Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

1

Structure Building and Unification

Colin Phillips, University of M

arylandcolin@

glue.umd.edu

The Standard View

• There are m

ultiple (related) structure-building systems

Gram

mar

A recursive characterization of the structural descriptions of all possible expressions of a

language.

When w

e speak of a gramm

ar generating a sentence with a certain structural description, w

em

ean simply that the gram

mar assigns this structural description to the sentence. W

hen we say

that a sentence has a certain derivation with respect to a particular generative gram

mar, w

e saynothing about how

the speaker or hearer might proceed, in som

e practical or efficient manner,

to construct such a derivation. These questions belong to the theory of language use – to thetheory of perform

ance.” (Chomsky 1965, p.9)

ParserA

system for increm

ental recovery of structural descriptions from spoken/w

ritten input.

‘…parsing routines exist m

erely for efficient implem

entation of the competence gram

mar…

’(Fodor, 1998: 290)

AN

Dperhaps a structural notion of sim

plicity, for use in resolving ambiguity

•

Comm

only assumed that the parser im

plements the gram

mar increm

entally in thesam

e way in all languages, i.e. w

hat the parser adds to the gramm

ar is Universal

ProducerA

system for (possibly) increm

ental structuring of sentences for speaking.

Competence/Perform

ance

1. Behavior, e-language‡

2. Dedicated system

s for parsing, production, etc.3. Capacity of gram

mar w

ith bounded vs. unbounded resources4. Form

al distinction:what a function computes vs. how it does so

Questions about U

nification?

• H

ow do perform

ance-systems recruit the inform

ation in the gramm

ar?•

How

are gramm

aticality judgments m

ade? If the parser is a ‘covering gramm

ar’ forthe com

petence gramm

ar, is it a perfectly accurate implem

entation of the gramm

ar?•

H

ow does learning occur, given that the gram

mar is ‘hidden’ behind the parser?

(error signals in learning are only indirectly related to the changes that they must

trigger)

Alternative A

pproach

(2)A

speaker’s gramm

atical knowledge takes the form

of an incremental

generative system, w

hich subsumes production, com

prehension andgram

maticality judgm

ent.

Gram

mar

is an

algorithm

which

generates sentence

structures/interpretations in an incremental fashion.

Production: incremental generation of sentence structures.

Gram

maticality: increm

ental generation of structure for word string; if

generation either blocks completely or m

akes an illegal step, returnsungram

maticality. [often w

ith idealization of infinite resources]Com

prehension: incremental generation of structures, term

inal string must

match input (analysis-by-synthesis com

prehension system).

•

We know

that an incremental structure-building system

exists. Hypothesis is that

that is the only structure-building system.

Unification Q

uestions Again

•

Relation between gram

matical know

ledge and the gramm

atical component of

performance system

s becomes straightforw

ard, since they are identical•

Processes underlying gramm

aticality judgment becom

e more transparent

• In learning, error signals m

ore closely related to resulting changes

Evidence

•

Is this the right way to think about linguistic know

ledge? What evidence can be

brought to bear?

…the available evidence varies across different dom

ains…

a. ‘Proof of Concept’ evidence: can the approach at least be show

n to be feasible?‡

plenty to be done in this regard

b. Syntactic Theory: substantial change in shape of structural derivations‡

scope for a variety of empirical argum

ents

c. G

ramm

aticality Judgment Processes: largely uncharted dom

ain‡

arguments involve ‘proof of concept’,

‡ possible electrophysiological corroboration

d. Parsing &

Production: system doesn’t look so different …

but it has less roomfor error or naiveté‡

evidence is more am

biguous

e. Learning: alm

ost no explicit theories of change in language acquisition‡

arguments should again involve ‘proof of concept’ dem

onstrations

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

2

a. Proof of Concept

Syntactic Theory can the gram

mar work like this?

Computational im

plementation

really, no cheating!Behavioral Experim

entationis this what people do?

Cognitive Neuroscience

b. Syntactic Theory

Some consequences of left-to-right derivations

Classic form of argum

ents for derivations: surface form show

s that rule X has applied,

although the environment for rule X

is not present in the surface form. Solution: assum

ethat the environm

ent for rule X w

as present at an earlier derivational step, but was later

destroyed by another rule.

How

syntactic constituency tests are supposed to work:

(1)a.

Grom

it [likes cheese] and [hates cats](coordination)

b.G

romit [likes cheese] and W

allace does too(deletion/ellipsis)

c.[Like cheese] though G

romit does ___, he can’t stand Brie.

(movem

ent)d.

Wallace and G

romit like each other.

(reciprocal binding)e. *

Each other like Wallace and G

romit.

(illicit reciprocal binding)

Grom

itlikescheese

NP

S

VP

VN

P

A.

Different constituency tests pick out different sets of strings as constituents.

Although this does not contradict standard assum

ptions about constituency, it doesnot follow

from them

.

Coordination is a very ‘liberal’ diagnostic

(2)a.

Wallace [visited W

endolene] and [bought some w

ool].b.

Wallace gave [G

romit a biscuit] and [Shaw

n some cheese] for breakfast.

c.[W

allace designed] and [Grom

it built] an enormous tin m

oon-rocket.d.

Alice [knew

that Fred wanted to w

rite to] and [hoped that he wanted to

talk to] the president.

Some strings that can be coordinated cannot undergo m

ovement:

(3)a. *

[Grom

it a biscuit] Wallace gave ___ for breakfast.

b. *W

allace gave ___ for breakfast [his favorite pet beagle an enormous

chewy dog-biscuit.]

Some strings that can be coordinated cannot undergo ellipsis:

(4)a.

Alice [knew

that Fred wanted to talk] and [hoped that he w

anted to argue]w

ith the president.

b. *A

lice [knew that Fred w

anted to talk] with the queen and Ethel did w

iththe president.

