

tion, 68:1–76.

JosephH. Greenberg. 1966. Someuniversalsof grammarwith particularreferenceto the

order of meaningful elements. In JosephH. Greenberg, editor, Universals of Lan-

guage, pages 73–114.TheMIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts,secondeditionedi-

tion.

BarbaraGroszandCandacaL. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intensions,andthe structure of

discourse.Computational Linguistics, 12:175–204.

BarbaraGrosz,Aravind Joshi,andScottWeinstein. 1995. Centering: A framework for

modeling the local coherence of discourse.Computational Linguistics, 21(2):203–

226.

L. Haegeman. 1991. Introduction to GovernmentandBindingTheory. Basil Blackwell,

Oxford.

Eva Hajicova, Barbara H. Partee,andPetrSgall. 1998. Topic-Focus Articulation,Tripar-

tite Structures,andSemantic Context. Studiesin Language andPhilosophy. Kluwer

Academic Publishers,Dordrecht,Boston,London.

Eva Hajicova and Ivana Kruijf f-Korbayova. 1999. On the notion of topic. In Prague

LinguisticCirclePapers, volume3,pages225–236. JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam,The

Netherlands.

EvaHajicova,HanaSkoumalova,andPetrSgall. 1995. An automaticprocedurefor topic-

focus identification.Computational Linguistics, 21(1):81–94, March.

Eva Hajicova. 1993. Issuesof sentencestructure and discourse patterns, volume 2 of

Theoretical andComputational Linguistics. CharlesUniversity Press,Prague,Czech

Republic.

M.A.K. Halliday. 1985. Introduction to FunctionalGrammar. EdwardArnold, London.

JohnA. Hawkins. 1983. Word Order Universals. Academic Press,New York, London,

etc.

Irene R. Heim. 1982. TheSemanticsof DefiniteandIndefinite NounPhrases. Phdthesis,

University of Massachusettsat Amherst.

HermanHendriks andPaul Dekker. 1995. Links without location. In Proceedingsof the

AmsterdamColloquium, pages339–358.

HermanHendriks. 1994. Informationpackaging in a categorial perspective. In Elisabet

Engdahl, editor, Integrating Information Structure into Constraint-basedand Cate-

gorial Approaches, DYANA-2 Deliverable R1.3.B.,pages41–79. Institutefor Logic,

LanguageandComputation(ILLC), Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.

HermanHendriks. 1996. Intonation,derivation, information.A proof-theoreticframework

for the representation of information packaging. In V.M. Abrusci and C. Casadio,

editors, ProofsandLinguisticCategories: Applicationsof Logic to theAnalysisand

Implementationof Natural Language(Roma1996Workshop).

HermanHendriks.1997. Thelogic of tune. In Geert-JanM. Kruijf f, Glyn V. Morrill, and

240§ References

RichardT. Oehrle, editors, Formal Grammar1997, Aix enProvence,France,August

9-10.

HermanHendriks. 1999. Contour andstructure. A categorial account of alignment. In

GosseBouma,ErhardHinrichs,Geert-JanM. Kruijf f, andRichardT. Oehrle,editors,

Constraints and Resourcesin Natural Language Syntaxand Semantics, pages155–

174.CSLI Press,Stanford CA.

R. N. A. Henson. 1999. CodingPositionin Short-Term Memory. International Journal of

Psychology, 34(5/6):403–409.

Mark Hepple.1990.TheGrammarandProcessingof Order andDependency:A Catego-

rial Approach. Ph.D.thesis,University of Edinburgh.

Mark Hepple.1992. Chartparsinglambekgrammars:Modalextensionsandincremental-

ity. In Proc.COLING’92.

MarkHepple.1994. A general framework for hybridsubstructural categorial logics. Tech-

nicalReport94-14, IRCS,Universityof Pennsylvania, PhiladelphiaPA, September.

Mark Hepple. 1995. Mixing modesof linguistic descriptionin categorial grammar. In

Proceedings EACL-7,Dublin Ireland.

Mark Hepple.1996. Headpromotionandobliquenessin a multimodal grammar. In V.M.

Abrusci andC. Casadio,editors,Proofsand Linguistic Categories: Applications of

Logic to the Analysis and Implementation of Natural Language (Roma1996Work-

shop).

Mark Hepple. 1997. A dependency-basedapproachto boundedandunbounded move-

ment. In Proceedings of the Fifth Meetingon Mathematics of Language (MOL-5).

DFKI-D-97-02.

Mark Hepple.1998. Memoisation for gluelanguagededuction andcategorial parsing. In

Proceedings of theCOLING-ACL’98 Joint Conference, Montreal Canada,August.

SusanC.HerringandJohnC.Paolillo. 1995. Focuspositionin SOV languages.In Pamela

Downing andMichaelNoonan,editors,Word Order in Discourse, volume30 of Ty-

pological Studiesin Language, pages163–198. JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam,The

Netherlands.

CarolineHeycock. 1993. Focusprojection in Japanese.In Merceı Gonzalez,editor, Pro-

ceedings of NELS, volume24,pages159–187.

Dirk Heylen. 1997. Generalisation and coordination in categorial grammar. In Geert-

JanM. Kruijf f, Glyn V. Morrill, andRichardT. Oehrle,editors,Formal Grammar

1997, Proceedings of the Conferenceheld in Aix en Provence, France, August 9-10,

1997.

Dirk Heylen. 1999. TypesandSorts:ResourceLogic for Feature Checking. Ph.D.thesis,

OTS,Universityof Utrecht,TheNetherlands.

Beryl Hoffman. 1995a. Computational Analysisof the Syntax and Interpretation of

“F ree” Word-Order in Turkish. Ph.d.thesis,ircs report 95-17, University of Penn-

sylvania.

