Constituent Structure - Part 22

190 controversies () (a) p (b) * p w x w x y z z y So this constraint rules out crossing lines.3 It also rules out multiply mothered nodes such (2) when combined with the restriction that nodes cannot precede themselves (T14 from Ch. 3). () * a w x y Since y is dominated by w, which sister-precedes x, and y is also dominated by x, it follows that y precedes y; but such situations are ruled out by the independently required restriction that items cannot precede themselves. Given (A9) and (T1), multidominated trees will always result in a contradiction. This gives constituent structures a measure of explanatory power. It predicts the existence of constituency-based and structure-dependent phenomena. This insight is at the heart of Generative Grammar in most of its guises. Nevertheless, there are a number of attested phe-nomena which either escape explanation under these premises or are predicted not to occur without additional mechanisms added to the grammar. Chomsky (1957) used this observation to argue for trans-formations. He claimed that when you had phenomena that lay out-side the powerof PSGs (and we can extend that to related formalisms), then a higher-order grammatical system, such as one that uses trans-formational rules, is in order. Take, for example, the phenomenon of wh-extraction without pied-piping of the preposition: (3) Who did you give the book to? The preposition to is separated from its complement who by the rest of the clause. There is no way to draw a tree for this sentence using a 3 The prohibition against crossing lines is also found in autosegmental phonology. See Goldsmith (1976), McCarthy (1979), Pulleyblank (1983), Clements (1985), Sagey (1986, 1988), and Hammond (1988, 2005) for discussion. 4 T1. P is irrreXexive: (8x 2 N) [:(x x)]. multi-structures 191 simple PSG, maintaining the complement relation of toto whowithout crossing a line and violating (A9). In addition to traditional examples of movement such as wh-movement and raising constructions, McCawley (1982, 1989) observes that parentheticals, such as (4a), Right-Node Raising structures (4b) and other examples of non-constituent conjunction, relative clause extraposition (4c), and scrambling (4d) seem to exhibit discontinuous constituents (all examples from McCawley 1982): (4) (a) John [VP talked, of course, about politics]. (b) Tom may [VP be, and everyone is sure Mary is, a genius]. (c) [NP A man entered who was wearing a black suit]. (d) [NP Huic ego me bello] ducem proWteor. (Latin) this I myself war leader announce ‘‘For this war, I announce myself leader.’’ Blevins (1990) adds the case of VSO (verb–subject–object order) languages such as Irish, where the subject appears in the middle of the verb phrase: (e) [VP Chonaic saw Sean an fear]. John the man ‘‘John saw the man.’’ In each case the underlined words appear in the middle of a string that otherwise passes tests for constituency (as marked by the brackets). Similar eVects were noted in Pike 1943; Wells 1947; Yngve 1960; and Speas 1985. A related but distinct problem are cases of linear order and hierarchical eVects, such as the binding conditions and negative polarity licensing, which seem to be in conXict. In mainstream generativegrammar,the solution tothese problemsis either a transformational rule in the traditional sense or a movement rule in the Principles and Parameters or MP sense (see Ch. 8). An alternativetothis approachsuggests thatweshould relaxourcondition on line crossing and/or multidomination (McCawley 1982, 1987, 1988, 1989; Huck 1985; Speas 1985; Baltin 1987; Blevins 1990; among others). So,forexample, wemightallowasentencesuchas(3)toberepresented by a diagram like (5a) or (b), which are alternative representations of the same kind of diagram. 192 controversies () (a) S NP Aux NP VP N did N V NP PP who John give D N P the book to (b) S VP NP PP NP NP N Aux N V D N P who did John give the book to Let us call the views expressed in (5) ‘‘line-crossing approaches’’. Although there are no graphically represented line crossings in (5a), this diagram is equivalent to the line crossing form in (b) as the domination relations and linear orderings inside the two graphs are identical. It should be noted that in fact, structures such as (5) are entirely possible in ID/LP format grammars (Blevins 1990). A related alternative involves line crossing only in the limited cir-cumstance where a single node is dominated by more than one parent. Let us refer to the class of these proposals as ‘‘multidomination’’ approaches. Multidomination is most useful when an element simul-taneously satisWes the requirements of two diVerent positions in the tree. For example, if an NP is simultaneously the subject of both the embedded and the main clause (as in a raising construction), then it might be dominated by both the S nodes (Sampson 1975): () S VP S NP V The man seems VP to be happy multi-structures 193 It should be noticed that line crossing is not a requirement of multi-domination, but merely a common consequence. Take for example a simple analysis of subject-to-object raising: () S VP S NP NP V The man wants him VP to be happy Here him is multidominated by VP (explaining the object case), and is simultaneous the logical subject/agent of the predicate to be happy. A constituent-sharing approach also provides a straightforward an-alysis of non-constituent coordination (see below for citations and discussion). For example, Right-Node Raising could be viewed as the sharing of the second VP’s object with the Wrst: () S S S NP VP NP VP NP N V Conj N V N Frank loves and Susan hates tree-drawing Since the speech stream is linearly ordered in a single dimension (through time), and our written representations of language are typ-ically limited to two dimensions (up and down), linguists rarely consider the possibility that the hierarchical structure of language is not limited to two dimensions and instead branches into at least a third. Approaches with line crossing actually hint at such possibilities. Line crossing might be thought of extending the structure out into a third dimension. I hinted at such possibilities in the discussion of adjunction in Chapter 8, where the BPS interpretation of adjunction points towards the structures existing on separate planes which explains a wide variety of phenomena including restrictions on 194 controversies do-support and condition C-eVects in anti-reconstruction environ-ments. To schematize, we might hypothesize that simple constituent structure is represented on one plane, and the shared NP is in a third dimension: (9) basic clausal structure Shared constituent dimension sentence In this sort of approach, multiple dimensions hang oV of the single constituent tree. I will refer to this kind of analysis—a variant of the line-crossing approach—as ‘‘multidimensional.’’ I reserve this term for approaches where there is a single constituent-structure representation branching into three dimensions. There is another, more common, three-dimensional structure found in the literature. This is the view where we have fully formed inde-pendent planes of representation for diVerent kinds of information. This is distinguished from multidimensional approaches in that we have more than one representation of constituency. I will call this kind of approach ‘‘multiplanar’’to distinguish it from the multidimensional approaches. There are two major versions of the multiplaner approach. The Wrst, which I call ‘‘wheel and spoke’’ syntax, involves diVerent constituents (and other relational structures) acting as spokes around a central linearized string of words: (10) words in the sentence planes of syntactic representation This is the approach taken by Autolexical Syntax (Sadock 1991), Role and ReferenceGrammar (Van Valin 1993, 2003), Pesetsky’s (1999) layers and cascades, and the Simpler Syntax Model (Culicover and JackendoV 2005). The other version of this we might call the ‘‘parallel-structures model.’’ This view of multiplanar structure has the various planes of syntactic structure, including constituent structure(s), developed in parallel and linked to one another by linking rules or related principles. Usually in such a system one of the planes contains the linear order: ... - tailieumienphi.vn