B.In som

e instances, constituency tests pick out overlapping strings as constituents,w

hich is at odds with standard assum

ptions about constituency.

Coordination of overlapping strings

(5)a.

Wallace gave [G

romit a biscuit] and [Shaw

n some cheese] for breakfast.

b.W

allace gave Grom

it [a biscuit in the morning] and [som

e cheese justbefore bedtim

e.]

VP-fronting in conflict w

ith anaphor-binding possibilities (Pesetsky 1995)

(6)a.

...and [give the books to them in the garden] he did ___ on each other’s

birthdays.b.

...and [give the books to them] he did ___ in the garden on each other’s

birthdays.

C.A

lthough there are excellent characterizations of the range of constituents identifiedby individual structural diagnostics, there is no general theory of w

hy particularstructural tests pick out the strings that they do as constituents, and not others.

Proposal

•

Conflicts between syntactic constituency tests are ‘opacity’ effects, w

hich arisebecause different tests apply at different points in a derivation.

• D

ifferences between tests can be understood if w

e assume that structures are built up

incrementally, from

left-to-right.

Incrementality hypothesis

Sentence structures are built incrementally from

left-to-right, i.e. in the order in which

terminal elem

ents are pronounced.

IP

I'N

P

VP

infl

IP

I'N

P

VP

inflVN

P

IP

I'N

P

VP

inflV

NP

VP

V'

VPP

Wallac

esaw

Grom

it

in the kitchen

Wallac

e

saw

Wallac

e

sawGrom

it

(7a)(7b)

(7c)

Consequences:i.

Since constituency changes systematically as new

material is added to structure, and

different structural diagnostics apply at different points in a derivation, certainsystem

atic differences between constituency tests can be explained.

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

3

ii.M

akes it possible to maintain the assum

ption that syntactic operations manipulate

constituents, and that sentences have a single derivation.iii.

Since all tests apply to same structural derivation, w

e can explain why conflicts

between constituency tests are m

ore restricted than is predicted by flexibleconstituency theories.

iv.Com

patible with increm

entality of comprehension and production.

A. C

oordinationPredicted to be extrem

ely liberal, because coordinated strings are imm

ediately adjacent;hence no risk of first conjunct losing its constituency before second conjunct built.Should, in principle, be possible for all constituents of a derivation.

(8)W

allace will give G

romit crackers for breakfast.

a.[W

allace]W

allace and Wendolene gave G

romit crackers for breakfast.

b.[W

allace will]

Wallace w

ill and Wendolene probably w

on’t give Grom

it crackers forbreakfast.

c.[W

allace [will give]]

Wallace w

ill give and Wendolene w

ill send their favorite beagle some

crackers for his birthday.W

allace will design but w

on’t complete an exciting new

invention for hisdog’s birthday.

d.[W

allace [will [give G

romit]]]

Wallace w

ill give Grom

it and Wendolene w

ill give Preston a shining newcollar for w

alking about town.

Wallace w

ill give Grom

it and send Preston a shining new collar for

walking about tow

n.

e.[W

allace [will [give [G

romit crackers]]]]

Wallace w

ill give Grom

it crackers and Wendolene w

ill give Preston dogfood for breakfast.W

allace will give G

romit crackers and Preston dog food for breakfast.

f.[W

allace [will [give [G

romit [crackers for breakfast]]]]]

Wallace w

ill give Grom

it crackers for breakfast and Wendolene w

ill givePreston dog food for dinner.W

allace will give G

romit crackers for breakfast and toast for lunch.

...of course, some strings are never constituents:

(9)a. *

The man [w

ho built the rocket has] and [who studied robots designed] a

dog.b. *

Wallace gave his [dog half a dozen] and [sheep a handful of] crackers for

breakfast.c. *

After W

allace fed [his dog the postman] and [his sheep the m

ilkman]

arrived.

B. Coordination vs. Pseudogapping

Predicted to pick out a narrower range of constituents: the string that licenses ellipsis

must be a constituent both w

hen it is first built and when the ellipsis site is built &

licensed, i.e. constituent must be present beyond com

pletion of sentence which is

antecedent of ellipsis.

• V

erb–preposition strings may be coordinated:

(10)a.

John talked to and gossiped about the kid who sprayed paint on his car.

b.The cat looked at and then slept on the rug in the m

iddle of the livingroom

.•

But they cannot be deleted in ellipsis constructions, a.k.a. ‘pseudogapping’(Postal1986, Baltin &

Postal 1996).

(11)a.

Helen talked to Jonathan, and A

lice did ___ *(to) Matthew

.b.

The cat slept on the mat, and the dog did ___ *(on) the chair.

(12)a.

Helen talked to Jonathan m

ore often than Alice did ___ *(to) M

atthew.

b.The cat slept on the m

at more often than the dog did ___ *(on) the chair.

•Reason: pseudogapping requires licensing of ellipsis site after V

+P constituent hasbeen destroyed by addition of N

P.

(13)a.

b.c.

Helen

talkedto

S

VP

NP

P(P)V

Helen

talked

to

S

VP

NP

VPP

PN

PJonathan

Helen

talked

to

S

VP

NP

VPP

PN

PJonathan

Helen

S

VP

NP

did

Sand

C. Binding vs. Predicate Fronting

Prediction: conflicts between different tests can arise w

hen tests can apply at differentstages in the increm

ental derivation of a sentence.

• O

verlapping strings may be coordinated, because they are constituents at different

points in an incremental derivation.

(14)a.

Wallace gave [G

romit a biscuit] and [Shaw

n some cheese] for breakfast.

b.W

allace gave Grom

it [a biscuit in the morning] and [som

e cheese justbefore bedtim

e.]

(15)a.

[give]b.

[give Grom

it]c.

[give [Grom

it [a biscuit]]]d.