References /241

Beryl Hoffman. 1995b. Integrating”free” wordordersyntaxandinformationstructure. In

ProceedingsEACL’95, Dublin, March.

JohnE. Hopcroft andJeffrey D. Ullman. 1979. Introduction to AutomataTheory, Lan-

guagesandComputation. Addison-Wesley, Reading,MA.

M. S. Humphreys andG. Tehan. 1998. Cuesandcodesin working memory tasks. In

C. Izawa, editor, On memory:Evolution, Progress,and Reflections on the 20th An-

niversaryof theAtkinson-Shiffrin model, pages127–151. Erlbaum, Mahwah,NJ.

Jukka Hyona andHeli Hujanen.1997. Effects of CaseMarking andWord Orderon Sen-

tenceParsingin Finnish:An Eye-Fixation Study. QuarterlyJournal of Experimental

Psychology, 50A(4):841–858.

RayJackendoff. 1972. Semantic Interpretationin Generative Grammar. TheMIT Press,

CambridgeMassachusetts.

Ray Jackendoff. 1977. X’-Syntax: A Studyof PhraseStructure, volume 2 of Linguistic

Inquiry Monographs. TheMIT Press,Cambridge Massachusetts.

Pauline Jacobson. 1990. Raising as function composition. Linguistics& Philosophy,

13(4):423–475.

Gerhard Jager. to appear. Anaphora and quantification in categorial grammar. In

Michael Moortgat, editor, Proceedings of LACL 1998, LectureNotesin Computer

Science.Springer Verlag. Available from http://www.let.uu.nl/ Ger-

hard.Jaeger/personal/.

TheoM.V. Janssen.1997. Compositionality. In JohanvanBenthemandAlice terMeulen,

editors, Handbookof Logic and Language. Elsevier ScienceB.V., AmsterdamNew

York etc.

JohnR. JosephsonandSusanG. Josephson. 1996. Abductive Inference: Computation,

Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,UK.

Aravind K. Joshi.1990. Processingcrossedandnesteddependencies:An automaton per-

spective on thepsycholinguistic results.Language andCognitiveProcesses, 5(1):1–

27.

M. A Just,P. A. Carpenter, andJ.D. Woolley. 1982. Paradigmsandprocessesin reading

comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2):228–238.

Edith KaanandNadaVasic. 2000. Cross-serialdependenciesin Dutch: Evidence for a

discourse-basedmetric? Posterpresentedat CUNY SentenceProcessingConference,

University of California, SanDiego.

G. Keppeland B. J. Underwood. 1962. Proactive inhibition in short-term retentionof

singleitems.Journalof Verbal LearningandVerbal Behavior, 1:153–161.

Eva Koktova. 1995. Wh-extractionand the topic-focusarticulationof the sentence.In

BarbaraH. ParteeandPetrSgall,editors, DiscourseandMeaning: Papers in Honor

of EvaHajicova, pages255–271. JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.

Dimitra Kolliakou. 1998. Linkhood and multiple definite marking. In GosseBouma,

242 References

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f, andRichardT. Oehrle,editors,ProceedingsJoint Conf. onFor-

mal Grammar, HPSGandCG, pages14–24,Saarbrucken,Germany, August.DFKI.

EstherKonig. 1990. The complexity of parsing with extendedcategorial grammars. In

Proc.COLING-90.

Paul Kroeger. 1993. PhraseStructure andGrammaticalRelationsin Tagalog. Disserta-

tionsin Linguistics.CSLI Press,Stanford, CA.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f andJasonM. Baldridge. 2000. Relatingcategorial type logicsand

ccg. Journal of Language andComputation. Undersubmission.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f, IvanaKruijf f-Korbayova,JohnBateman,ElkeTeich,andetal. 2000.

Multilingual generation for threeslavic languages. In Proceedings COLING2000.

IvanaKruijf f-Korbayova andBonnieLynn Webber. 2000. Discourseconnectives,infer-

ence,andinformation structure. In JohanBos andMichael Kohlhase,editors, Pro-

ceedings of ICOS-2, Inferencein Computational Semantics, pages105–120, Inter-

nationalConferenceandResearchCenterfor ComputerScience,SchlossDagstuhl,

Germany, July.

IvanaKruijf f-Korbayova. 1998. TheDynamicPotentialof Topic andFocus: A Praguian

Approach to DiscourseRepresentation Theory. Ph.D.dissertation, Facultyof Mathe-

maticsandPhysics,CharlesUniversity, Prague,CzechRepublic,June.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f. 1995. The Unbearable Demise of Surprise: Reflections

on abduction in Artificial Intelligence and Peirce’s philosophy. Master’s the-

sis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, August. Available from

http://kwetal.ms.mff.cuni.cz/˜gj/abduction.html.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f. 1997. Peirce’s theory of abduction andgoedel’s axioms of infinity

- reflections on the mathematics of creativity. Presentationat LOGIKA’97, Liblice

(Czech Republic). Available from http://kwetal.ms.mff.cuni.cz/˜gj/abduction.html,

June.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f. 1998a. Basic,dependency-basedlogic grammar. TechnicalReport

TR-1998-05, UFAL MFF UK, Prague, CzechRepublic,May.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f. 1998b. Peirce’s latetheoryof abduction: A comprehensiveaccount.

Availablefrom http://kwetal.ms.mff.cuni.cz/˜gj/abduction.html.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f. 1999a. Diamonds for dependencies.In Proceedings of the Third

Workshopon Computational Semantics, pages351–366, Tilburg, The Netherlands,

January.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f. 1999b. Resourcelogics,grammars,andprocessing.In ChristianRe-

toreandEdStabler, editors,ESSLLI’99WorkshoponResourceLogicsandMinimalist

Grammars, Utrecht,TheNetherlands,August.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f. 2000. Categories,constructions,anddependency relations.In Pro-

ceedings of Text, Speech andDialogue 2000, CzechRepublic. Springer Verlag.

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f. 2001. A Categorial-Modal Logical Architecture of Informativity:

DependencyGrammarLogic & InformationStructure. Ph.D.thesis,Facultyof Math-

References /243

ematicsandPhysics,CharlesUniversity, Prague,CzechRepublic, April.

PetrKubon. 1998. Informationrepackaging. In GosseBouma,Geert-JanM. Kruijf f, and

RichardT. Oehrle,editors,Proceedingsof theJoint Conferenceon Formal Grammar,

Head-DrivenPhraseStructureGrammar, andCategorial Grammar, Saarbrucken,Au-

gust.

NatashaKurtoninaandMichaelMoortgat. 1996. Structural control. In PatrickBlackburn

andMaartenDe Rijke, editors, SpecifyingSyntacticStructures. CSLI Publications &

FoLLi, StanfordCA.

NatashaKurtonina. 1995. FramesandLabels:A Modal Analysisof Categorial Inference.

Ph.D.thesis,OTS,UtrechtUniversity.

JerzyKuryłowicz. 1964. TheInflectional Categories of Indo-European. Carl WinterUni-

versitatsverlag,Heidelberg, Germany.

Susanne Kuschert. 1996. Higherorder dynamics: Relatingoperationalanddenotational

semanticsfor © -drt. Claus-report 72, Computational Linguistics, University of the

Saarland, Saarbrucken,Germany.

JoachimLambek. 1958. Themathematicsof sentencestructure. AmericanMathematical

Monthly, 65:154–169.

Knud Lambrecht. 1996. InformationStructure andSentenceForm. Number 71 in Cam-

bridge Studiesin Linguistics.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UnitedKing-

dom.

Winfred P. Lehmann. 1993. Theoretical Basesof Indo-EuropeanLinguistics. Routledge,

London,UnitedKingdom.

RichardL. Lewis andMineharuNakayama. 1999.Determinantsof processingcomplexity

in Japaneseembeddings:New theoryanddata.In MineharuNakayamaandCharlesJ.

Quinn, editors,Proceedings of theEastAsianPsycholinguisticsWorkshop, Stanford,

CA. CSLI.

RichardL. Lewis. 1998. Interferencein working memory: Retroactive andproactive in-

terferencein parsing. Unpublishedmanuscript,TheOhioStateUniversity.

Kirsten Malmkjæ, editor. 1996. The Linguistics Encyclopedia. Routledge, London,

UnitedKingdom.

SureshManandhar. 1994. Encoding informationpackaginginformationin HPSG.In Elis-

abetEngdahl,editor, IntegratingInformationStructureintoConstraint-basedandCat-

egorial Approaches, DYANA-2 Deliverable R1.3.B.,pages83–87.Institutefor Logic,

LanguageandComputation(ILLC), Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.

Christopher D. Manning. 1996. Ergativity: ArgumentStructure andGrammatical Rela-

tions. Dissertationsin Linguistics.CSLI Press,Stanford, California.

Pavel MaternaandPetrSgall. 1980. Functional sentenceperspective, the question test,

andintensionalsemantics.SMIL-Journal of LinguisticCalculus, (1-2):141–160.

Pavel Materna, Eva Hajicova, andPetrSgall. 1987. Redundant answersandtopic-focus

articulation. LinguisticsandPhilosophy, 10:101–113.

244 References

Pavel Materna. 1998. Conceptsand objects, volume 63 of Acta Philosophica Fennica.

Philosophical Societyof Finland,Helsinki,Finland.

Vil em Mathesius.1936. On someproblemsof the systematicanalysisof grammar. In

Travauxdu Cercle Linguistiquede Prague, volume VI, pages95–107. Reprintedin

(Vachek, 1964), pp.306-319.

Vil emMathesius.1975. Oninformationbearingstructureof thesentence.In S.Kuno, ed-

itor, Harvard Studiesin Syntax andSemantics. Harvard University Press,Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

MarcMoensandMarkSteedman. 1988. Temporalontology andtemporal reference.Jour-

nal of Computational Linguistics, 14:15–28.

TaraMohanan. 1994. ArgumentStructure in Hindi. CSLI Publications,Stanford.

MichaelMoortgat andGlyn Morrill. 1991. Headsandphrases:Typecalculus for depen-

dency andconstituent structure. Unpublishedmanuscript. Availablefrom http://www-

lsi.upc.es/˜morrill/.

MichaelMoortgatandDick Oehrle.1994. Adjacency, dependency andorder. In Proceed-

ingsof theNinthAmsterdamColloquium.

MichaelMoortgat. 1988.Categorial Investigations:Logical andLinguisticAspectsof the

LambekCalculus. Foris,Dordrecht,TheNetherlands.

Michael Moortgat. 1995. Multimodal linguistic inference. Bulletin of the IGPL,

3(2,3):371–402,June.SpecialIssueonDeductionandLanguage.

Michael Moortgat. 1996? Generalizedquantifiersanddiscontinuous type constructors.

In W. SijtsmaandA. vanHorck,editors,DiscontinuousDependencies. Mouton. Also

appeared astechnical report, OTS,University of Utrecht(1991).

Michael Moortgat. 1997a. Categorial type logics. In Johanvan BenthemandAlice ter

Meulen,editors,HandbookofLogicandLanguage. ElsevierScienceB.V., Amsterdam

New York etc.