[give [Grom

it [[a biscuit] [for breakfast]]]]

• Conflict betw

een movem

ent/ellipsis and binding results is possible, because bindingrelations established after m

ovement/ellipsis relations in increm

ental derivation.

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

4

(16)a.

to

giveV

PV

NP

V

V'

PP

PN

P

VP

give

the book

them

IP

NP

IP

Ihe

did

b.

to

giveV

PV

NP

V

V'

PP

PN

P

VP

give

the book

them

IP

NP

IP

I

he

did

I'

to

giveVP

V

NP

V

V'

PP

PNP

VP

give

the book

them

to

giveV

PV

NP

V

V'

PP

PN

P

VP

give

the book

them

IP

NP

IP

I

he

did

I'

to

giveVP

V

NP

V

V'

PP

P

NP

VP

give

the book

them

oneach other's birthdays

PN

P

PP

P'

C.

D. M

ovement vs. Ellipsis

Prediction: constituents become unavailable to syntactic processes once they have been

destroyed.

• Both V

P-fronting (VPF) and V

P-ellipsis (VPE) can m

ove/delete strings beginning atthe left-edge of V

P.

(17)a.

... and [give candy to children in libraries on weekends] he did.

b.... and [give candy to children in libraries] he did on w

eekends.

c.... and [give candy to children] he did in libraries on w

eekends.d.

... and [give candy] he did to children in libraries on weekends.

e. *...and [to children in libraries] he did give candy on w

eekends.f. *

...and [in libraries on weekends] he did give candy to children.

(18)a.

John gives candy to children in libraries on weekends, and M

ary does(too).

b.John gives candy to children in libraries on w

eekends and Mary does on

federal holidays.c.

John gives candy to children in libraries on weekends and M

ary does inurban parks on federal holidays.

• Internal to the fronted/elided portion of V

P, both VPF and V

PE pass tests for right-branching V

P-structure (i.e. tests from Barss &

Lasnik 1986, Larson 1988 etc.).

(19)a.

... and [introduce the children to each other] the teacher proceeded to do.b.

... and [congratulate everybody on his birthday] he did.

(20)a.

The principal introduced the children to each other, and then the teacherdid (too).

b.The boss congratulated everybody on his birthday, and the receptionistdid (too).

• W

hen only part of the VP is fronted, V

PF still passes diagnostics of right-branchingV

P-structure. Conflict betw

een VP-fronting and binding is possible, because

movem

ent chain is complete before binding chain is constructed.

(21)a.

John said he would give books to them

,... and give books to them

he did [on each other’s birthdays].(reciprocal binding)

b.M

ary said she would congratulate every boy,

... and congratulate every boy she did [at his graduation].(variable binding)c.

John said he would read every book,

... and read every book he did [at breakneck speed].(collective and distributive scope readings)

• In contrast, w

hen only part of VP undergoes ellipsis, diagnostics of right-branching

structure fail:

(22)a. *

John gave books to them on each other’s birthdays,

and Mary did [on each other’s first day of school].

(reciprocal binding)b. *

Mary congratulated every boy at his graduation,

and Sue did [at his 21st birthday party].(variable binding)

(23)M

ary read all the books quickly.(collective and distributive scope readings)

Collective reading: the total time required to read the books w

as fastD

istributive reading: the time required to read each individual book w

asfast

(24) M

ary read all the books quickly, and John did slowly.(collective reading only)

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

5

• Explanation: ellipsis m

ust be licensed in second conjunct after adverbial has beenadded in first conjunct. Creation of right-branching structure in first conjunctdestroys the V

+NP constituent, w

hich therefore can no longer license ellipsis.

(25)a.

b.

all the books

quicklyA

dv

V'

VP

V

NP

read

VP

Vall the books

quicklyA

dvV

'

VP

VN

Pread

Similar effect in Japanese

(26)a.

John-ga isoide dono hon-mo yonda.

-nom quickly all books-acc read

‘John read all the books quickly.’(collective &

distributivereadings available)

b.John-ga dono hon-m

o isoide yonda. -nom

all books-acc quickly read‘John read all the books quickly.’

(distributive reading only)

(27)a.

John-wa isoide dono hon-m

o yonda, (sosite) Mary-w

a yukkuri soosita.John-top quickly all books-acc read, (and) M

ary-top slowly did-so

‘John read all the books quickly, and Mary did slow

ly.’(collective reading only)

b. *John-w

a dono hon-mo isoide yonda, (sosite) M

ary-wa yukkuri soosita.

John-top all books-acc quickly read, (and) Mary-top slow

ly did-so‘John read all the books quickly, and M

ary did slowly.’

(both scopes impossible)

•

Control: Comparative Ellipsis (H

eim 1985, D

iesing 1992) allows m

ore minim

alcontrast than V

PF/VPE.

Adverbial phrase m

ay be present in either or bothconjuncts.

(28)a.

John read as many books as Bill did on Thursday.

b.John read as m

any books on Tuesday as Bill did on Thursday.

Prediction: diagnostics of right-branching VPs w

ill succeed when non-elided adverbial is

present in just one conjunct (29a-b), and fail when it is present in both conjuncts (29c).

(29)a.

John read as many books as Bill did in a w

eek.(collective and distributive readings both ok)

b.John read as m

any books in a week as Bill did.

(collective and distributive readings both ok)c.

John read as many books in a w

eek as Bill did in a month.

(collective reading ok, distributive reading impossible)

(30)a. (?)

The provost met as m

any studentsi as the dean did when theyij w

ere firstentering the university.

b. *The provost m

et as many studentsi w

hen theyi were first entering the

university as the dean did when theyij w

ere graduating.

(31)a.John

baked

NP

V

VPN

P

S

Mary

VPN

P

S

S

VPV

V'

PPin an hour

baked

did

as many cakes

as

b.