Michael Moortgat. 1997b. Categorial type logics. In Johanvan BenthemandAlice ter

Meulen,editors,Handbookof Logic andLanguage, chapter2. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Michael Moortgat. 1999. Meaningful patterns. In Jelle Gerbrandy, Maarten Marx,

Maartende Rijke, andYde Venema,editors, JFAK. EssaysDedicatedto Johan van

Benthemon the Occasionof his 50th Birthday, Vossiuspers.AmsterdamUniversity

Press,Amsterdam.

Glyn V. Morrill. 1990. Intensionality andbinding. LinguisticsandPhilosophy, 13:699–

726.

Glyn V. Morrill. 1994. TypeLogical Grammar:Categorial Logic of Signs. Kluwer Aca-

demicPublishers,Dordrecht, Boston,London.

Glyn V. Morrill. 2000. Type-logical anaphora. Report de Recerca/ResearchReport

LSI-00-77-R, Departament de Llenguatgesi SistemesInformatics, Universitat de

PolitecnicadeCatalunya.

G. E. Muller andA. Pilzecker. Experimentellebeitragezur lehrevomgedachtniss(Exper-

References /245

imentalcontributionson thetheoryof memory). In J.A. Barth,editor, Zeitschrift f ur

Psychologie. Erganzungsband1, pages???–??????,Leipzig.

Reinhard Muskens,JohanvanBenthem,andAlbert Visser. 1996. Dynamics.In Johanvan

BenthemandAlice ter Meulen,editors,Handbook of Logic andLanguage. Elsevier

ScienceB.V., AmsterdamNew York etc.

Kentaro Nakatani, Maria Babyonyshev, andEdward Gibson. 2000. The complexity of

nestedstructuresin Japanese.Posterpresentedat the CUNY SentenceProcessing

Conference,University of California, SanDiego.

Richard T. Oehrle. 1991. Prosodicconstraintson dynamic grammatical analysis. In

DeclarativePerspectiveson Phonology, Edinburgh Working Papersin Cognitive Sci-

ence.ECCS,Scotland.

RichardT. Oehrle. 1994. Term-labelled categorial typesystems.Linguistics& Philoso-

phy, 17(6):633–678,December.

RichardT. Oehrle.1995. Some3-dimensionalsystemsof labelleddeduction. Bulletin of

theIGPL, 3(2,3):429–448, June.SpecialIssueonDeduction andLanguage.

RichardT. Oehrle. 1999. Binding astermrewriting. In GosseBouma,Erhard Hinrichs,

Geert-JanM. Kruijf f, andRichardT. Oehrle,editors, Constraints and Resources in

Natural LanguageSyntax andSemantics, pages221–241.CSLI Press,Stanford CA.

RichardT. Oehrle. forthcoming. Multi-modal type-logical grammar. In RobertBorsley

and R. Borjars, editors, Non-Transformational Syntax. Blackwell, London, United

Kingdom.

JarmilaPanevova. 1974. On verbal framesin functionalgenerative descriptionI. Prague

Bulletinof Mathematical Linguistics, 22:3–40.

JarmilaPanevova. 1994. Valency frames and the meaningof the sentence.In Philip

Luelsdorff, editor, ThePrague School of Structural andFunctional Linguistics, vol-

ume41 of LinguisticsandLiterary Studies in EasternEurope, pages223–243.John

Benjamins,Amsterdam.

CharlesParsons.1995. Platonismandmathematicalintuition in Kurt Godel’s thought.

TheBulletinof Symbolic Logic, 1(1):44–74, March.

BarbaraH. Partee,Alice G.B. Ter Meulen,andR. Wall. 1990. Mathematical methodsin

linguistics. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dordrecht NL.

BarbaraH. Partee. 1991. Topic, focus andquantification. In S. Moore andA. Wyner,

editors, Proceedings fromSemanticsandLinguisticTheoryI, pages257–280, Ithaca

NY. CornellUniversity.

Jaroslav Peregrin andPetrSgall. 1986.An attempt at a framework for semanticinterpre-

tationof natural linguistics.TheoreticalLinguistics, 13:37–73.

Jaroslav Peregrin. 1995. Topicandfocusin aformal framework. In BarbaraH. Parteeand

PetrSgall,editors,DiscourseandMeaning: Papers in Honor of EvaHaji cova. John

Benjamins,Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.

Jaroslav Peregrin. 1999. Pragmatization of semantics.In Ken Turner, editor, Seman-

246 References

tics/PragmaticsInterfacefromDifferentPointsof View, pages419–442. Elsevier, Am-

sterdam,TheNetherlands.

Vladimır Petkevic. 1987. A new dependency basedspecificationof underlying represen-

tationsof sentences.TheoreticalLinguistics, 14:143–172.

Vladimır Petkevic. 1995. A new formal specificationof underlyingstructures.Theoretical

Linguistics, 21(1):7–61.

Vladimır Petkevic. in prep. Underlying Structure of Sentence Basedon Dependency.

CharlesUniversity, Prague.

JanetPierrehumbertandJulia Hirschberg. 1990. The meaningof intonational contours

in the interpretation of discourse. In J. Morgan P. Cohenand M. Pollack, editors,

Intentions in Communication. TheMIT Press,Cambridge Massachusetts.

Carl PollardandIvanA. Sag.1993. Head-DrivenPhraseStructureGrammar. University

of ChicagoPress.

ScottPrevost. 1995. Contextual aspectsof prosody in monologuegeneration. In IJCAI

WorkshoponContext in NLP, Montreal,Canada.

AnnaGiacaloneRamatandPaoloRamat,editors.1998. TheIndo-EuropeanLanguages.

LanguageFamily Descriptions.Routledge,London,UnitedKingdom.

ChristophScheepers,BarbaraHemforth, andLarsKonieczny. 19??IncrementalProcess-

ing of GermanVerb-FinalConstructions: PredictingtheVerb’sMinimum (!) Valency.

??, ??:??–??

PetrSgall, Ladislav Nebesky, Alla Goralcıkova, andEva Hajicova. 1969. A Functional

Approach to SyntaxIn Generative Descriptionof Language. Elsevier ScienceB.V.,

AmsterdamNew York etc.

PetrSgall,Eva Hajicova,andEva Benesova. 1973. Topic,Focus,andGenerativeSeman-

tics. Kronberg/Taunus.

Petr Sgall, Eva Hajicova, and Eva Buranova. 1980. Aktualnı clenenı vety v cestine

[Topic/FocusArticulationof theCzechSentence]. Academia,Prague,Czechoslovakia.

PetrSgall,EvaHajicova,andJarmilaPanevova. 1986. TheMeaning of theSentencein Its

SemanticandPragmatic Aspects. D. ReidelPublishingCompany, Dordrecht,Boston,

London.

PetrSgall,OskarE. Pfeiffer, Wolfgang U. Dressler, andM. Pucek. 1995. Experimental

researchonsystemicordering. Theoretical Linguistics, 21:197–239.

PetrSgall,Alla Bemova, andEva Hajicova. 1996. Remarkson thesemanticfeaturesof

casesandprepositionsasrelatedto syntax. In EdnaAndrews andYishaiTobin, edi-

tors,Towardsa Calculusof Meaning, volume43 of Studiesin Functional andStruc-

tural Linguistics, pages71–82. JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.

PetrSgall. 1980. A dependency basedspecificationof topic andfocusII. SMIL-Journal

of Linguistic Calculus, (1-2):110–140.

PetrSgall. 1995. Pragueschooltypology. In MasayoshiShibatani andTheodoraBynon,

References /247

editors, Approachesto Language Typology, pages 49–84. Clarendon Press,Oxford,

UnitedKingdom.

StuartShieber. 1986. Introduction to Unification-basedapproachesto grammar. CSLI,

Stanford, CA.

Vladimır Skalicka andPetrSgall. 1994. Praguiantypology of languages. In Philip A.

Luelsdorff, editor, PragueSchool of Structural andFunctional Linguistics, number41

in LinguisticsandLiteraryStudiesin EasternEurope,pages333–357. JohnBenjamins,

Amsterdam, TheNetherlands.

Mark Steedman.1996. SurfaceStructure andInterpretation. TheMIT Press,Cambridge

Massachusetts.

Mark Steedman.2000a. Informationstructure andthe syntax-phonology interface. Lin-

guisticInquiry, 31(4):649–689.

Mark Steedman.2000b. Theproductionsof time. Draft 4.0,July24.

Mark Steedman. 2000c. The Syntactic Process. The MIT Press,Cambridge Mas-

sachusetts.

Mark Steedman.2000d. TheSyntactic Process. MIT Press,Cambridge,MA.

SusanSteele.1978. Word ordervariation: A typological study. In JosephH. Greenberg,

editor, UniversalsofLanguage. Volume4: Syntax, pages585–624.StanfordUniversity

Press,Stanford, California.

Bohumil Trnka. 1932. Somethoughts onstructural morphology. In CharisteriaGuilelmo

Mathesio, pages57–61. Reprintedin (Vachek,1964), pp.329-334.

J.C. Trueswell,M. Tanenhaus,andS.M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic influences onparsing:

Useof thematicroleinformationin syntacticambiguity resolution. Journal ofMemory

andLanguage, 33:285–318.

Natsuko Tsujimura.1996. AnIntroduction to JapaneseLinguistics. Basil Blackwell.

Keiko Ueharaand DianneBradley. 1996. The effect of -ga sequences on processing

Japanesemultiply center-embeddedsentences. In 11th Pacific-Asia Conferenceon

Language, Information, andComputation.

JosefVachek. 1964. A PragueSchool Reader in Linguistics. Indiana University Press,

Bloomington,IN.

EnricVallduvı andElisabetEngdahl. 1996. Thelinguistic realizationof informationpack-

aging. Linguistics, 34:459–519.

Enric Vallduvı andRonZacharski. 1994. Accenting phenomena, associationwith focus,

andthe recursivenessof focus-ground. In Paul Dekker andMartin Stokhof, editors,

Proceedings of the Ninth AmsterdamColloquium, pages683–702, Amsterdam, The

Netherlands.UniversiteitvanAmsterdam.

EnricVallduvı. 1990. TheInformationalComponent. Ph.D.thesis,University of Pennsyl-

vania,Philadelphia, USA.

Enric Vallduvı. 1994. The dynamics of information packaging. In ElisabetEngdahl,

editor, Integrating Information Structure into Constraint-basedand Categorial Ap-

248 References

proaches, DYANA-2 DeliverableR1.3.B.Institutefor Logic,LanguageandComputa-

tion (ILLC), Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.

JohanF.A.K. Van Benthem.1991. Language in Action: Categories,Lambdas, andDy-

namicLogic. North-Holland,AmsterdamNL.

Jan Van Eijck and Hans Kamp. 1997. Representing discoursein context. In Johan

VanBenthemandAlice TerMeulen, editors,Handbookof Logic andLanguage. Else-

vier, Amsterdam, etc.

Shravan Vasishth,Martin Jansche,and Chris Brew. in preparation. A corpus study of

Hindi centerembeddings.MS.

ShravanVasishth.2001. Evaluating working-memory basedmodelsof sentenceprocess-

ing: An empiricalinvestigation usingHindi center-embedding constructions. In OS-

UWPL, pages??–??,OhioStateUniversity.