John

bakedN

PV

VPN

P

S

Mary

VPN

P

S

S

V'PP

in an hour

as many cakes

as

did

Note: the basic loss-of-scope-in-ellipsis facts are not the evidence for increm

entalstructure building: rather it is the contrast betw

een the ellipsis and fronting facts, and theparallel contrast in com

parative ellipsis examples.

E. Multiple D

ependencies (Richards, 1999)

(32)a. *W

hich book did the senator deny [NP the rum

or that he wanted to ban __]

b.W

hich senator __ denied [NP the rum

or that he wanted to ban W

ar &Peace]

c.W

hich senator __ denied [NP the rum

or that he wanted to ban w

hich book]

•

What is surprising about this paradigm

is the fact that the short wh-dependency

appears to license the longer wh-depenency that crosses an island. (The sam

e factshold in Japanese (no w

h-movem

ent) and Bulgarian (multiple w

h-movem

ent)

(33)a.

Which senator __ said that [N

P the rumor that he w

anted to ban which

book] had been spread by Comm

unists.b. *

Which book did the senator say that [N

P the rumor that he w

anted to ban__] had been spread by w

hom.

•

Interpretation: the well-form

ed dependency must precede the island-violating

dependency that it licenses.

(34)a.

Who __ w

onders what w

ho bought __b. *

John wonders w

hat who bought __

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

6

•

What is surprising about (a) is that the the em

bedded what can cross over the

embedded who.. This is im

possible in (b).

• Richards: this is only possible w

hen there is a well-form

ed matrix w

h-dependency ina higher clause. This im

plies that the construction of the matrix CP precedes the

construction of the embedded CP, as is expected in a left-to-right / top-dow

nderivation.

• A

dditional arguments based on expletive-associate dependencies (e.g. There seem

sto be a m

an in the room etc.)

• K

empson, M

eyer-Viol &

Gabbay (2001): argue that left-to-right derivations offer an

improved treatm

ent of various kinds of anaphoric dependencies, includingrelativization, w

eak crossover.•

O

ther work on left-to-right gram

matical derivations: Richards (1999) on w

h-m

ovement; Boeckx &

Stjepanovic (1999) on wh-m

ovement and clitics; Boeckx

(1999) on island constraints and A-m

ovement; G

uimaraes (1999) on prosody-syntax

interface; Drury (1999) on island constraints; Legate (1999), Schlenker (1998) on

morphological processes

c. Gram

maticality Judgm

ent Processes

still largely unexplored

d. Parsing

• M

ain concern is parsing of unambiguous sequences

Quite varied assum

ptions made in this area:

• IF: Parser is a perfect covering gram

mar

‡ it’s hard to find parsing evidence to distinguish this from

the single systemapproach

• IF: Parser is a poor covering gram

mar, as evidenced by the errors that it m

akes(older version: Fodor, Bever &

Garrett, 1974; nerw

er versions: Townsend &

Bever,2001; Ferreira, Bailey &

Ferraro, 2001)‡

evidence of this kind is more troubling

(i) Increm

ental Analysis of Parasitic G

aps (Phillips & W

ong, 2000)

• Increm

ental structure-building creates look-ahead problems of its ow

n:

(35) *What did the plan to rem

ove ___ ultimately dam

age the building?(36)

What did the plan to rem

ove the building ultimately dam

age ___?

(37)W

hat did the plan to remove ___ ultim

ately damage ___?

(38) *What did the plan that rem

oved ___ ultimately dam

age ___?

•

Problem: parasitic gaps in com

plex subject NPs pose a look-ahead problem

–form

ing a wh-dependency involves crossing a syntactic island (C

ondition onExtraction D

omains): H

uang 1982), but the island violation may be rescued at a

later point in the sentence.•

Fully increm

ental approach to parsing parasitic gaps (cf. Schneider 1999): formdependencies across islands that m

ay involve a parasitic gap, but do not mark the

wh-dependency as com

pleted.

(39)a.

b.

Meanw

hile…

Controversy in parsing literature over whether gram

matical search respects island

constraints.

(40)Y

es!

a. Stowe 1986

[self-paced reading]PP-in-subject

b. Traxler & Pickering 1996

[eye-tracking]RC-in-subject

c. Kluender &

Kutas 1993ab

[ERP violation paradigm]

wh-island

d. McElree &

Griffith 1998

[speeded gramm

aticality]RC-in-object

e. Bourdages 1992[self-paced reading]

RC-in-objectf. Berw

ick & W

einberg 1984 [com

putational arguments]

f. Phillips & W

ong 2001[self-paced reading]

RC-in-subject

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

7

(41)N

o!

a. Freedman &

Forster 1985[sentence-m

atching]N

P w/ possessor

b. Neville et al. 1991

[ERP violation paradigm]

NP w

/ possessorc. Stevenson 1993

[comprehension, m

atching]com

plex NP

d. Kurtzm

an et al. 1990[speeded-gram

maticality]

infin.-in-subjecte. Phillips &

Wong 2001

[self-paced reading]infin.-in-subject

Studies with m

arginal results…f. Pickering et al. 1994

[self-paced, eye-tracking]RC-in-subject

g. Clifton & Frazier 1989

[end-of-sentence rating]RC-in-object

•

The kinds of island contexts examined in the different studies appear to be fairly

good predictors of whether or not the island w

as imm

ediately respected by theparser.

Suggested explanation (Phillips 1995):

(i) parser posits gaps inside islands w

hich involve extraction from just one offending

category (e.g. subject, adjunct, specific NP)

(ii) this is the kind of environm

ent that supports parasitic gaps!

• Prelim

inary: are parasitic gaps acceptable to anybody other than linguists? Yes!

GRA

MM

ATICA

LITY JU

DG

MEN

T TA

SK

Participants: 50 undergraduatesM

aterials: Sets of 84 sentences rated on 1 (bad) – 5 (good) scale. Includes 24 sets ofsentences constructed from

materials used in P-gap on-line experim

ent; 60 othersentences show

ing variety of wh-extractions (gram

matical &

ungramm

atical), includingsentences based on structures tested in earlier experim

ents on islands.

Figure 1: Mean G

ramm

aticality Ratings for PG-related sentences

RESU

LTS: sentences with both a parasitic gap and an object gap w

ere rated almost exactly

the same as sentence containing only the object gap (P-gap filled by an overt N

P), when

the P–gap was inside an infinitival clause.

P–gap without O

-gap rated much w

orse; combination of P-gap and O

-gap rated lower

when P–gap is in finite relative clause.

SELF-P

ACED

REA

DIN

G S

TUD

Y

• Q

uestion: will subjects show

evidence of actively creating a wh-dependency inside

an island in exactly the environments w

here P-gaps will be licensed?

(42)--- ---- -- ----- ----- ------ -- --- -----The ---- -- ----- ----- ------ -- --- -------- rain -- ----- ----- ------ -- --- -------- ---- in ----- ----- ------ -- --- -------- ---- -- Spain ----- ------ -- --- -----

Participants: 56 U. of D

elaware students (10 excluded for low

comprehension scores)

Materials: 2 x 2 design (±finite x ±gap) 24 sets of 4 conditions, 96 filler sentences;

comprehension question after all trials

Note: in the experim

ent subjects never saw a parasitic gap – they m

erely sawenvironm

ents where P-gaps could potentially occur.

(43)a. The outspoken environm

entalist worked to investigate w

hat the local campaign to

preserve the important habitats had actually harm

ed in the area that the birds onceused as a place for resting w

hile flying south. [infinitive, gap]

b. …w

hether the local campaign to preserve…

[infinitive, no gap]c. …

what the local cam

paign that preserved…[finite, gap]

d. …w

hether the local campaign that preserved …

[finite, no gap]

Restricted set of nouns as heads of complex subject N

P: plan, scheme, request, cam

paign, attempt,

bid, endeavor, lawsuit, temptation, power, evidence, efforts, idea

Critical verb imm

ediately preceding parasitic gap site was alw

ays obligatorily transitive: cheapen,em

barrass, remove, nom

inate, alter, order, aid, preserve, entertain, heal, secure, destroy,rehabilitate, reclaim

, liberate, remove, upset, im

press, uplift, convict, instruct, astonish, develop,overprice.

RESU

LTSCom

prehension accuracy: 87.8% on com

prehension questions (~33 word sentences!)

Analyses exclude trials on w

hich comprehension question answ

ered incorrectly; outlierresidual reading tim

es trimm

ed to 1000ms.

Figure 2: Residual Reading Times for PG

Self-paced Reading Experiment

to investigate what the local cam

paign to preserve the important habitats

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

8

At verb inside com

plex subject (region 12):

Infinitive conditions: significant effect of gap/no-gap: (F1 (1,45) = 4.02, p < 0.05;

F2 (1,35) = 5.01, p < 0.05)

Finite conditions: no difference between gap/no-gap conditions.

• Slow

down in reading tim

es at verb reflects wh-dependency formation, but this only

occurs in the infinitive conditions, where a P-gap is possible.

•

Wh-dependencies are form

ed across islands – but in exactly the ways that the

gramm

ar allows.

• C

ON

CLUSIO

N: Structural analysis is fully incremental, and quite sophisticated!

•

Caveat: this experiment found slow

down due to w

h-dependency formation at the

verb where the wh-dependency is created, rather than w

hen it needs to be retractedat the follow

ing NP. A

lthough this is not a ‘filled-gap’ effect per se, it is consistentw

ith other results in the literature (e.g. Pickering et al. 1994).

(ii) M

onotonic Structure Building (Schneider & Phillips, 2001)

QU

ESTION

S: (i) how

is the gramm

ar searched for gramm

atical parses;(ii) is reanalysis a last resort? (Fodor &

Frazier 1980; cf. Frazier 1990,Frazier &

Clifton 1998) or are reanalyses part of the parser’s initial searchspace (G

ibson 1991; Stevenson 1998; Fodor & Inoue 1998)?

…In other w

ords, does the parser attempt to keep to the sam

e derivation?

• Evidence: contrast betw

een strong evidence for locality and strong evidence againstlocality in parsing.

• M

any examples of locality biases in structural am

biguity resolution (Kim

ball 1973,Fodor &

Frazier 1980, Gibson 1991, 1998; m

any others)

(44)a.

John said Bill left yesterday.b.

During his vacations, W

allace likes to swim

very much.

c.John saw

the daughter of the lawyer w

ho he had met at the party in the

mall.

(45)Locality > Structural Sim

plicity (Phillips & G

ibson, 1997ab)

Although Erica hated the house her father had ow

ned ...

IP

V IPCP

VP

NP

IP

NP

I'

Infl

C

NP

IP

CP

C'

NPOp

C

NP

matrix clause

attachmentrelative clauseattachm

ent

AlthoughErica

hated

she

she

the house

(46)W

allace knows G

romit likes cheese.

NP

Wallace

S

Grom

it

VP

knows

likes

• Parsing the em

bedded verb likes requires reanalysis of the preceding NP.

•

This reanalysis gives rise to a measurable slow

down in reading, but little or no

conscious difficulty.•

Much easier than certain other kinds of reanalysis (Sturt et al. 1999a; Pritchett, 1988,

1992; Gibson 1991; papers in Fodor &

Ferreira 1998.)

(47)W

hile Wallace w

as eating the cheese was being stolen from

under his nose.

• Ease of reanalysis in (46) taken by som

e to indicate that (46) does not in fact involvereanalysis (e.g., W

einberg, 1993; Gorrell, 1995); adding the em

bedded verb justrequires addition of new

structural dominance statem

ents.