ShravanVasishth.2002. Workingmemoryin sentencecomprehension:Anempiricalinves-

tigation of Hindi centerembeddings. Ph.D.thesis,Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus,

OH.

TheoVenneman. 1977. Konstituenz undDependenz in einigenneuerenGrammatiktheo-

rien. Sprachwissenschaft, 2:259–301.

K. Vijayashanker andDavid Weir. 1994. Theequivalenceof four extensions of context-

freegrammar. Mathematical SystemsTheory, 27:511–546.

Tomas Vlk. 1988. Towardsa transduction of underlying structuresinto intensional logic.

PragueBulletinof MathematicalLinguistics, (50):35–70.

StefanWechsler. 1995. TheSemanticBasisof Argument Structure. Dissertationsin Lin-

guistics.CSLI Publications,StanfordCA.

Henri Weil. 1844. TheOrder of Words in the AncientLanguagescomparsedwith that

of the ModernLanguages. JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Second

edition1884; Frenchoriginal 1844, Englishtranslationby CharlesW. Super.

Hiroko Yamashita. 1997. TheEffectsof Word OrderandCaseMarking Informationon

theProcessingof Japanese.Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch, 26(2):163–188.

MariaLuisaZubizaretta.1998. Prosody, Focus,andWordOrder. Number31in Linguistic

Inquiry. TheMIT Press,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

L IST OF FIGURES

1.1 Simpledependency structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2 Simpledependency structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3 A simplemultilingual network of structural rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1.4 A simplemultilingual network of structural rulesincluding Start . . . . . 40

2.1 Vallduvi’s grammararchitecture incorporatinginformationstructure . . . 59

3.1 Wordorderdata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.1 Thearchitecture of DGL’s wordordermodel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