STR

ATEG

Y: By embedding structures like (46), m

ake a non-local attachment of the verb

available, which requires no reanalysis. If reanalysis is a last resort, the non-local

attachment w

ill be detected and selected instead of reanalysis.

(48)N

P

S

NP

The surprised wom

an

VP

Vdiscovered

S'

who

i

NP

locked the drunk m

an

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

9

PRED

ICTION: com

bination of locality and easy reanalysis predicts embedded attachm

entto be easy; reanalysis as a last resort predicts m

atrix attachment bias.

(49)N

P

S

NP

The surprised wom

an

VP

locked the front doorlocked

the drunk man

S'

who

Vdiscovered

VP

S'

S

NP

himself

NP

S

NP

The surprised wom

an

VP

locked the front door S'

who discovered V

P

S

NP

herself

the drunk man

Low A

ttachment

H

igh Attachm

ent

Subjects: 56 undergraduate students. (7 additional subjects excluded for scoring <75% on

comprehension questions in experim

ental items or <80%

on filler items.)

Stimuli: 2 x 2 x 2 design: attachm

ent site (high, low), am

biguity, verb class (strongly NP-biased,

neutral or weakly N

P-biased). 48 sets of 4 items.

Verb classes based on Truesw

ell et al. (1993), Garnsey (unpublished com

pletion norms)

Strongly NP-biased verbs: hear, discover, acknowledge, appreciate, warn, understand

Weakly N

P-biased verbs: know, mention, doubt, notice

Disam

biguation with him

self, herself; gender counterbalanced across high/low sites.. A

ll possibleantecedents of reflexives are anim

ate NPs. 100 filler item

s

(50)a. em

bedded, ambiguous

The bilingual man w

ho knows the w

ell-traveled wom

an translated the travel booksherself w

ithout any extra help was quite im

pressed with the result.

b. embedded, unam

biguousThe bilingual m

an who know

s that the well-traveled w

oman translated the travel

books herself without any extra help w

as quite impressed w

ith the result.c. m

atrix, ambiguous

The bilingual man w

ho knows the w

ell-traveled wom

an translated the travel bookshim

self without any extra help from

a dictionary.d. m

atrix, unambiguous

The bilingual man w

ho knows her translated the travel books him

self without any

extra help from a dictionary.

Comprehension question accuracy: low

ambiguous – 80%

; high ambiguous 90%

[High-span readers]

The surprised wom

an who discovered/ that/ the drunk m

an / locked / the / front / door /

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

himself / w

ith / the / spare / key / was / am

azed he could even walk.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Figure 4: Residual Reading Times, self-paced reading, M

onotonicity Study 1

Embedded: Significant slow

down due to am

biguity at region 9 in embedded conditions

(F1 (1,24)=34.95, p<.0001; F

2 (1,42)=33.57, p<.0001M

atrix: No significant slow

down due to am

biguity at region 9 in matrix conditions:

all Fs<1.

• V

ery similar findings in Sturt et al. 2001; consistent w

ith data in Schafer et al. (n.d.:cited in Frazier &

Clifton 1998)

• A

lternative explanations of results:

(i) avoid embedding!

(ii) avoid long subject NPs!

(51)Experim

ent 2: manipulation of statistical verb com

plement bias

NP-biased verbs, hear, acknowledge, appreciate, discover, warn, understand

S-complem

ent biased verbs, claim, believe, suspect

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

10

[High Span Readers]

Figure 5: Residual Reading Times, self-paced reading, M

onotonicity Study 2

•

Results: NP-com

plement bias verbs replicate results of Experim

ent 1. Pattern ofdifficulty is reversed in S-com

plement bias verbs.

•

Conclusion: Structure building is m

onotonic, i.e. reanalysis is a last resort.Syntactic search pursues a sim

ple algorithm – avoid reanalysis – but this is not

necessarily the most m

emory-efficient approach.

(iii) Distinguishing A

ccess and Search in Dative A

lternations (Phillips, Edgar &K

abak, 2000)

•

Question: Can the parser be fooled into creating bogus am

biguities with dative

verbs?

•

Much recent parsing w

ork attempts to assim

ilate parsing to lexical access (e.g.Tanenhaus &

Trueswell 1995, M

acDonald et al. 1994)

•

With lexicalized gram

mars, various errors should not occur, e.g. no confusion of

transitive & intransitive verbs, or N

P vs. S-complem

ent verbs (Boland, Trueswell)

• Tw

o limitations of previous w

ork on argument structure usage:

--overlap of syntactic and semantic selection: c-selection vs. s-selection

--even if lexical information is accessed, fruitful search not guaranteed

Dative/D

ouble-object Alternation

(52)The m

illionaire gave the painting to the museum

.[dative]

(53)The m

illionaire donated the painting to the museum

.

(54)The m

illionaire gave the museum

the painting.[double object]

(55) *The millionaire donated the m

useum the painting.

Other pairs: bring/carry, build/construct, assign, distribute, buy/purchase, get/obtain,

hand/deliver, mail/address, m

ake/create, offer/suggest, sell/contribute, show/display

Figure 6: Gram

maticality Ratings for sentences based on experim

ental materials (below

)

A garden-path involving double object verbs (56). If syntactic subcategorization

information is fully accessed and exploited, then (57) should present no difficulty.

(56)The duke bought the m

useum the elaborate antique chandeliers had gracefully

adorned for his son(57)

The duke purchased the museum

the elaborate antique chandeliers hadgracefully adorned for his son

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

11

Control 1: compare reading tim

es to unambiguous conditions w

ith complem

entizerControl 2: add conditions w

ith monotransitive verbs, to gain independent m

easure of thedifficulty of analyzing unam

biguous V N

P NP sequences.

Materials: 36 sets of 6 conditions, 84 fillers

Fillers: more closely m

atched in length and complexity than in prelim

inary experiment

Participants: 54 undergraduate students

(58)a. The duke bought the m

useum the elaborate antique chandeliers had

gracefully adorned for his son in the Netherlands.

b. …bought the m

useum that the elaborate antique chandeliers…

c. …purchased the m

useum the elaborate antique chandeliers…

d. …purchased the m

useum that the elaborate antique chandeliers…

e. …w

anted the museum

the elaborate antique chandeliers…f. …

wanted the m

useum that the elaborate antique chandeliers…

RESU

LTS: alternator and non-alternator verbs clearly distinguished, but, non-alternatorconditions are by no m

eans easy!

The duke bought the museum

(that) the elaborate antique chandeliers had gracefully1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12adorned for his son … 13 14 15 16

ALTERN

ATO

R VERBS – M

ain effect of ambiguity

NP2 (regions 7-10): F1(1,53) = 2.48, n.s., F2(1,35) = 2.42, n.s.

Rel. Clause (regions 11-13): F1(1,37) = 27.53, p < 0.0001, F2(1,35) = 26.61, p< 0.0001

The duke purchased the museum

(that) the elaborate antique chandeliers had gracefully1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12adorned for his son … 13 14 15 16N

ON-A

LTERNA

TOR V

ERBS – Main effect of am

biguityN

P2 (regions 7-10): F1(1,53) = 30.07, p< 0.0001, F2(1,35) = 30.12, p< 0.0001Rel. Clause (regions 11-13):

F1(1,37) = 18.03, p < 0.0001, F2(1,35) = 17.93, p< 0.0001

MO

NO

TRAN

SITIVE V

ERBS – Main effect of am

biguityN

P2 (regions 7-10): F1(1,53) = 16.34, p< 0.0001, F2(1,35) = 16.41, p< 0.0001Rel. Clause (regions 11-13): F1(1,37) = 4.44, p = 0.04, F2(1,35) = 4.21, p= 0.04

Alternator and non-alternator verbs clearly contrast in this experim

ent, but…

(i) Why did w

e find the opposite of this in our pilot?(ii) W

hy are non-alternator conditions still difficult, since they’re unambiguous?

• Relative clauses in m

aterials: 12 trials with m

onotransitive verbs + relative clauses,30%

of filler sentences contain relative clause

• Full access to subcategorization inform

ation may have occurred in both experim

ents

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

12

• Lexical access is not enough to parse successfully – gram

matical search m

ust alsosucceed.

• The experim

ent (unwittingly) created an environm

ent which provided a good deal of

support for parsing of V N

P NP sequences.

•

Support for this analysis: separate analysis of first half and second half ofexperim

ent shows that reading tim

e profiles for alternator and monotransitive verb

classes are stable across the experiment; for dative verbs, how

ever, there issubstantial change over the course of the experim

ent – the slowdow

n at the relativeclause disam

biguation is confined to the first half of the experiment, and in the

second half of the experiment the reading-tim

e profile is most sim

ilar to them

onotransitive verbs.•

More support for this analysis: w

e ran an additional experiment, w

hich was identical

to the previous one, except that we rem

oved the items that m

ay have been helpingaccurate parsing of V

NP N

P sequences with non-alternators, i.e. m

onotransitiveconditions and fillers containing relative clauses w

ere replaced with sentences

lacking relative clauses. Result: practice effects disappeared.

• C

ON

CLUSIO

N: gramm

atical search is a resource-limited process (perhaps in contrast

to lexical access); full and imm

ediate access to gramm

atical information associated

with lexical heads does not guarantee successful parsing.

(iv)…

but what about real am

biguities?

These are a less central concern, since there’s not the clear redundancy between

the parser-implem

entation and the gramm

ar-implem

entation of the same

linguistic knowledge.

One can, of course, try to show

that notions of ‘structural simplicity’ govern

(i) preferences in selecting between alternative interpretations

(ii) rigid constraints in selecting between alternative representations of a single

interpretation (i.e. structural economy conditions)

e. Learning

consequences largely unexplored

f. Overall

• If the approach is feasible, then one m

ight argue that parsimony m

akes it the nullhypothesis.

•

It is, of course, preferable to have stronger empirical argum

ents in favor of oneapproach or another.

g. Challenges

• W

hat if the parser does behave stupidly?•

What about head-final languages?

• N

eed further development of the im

plemented m

odel•

How

could this be implem

ented in the brain?•

etc.

References

Baltin, Mark &

Paul Postal. (1996). More on reanalysis hypotheses. Linguistic Inquiry 27,

127–145.Berw

ick, R. & A

. Weinberg. (1984). The G

ramm

atical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cam

bridge,M

A: M

IT Press.Bever, T.G

. (1970) The Cognitive Basis for Linguistic Structures. In: J.R. Hayes (ed), Cognition and

the Developm

ent of Language, pp.279-352. New

York: W

iley.Boeckx, C. (1999). Program

matic notes for a top-dow

n syntax. Ms., U

niversity of Connecticut.Boeckx, C. &

S. Stjepanovic. (1999). The wh/clitic connection in Slavic. Paper presented at the

Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics conference, U

. of Pennsylvania.Bourdages, J. (1992). Parsing com

plex NPs in French. In H

. Goodluck &

M. Rochem

ont (eds.),Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition &

Processing. Dordrecht: K

luwer.

Chomsky, N

. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, M

A: M

IT Press.Crain, S. &

J.D. Fodor. (1985a) H

ow can gram

mars help parsers? In D

.R. Dow

ty, L. Karttunen &

A.

Zwicky (eds.), N

atural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical

perspectives, 94-128. Cambridge, U

K: Cam

bridge University Press.