4.2 Dutch,FlemishandGerman verbraising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

4.3 A multilingual network for subordinateclauseWO in Dutch,Flemishand

German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

4.4 Architecture of SVO packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

4.5 Structuring of SVO wordorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

5.1 Architecture of aGB theoryof Prosody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

5.2 Architecture of aCCGtheory of Prosody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

6.1 Thenatureof contextual boundness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

7.1 Example (287) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

7.2 EPDA processingof Dutchdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

7.3 EPDA processingof Germandependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

7.4 EPDA processingof Germanmixeddependencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

7.5 Hindi examples(289a,b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

7.6 Processingof (290) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

7.7 Processingof (292a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

7.8 Processingof (292b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

7.9 Resultsof Experiment1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

7.10 SingleEmbeddings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

7.11 DoubleEmbeddings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

7.12 Experiment3 results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

249

LANGUAGE INDEX

Biblical Hebrew, 111

BrazilianPortuguese,96

Catalan,63,68

Chamorro, 149,150

Czech,3, 14–16, 18, 20–22, 30, 46, 48,

50, 52, 53, 66, 69, 84, 96, 99,

101,109,120,153,157,159

Dutch,16,18,24,48,49,84,86,95–97,

101, 104–106, 109, 113, 117,

119, 126–130, 132–138, 154,

156–158

English,2, 3, 6, 14–16, 18–20, 24, 30,

32, 37, 46–50, 53, 54, 57–60,

63, 65–69, 77, 78, 84–86, 89,

96,97,99,100, 105, 107, 110,

117,127,129,157

Flemish,128,129,135,136,138

French,14,96,97

German,14, 18, 31, 36, 48, 49, 84, 86,

95–97,101,104–106,109,113,

117, 128–130, 132, 136–139,

154,157

Greek,96,101

Hebrew, 96

Hindi, 93, 95, 101, 106, 107, 109, 145,

163

Hua,47

Hungarian, 93, 95, 101, 102, 104–107,

109,113,163,164

Italian,96

Japanese,3, 14–16, 18, 24, 47, 48, 85,

93,95,97,101, 109, 120, 129,

130, 139–141

Korean, 24,93,95,141

Mandarin, 96

Navajo,48

Portuguese,117

Russian,46,96,101,159

Sanskrit,17

Sinhala,99,101, 109,141,163,165

Swedish,96,154

Tagalog, 48,93,111,112,148–150

Tamil, 99,101

TobaBatak,147

Turkish, 48, 60, 72, 84, 91, 93, 95, 101,

102, 104, 106, 107, 109, 113,

139, 163,164

Vute,48

Welsh,85

NAME INDEX

Ades,Anthony, 117

Adjukiewicz, Kazimierz,117, 118

Areces,Carlos,33

Baldridge, Jason,12, 72, 117,120, 122,

123, 150

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua,4, 117,118

Barry, Guy, 5

Benthem, JohanF.A.K. van,32,124

Bloomfield, Leonard,10

Carnap, Rudolf,66

Carpenter, Bob,118

Chafe,William, 60

Chomsky, Noam,32,37,38

Comrie,Bernard,38,85

Croft, William, 17,92

Curry, Herbert,117, 118

Dahl, Osten,62

Danes,Frantisek,14,50,67

Davis, Anthony R., 15,17,25

Dekker, Paul,61

Dokulil, M., 14

Dowty, David R.,15,25

Engdahl,Elisabet,48,61,63–65,69,70,

105, 106

Erteshik-Shir, Nomi, 27

Feys,Robert,117,118

Fillmore,CharlesJ.,25

Firbas,Jan,52,79,100

Foster, JohnC.,127

Gamut,L.T.F., 32

Greenberg,JosephH., 38,84,86–88,90,

92,94,102, 141

Grosz,Barbara,50

Hahn,Udo,50

Haiman,John,47,48

Hajicova,Eva,50,52,55–57,66,69

Hale,Kenneth,91,92

Halliday, Michael A.K., 39, 57, 58, 61,

66–68

Hawkins,JohnA., 38,84,86–88,90,92,

94,102, 103,141

Heim,Irene,28,61

Hendriks,Herman,61,65,69

Hepple,Mark, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 117,124,

127

Herring,SusanC., 109, 141

Heylen,Dirk, 20,21,23

Hoffman,Beryl,12,60,72,73,102, 117,

119,120

Hudson,Richard,9

Jackendoff, Ray, 38,55,58,61,64

Jacobson,Pauline,28

Jakobson,Roman,13,14

Janssen,TheoM.V., 32

Jespersen,Otto,14

Karttunen, Lauri, 49

Keenan,Edward,38

Koktova,Eva,77

Koller, Alexander, 33

Kroeger, Paul,48,85,111,150

Kruijf f-Korbayova,Ivana,50,56,66,69,

72,79

Kubon, Petr, 61

Kurtonina,Natasha,124

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy, 14,16

Lambek, Joachim, 2, 3, 5,19,43,61,84,

124,127

Lambrecht, Knud,50

252 NameIndex

Lehmann, WinfredP., 86

Manandhar, Suresh,70

Manning, ChristopherD., 85

Materna,Pavel, 55

Mathesius,Vil em,13,14,50,57,69

Mel’ cuk, Igor, 9

Moens,Marc,13

Montague,Richard,32

Moortgat,Michael,5–8, 27,65,117,124–

127,129,135

Morrill, Glyn V., 5–8, 32, 65, 66, 118,

122,124,125

Morris, Charles,66

Oehrle,RichardT., 5, 8, 26,27,75,117,

124–127

Oliva,Karel,23

Paolillo, JohnC., 109,141

Partee,BarbaraHall, 32,50,55,56

Peregrin, Jaroslav, 55,56,58,66,79

Petkevic, Vladimır, 54,55,70,71,163

Pickering,Martin, 5

Pollard,Carl,65

Rooth,Mats,49,58

Sag,IvanA., 65

Selkirk,Lisa,70

Sgall,Petr, 7, 14,16,17,27,28,32,48,

50–52, 54, 55, 57, 69–71, 76,

79, 80, 84, 91, 92, 103, 108,

153,163

Sidner, CandaceL., 50

Skalicka,V., 14,84,91–93, 95,96,98

Speas,Margaret,91,92

Steedman,Mark, 2, 3, 9, 13,19, 38,49,

57–60, 62, 65–68, 70–75, 78–

80,117, 119, 124–127, 129

Steele,Susan,84,90–93,98

Strube,Michael,50

Tichy, Pavel, 55

Trnka,Bohumil, 14

Tsujimura,Natsuko, 139

Vallduvı, Enric, 48–50, 60–65, 67–70,

80,105,106

Venneman,Theo, 5, 7, 10, 38, 86, 87,

103

Vijayashanker, K., 117

Vlk, Tomas,55

Webber, BonnieLynn, 66,72

Wechsler, Stefan,15,17,25,26

Weil, Henry, 50

Weir, David, 117

Zubizaretta,MariaLuisa,50

SUBJECT INDEX

R-dependent,12,13

R-head,12,13

action-type,seeAktionsart

adjacency, 124,125

agreement,21

alternative set,58,59

aspect,13,93

attribute-valuematrix,23

background

Steedman, 58,59,62,70,72

case,seemorphology, case

categorial grammar, 1, 4, 5, 27, 28, 32,

38, 58, 60, 61, 65, 66, 84, 88,

115–117, 169