Crain, S. & J.D

. Fodor. (1985b). Rules and constraints in sentence processing. NELS 15, 87-104.Crain, S. &

J.D. Fodor. (1987). Sentence m

atching and overgeneration. Cognition 26, 123-169.D

rury, J. (1998). The promise of derivations. G

roninger Arbeiten zur Germ

anistischen Linguistik 48,63–107.

Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G

. D. &

Ferraro, V. (2001). G

ood Enough representations in LanguageCom

prehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, in press.

Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G

., & G

arrett, M. (1974) The Psychology of Language. N

ew Y

ork: McG

rawH

ill.Fodor, Janet &

Fernanda Ferreira. (1998). Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Dordrecht: K

luwer.

Fodor, Janet & Lyn Frazier. (1980). Is the hum

an sentence parsing mechanism

an ATN

? Cognition,8, 417–459.

Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to Parse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319.

Forster, K. &

B. Stevenson. (1987). Sentence matching and w

ell-formedness. Cognition, 26, 171-

186.Fram

pton, J. (1990). Parasitic gaps and the theory of wh-chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 49-77.

Frazier, L. & C. Clifton. (1989). Sucessive cyclicity in the gram

mar and the parser. Language &

Cognitive Processes, 4, 93-126.Freedm

an, S. & K

. Forster. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition,19, 101-131.

Guim

araes, M. (1999). D

eriving prosodic structure from dynam

ic top-down syntax. M

s., University

of Maryland.

Kem

pson, R., Meyer-V

iol, W., &

Gabbay, D

. (2001). Dynam

ic Syntax: The Flow of LanguageU

nderstanding. Oxford, U

K: Blackw

ell.K

imball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2,15-47.

Kluender, R. &

M. K

utas. (1993a). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language &

CognitiveProcesses, 8, 573-633.

Colin Phillips, Supper @ CU

NY

, 3/27/01

13

Kluender, R. &

M. K

utas. (1993b). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of

unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196-214.K

urtzman, H

. & L. Craw

ford. (1990). Processing parasitic gaps. Proceedings of NELS 21. 217-231.Larson, Richard. (1988). O

n the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–392.Legate, J. (1999). The m

orphosyntax of Irish agreement. m

s., MIT.

Levelt, Willem

. (1974). Formal G

ramm

ars in linguistics and psycholinguistics (3 volumes). The

Hague: M

outon.M

cElree, B & T. G

riffith. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentencecom

prehension: A tim

e-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

Mem

ory & Cognition, 24, 432-460.

McK

innon, R. & L. O

sterhout. (1996). Constraints on movem

ent phenomena in sentence processing:

Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language &

Cognitive Processes, 11, 495-523.N

eville, H., J. N

icol, A. Barss, K

. Forster, & M

. Garrett. (1991). Syntactically based sentence

processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of C

ognitiveNeuroscience, 3(2), 151-165.

Pesetsky, David. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers &

Cascades. Cambridge, M

A: M

IT Press.Phillips, C. (1995). Right association in parsing and gram

mar. M

ITWPL, 26, 37-93.

Phillips, C. (1996). Order and Structure. Ph.D

. dissertation, MIT.

Phillips, Colin & E. G

ibson. (1997). On the strength of the local attachm

ent preference. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research, 23, 323–346.

Phillips, Colin & E. G

ibson. (1997b). Local attachment and com

peting constraints. 10th A

nnualCU

NY

Conference on Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, CA

.Phillips, C. &

K. W

ong. (2001). Parsing parasitic gaps: how the parser solves a look-ahead problem

.Presented at the LSA

Phillips, Colin. (1998, to appear). Linear Order and Constituency. Linguistic Inquiry.

Phillips, C., E. Edgar & B. K

abak. (2000). Lexical access and syntactic search. ms., U

niversity ofD

elaware.

Pickering, M, S. Barton &

R. Shillcock. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and

processing complexity. In C

lifton, Frazer, & R

ayner (eds.), Perspectives on SentenceProcessing (pp. 199-224). London: Erlbaum

.Postal, Paul. (1986). Studies of Passive Clauses. A

lbany, NY

: SUN

Y Press.

Richards, N. (1999). D

irectionality of tree construction. MITW

PL #33.Richards, N

. (2000). Very-local A

-bar movem

ent in a root-first derivation. ms., M

IT.Schlenker, P. (1999). La flexion de l’adjectif en allem

and: la morphologie de haut en bas. [G

erman

adjective inflection: top-down m

orphology.] Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 28.Schneider, D

. (1999). Parsing and Incrementality. Ph.D

. dissertation, U. of D

elaware.

Schneider, D. &

Phillips, C. (2001). Gram

matical search and reanalysis. Journal of M

emory &

Language, in press.Stevenson, B. (1993). U

ngramm

aticality and Stages in Sentence Processing. Ph.D. dissertation,

Monash U

niversity.Stow

e, Laurie. (1986). Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1,227–245.

Sturt, P., M. Pickering, C. Scheepers &

M. Crocker. (2001, in press). The preservation of structure in

language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort? Journal of M

emory and Language.

Sturt, P., Costa, F., Lombardo, F., &

Frasconi, P. (2001). Learning first-pass structural attachment

preferences with dynam

ic gramm

ars and recursive neural networks. m

s. Universities of

Glasgow

, Florence & Eastern Piedm

ont.Tow

nsend, D. &

Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence Com

prehension. Cambridge, M

A: M

IT Press.Traxler, M

. & M

. Pickering. 1996. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An

eye-tracking study. Journal of Mem

ory and Language 35, 454-475.

Colin PhillipsD

ept. of Linguistics / Cogn. Neurosci. of Language Lab.

University of M

aryland1401 M

arie Mount H

allCollege Park, M

D 20742

colin@glue.um

d.eduhttp://w

ww

.ling.umd.edu/colin