category, seetype

type,12

categorial typelogic,4–6,12,19,20,23,

26,28,33,39,40,43,117,118,

120–122, 124, 125, 127, 169

CombinatoryCategorial Grammar, 19,38,

40,57,58,60,71–74,81,117–

124, 126, 127, 169

modalized,117,121–123

commutativity, 125

compositionality, 32

constituency, 5

Curry-Howard correspondence, 26, 33,

116

delicacy, 40

dependency

head-dependentassymetry, 2, 4, 5,

7, 38,86,125, 127

semanticimport, 36

dependency grammar, 1, 4, 7, 9, 25, 28,

32,65,108,161

dependency relation,2–4,10,11,13–17,

29,31,43,45,48,150

Actor, 2–4, 16,30,33,48,53,54

Addressee,3, 16,30,135

Beneficiary, 107,135

Direction

WhereTo, 17

Patient,3,4,14–16,30,53,54,112,

135

Time

How Long,16

dialogue test,28

dynamic semantics,55

endocentric category, 10

event

eventnucleus,29

eventuality, 13,28,29

exocentric category, 10

file-change metaphor, 28

File-ChangeSemantics,61

focal fronting, 48

focus

canonical focus position, 99, 100,

103, 104, 107,108, 110, 111,

113,163

Steedman,58,59,62,68,70,72,75

Vallduvı, 62,67,68,70,80

form, 1, 13,15,49,54,58,59

function, 1, 17

functionword,18,24,27,28,31,47,54,

89,139

Functional GenerativeDescription, 10,50–

52, 54, 55, 59, 62, 65, 66, 70,

254 SubjectIndex

71, 74, 75, 79–81, 100, 113,

153,163

gapping, seeextraction,gapping

gender, seemorphology, gender

Government& Binding, 14,43,49,70

GPSG,7

ground

Vallduvı, 62,67,68,70,80

headdomain,11

headwrapping, 125

HPSG,7, 21, 23, 27, 61,64, 65, 68,70,

81

hybrid logic, 33,34,43,45,56,79

informationpackaging,49,60–65,70,72,

74,78,80,81

informationstructure,13,36,45–50,55,

57, 58, 60, 61, 63–75, 79–81,

83, 84, 88, 91, 98–100, 103–

108, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116,

120, 150, 160, 161, 163, 168,

169

Attributum,46,48,51,57

focusprojection,100,105–108,113,

161

Relatum,45,46,48,51,57

informativity

communicativedynamism,51–53,69,

79,80,100,161

contextual boundness,45, 51, 55,

57, 58, 75, 83, 99, 109, 115,

116,160,161,163

contextually bound, 51–54, 58, 59,

62,100, 161

contextually nonbound, 51–54, 58,

59,62,100,160,161

structuralindications,46,48,49,72–

75,81,99,107, 110, 111, 113,

115, 120, 128, 161, 162, 165,

167,169,170

lexical meaning, 10,17,25,29,31

lexical semantics,26

logical,26

linguisticmeaning, 1,13,15,17,29,31–

33, 35, 36, 43, 45, 46, 49–55,

57, 58, 60, 62, 66, 70, 71, 74,

75,79–81, 100, 116

link

Vallduvı, 62,67,68

linking theory, 18,19,24–26, 28,29,88

markedness,72

Meaning-Text Model, 9

modality, 93

MontagueGrammar, 32,66

morphology

casemarker, 18

category, 14,15,17,18,24–26, 29,

31,43

delimitation, 14

exponent,14

morphological strategy, 1, 14, 15,

17,19,29,43,47,92,94,132

adposition,17–19, 24

case,17–19

linker, 17,18

position, 17–19, 24

number, 14

multisetcombinatorycategorial grammar,

72,73,117,119–121,169

nominal, seehybrid logic, nominal

number, seemorphology, number

person, seemorphology, person

phrase-structuregrammar, 38, 65, 116,

117, 153

pied-piping,seeextraction, pied-piping

Postpositional NounModifier Hierarchy,

87

PragueSchool of Linguistics,13–15, 25,

50,91,100,113

SubjectIndex /255

predicate-valency structure,1, 10,29–31

Prepositional Noun Modifier Hierarchy,

87

presupposition,55

PrinciplesandParameters,38

relational nouns,28

Rheme

Halliday, 67

Steedman, 49, 57–60, 65, 67, 68,

71,75,80

salience,51

Set-CCG,12,72,117, 119–122, 127, 139,

169

Stockof SharedKnowledge,51

structural control, 124

structural rule, 7, 9, 12, 20, 21, 23, 31,

35, 36, 39–42, 81, 116, 124,

125, 127–130, 133, 135, 137,

139, 140, 142–144, 147, 150,

151, 154–162, 164, 165, 167

associativity, 125

systemicordering,52,100,105,107,115,

160, 161, 167–169

tail

Vallduvı, 62

tectogrammaticalrepresentation,51, 52,

55

tense,13,93,97

thematicstructure,50,57,66–70,80,99,

108, 113

Theme

Halliday, 57,61,66–68

Steedman, 49, 57–60, 65, 67, 71,

73,75,80

topic-focusarticulation, 45, 49–51, 54–

57, 65, 66, 70, 71, 75–77, 79,

80,100

focus,50–56,71,75–77,79,99,101–

103, 105–107, 109, 111, 161,

163,164,167, 168

focusproper, 52,71,75,76,99,100,

105–108,110, 113, 163–165

topic,50,51,53–55, 71,75–77,79,

100,105,109, 163, 167, 168

topicproper, 52,76

Topic/Focus-sensitive DiscourseRepre-

sentationTheory, 56,57,79

topicalization, 48

transparent intensional logic, 32,55

tripartitestructure, 55–57

tune,47, 48, 50, 52, 57, 60, 70–75, 81,

83–85, 99,100,103,106,107,

109–111, 113, 160–163, 165,

167–170

type-raising,19

unarymodaloperator, 20, 35, 124, 129,

130

box,20

diamond, 20

universal,86

implicational, 86,87,93

UniversalGrammar, 37

valency frame,10

freemodifier, 10

innerparticipant,10

verbfinal, 128,129, 132,135, 136, 139,

141,142,144, 153, 155, 156

verbinitial, 147, 148

verbraising,129

verbsecond,103,153–157

Wackernagelposition, 153–155, 157, 159

WordGrammar, 9

wordorder, 12,41,46–48,50,52,57,60,

70–75, 80, 81, 83–85, 87, 88,

90–103,106,109–111,113,115–

117,119, 120, 124,125,127–

131,138, 139, 141,143,145–

256 SubjectIndex

150, 152–156, 158–161, 163,

164,166,168,169

basic,85–88, 119

free,72, 83, 84, 91–103,109–111,

113, 115, 116, 119, 120, 139,

143, 145, 149, 150, 152, 154,

157–159,163,169

mixed,83,84,91–95,97–103,109–

111, 113, 115, 116, 119, 139,

141,152–154,156,157,169

OV (orXV), 87,93,95,97–99,101–

104, 106, 108–111, 113, 115,

116, 130–132, 139, 141, 143,

146,149,162,163,169

rigid, 83, 84, 91–95, 97–99, 102,

103, 113, 115, 116, 153, 154,

157,169

SOV, 85,87,99,105, 119,121, 129,

139,141

SVO, 85, 87, 96, 97, 99, 101–106,

109–111, 115, 116, 119, 129,

131,146,147, 152, 153,155–

158,167–170

V1, 147

variationhypothesis,93,95–98,115,

128,169

VO (or VX), 87, 98, 99, 102–104,

110, 111, 115, 116, 144, 146,

150,165,169

VOS,87,146–148

VSO,85,119,146,147

wordform, 18,24

Documents

COMPETENCE AND PERFORMANCE MODELLING …Regarding performance modelling, we ﬁrst present a summary of existing re-search (both theoretical and empirical) on sentence processing in