Complexity Factors in Adjunct Parasitic Gaps

Complexity Factors in Adjunct Parasitic Gaps

SFB 833: The Construction of Meaning, A7: Focus Construction and Freezing

Johannes Heim

Intro

“These are the plants Getafix [Miraculix] wants me to bring without eating”

IntroEnglish: - Which are the articlesi John filed ti without reading pgi.

“true gap” “parasitic gap”(Engdahl 1983)

- Which girl did Bill praise t because Sue liked pg?overt subject + tensed verb

Variation: (Seely 1987)

- Which antiques did Joan lift up t in order for Beth to examine pg? overt subject + untensed verb

(Kurtzman & Crawford 1991)

Bayrisch: - Das ist der Kerli deni wenn ich pgi erwisch, erschlag ich ti.(Felix 1985)

Standard German:* - Lisa hat den Hans [anstatt pg zu küssen] geohrfeigt.(Kathol 1995)

A parasitic gap (Pgap) is a gap that is dependent on the existence of another gap in the same sentence.

Intro: Gaps, Fillers, and DependenciesStandard filler-gap dependency:

Who do you think that Mary saw t? (Hawkins1999)

FILLER GAP

Standard assumption: once a filler is “used”, it may not be used again.

Which articles did John file t without reading pg?FILLER GAP GAP

Defining Parasitic Gaps (Engdahl 1983):“a gap that is dependent on the existence of another gap, […]in the same sentence. By a gap, I understand an empty node that is necessarily controlled by a lexical phrase somewhere in the sentence. It follows from this definition that a parasitic gap will only occur if there is a filler-gap dependency elsewhere in the sentence and the parasitic gap is interpreted as controlled by that filler.”

Chain Formation“The paper which she filed without reading”

Chain Formation

Chain construction alternatives:

a) There is a chain from the antecedent to both the true gap and the Pgap .

b) The true gap chain and the Pgap chain are composed into one.

c) A Pgap behaves similarly to a pronoun and has a binding syntactic antecedent. This translates into a dynamical parasitic chain formation in the course of processing.

(Culicover n.d.)

Despite the complex filler-gap dependency Pgaps are quite acceptable (Phillips 2006):

“Uninitiated native speakers share the judgments assumed by professional linguists”

Engdahl’s (1983) Hierarchy of Accessibility

“People who accept parasitic gaps in one type of a domain generally accept gaps in any domain higher up on the hierarchy, but there is a lot of individual variation as to how far down the hierarchy parasitic gaps may occur” (Engdahl 1983).

It is plausible to attribute the variability in judgments directly to the construction of the chain, that is, to the identification of the antecedent at the point at which the gap, true or parasitic, is encountered (Culicover n.d.)

(> = more acceptable)

Engdahl’s (1983) Hierarchy of AccessibilityBUT: Engdahl’s division is incorrect; tensedness also affects adverbial domains.

Kurtzman & Crawford (1991)

a) Which antiques did Joan buy after examining? (73% grammatical)b) Which antiques did Joan buy after she examined? (43% grammatical)c) Which antiques did Joan buy after Beth examined? (46% grammatical)

AND: An overt subject is claimed to be another factor.

Seely (1987)

d) This is the man who the FBI seized before incriminating. (78% grammatical)

e) This is the man who the FBI seized before Jim’s incriminating. (56% grammatical)

Engdahl’s (1983) Hierarchy of Accessibility

Complexity Factors“If the parasitic gap chain does not itself

contain too many complexity factors, the

resulting judgment is that it is acceptable.

But if the parasitic gap chain itself is

complex, then the amelioration that is

contributed by the true gap is not sufficient

to bring the complexity down to a point

where the parasitic gap chain is judged to

be acceptable” (Culicover n.d.: 11)

(Complexity Factors)

Tensedness

Parastic Gap

Overt Subject

Hypotheses and beyond…

On a greater scale:

(i) How do complexity factors and acceptability judgments interrelate?

(ii) Do processing costs of complexity factors apply structure-indepedently?

(ii) How do different complexity factors interrelate?

Hypotheses and beyond…Hypothesis 1 (tensedness): Pgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed.

i.e. These are the documents John filed… after reading > after Peter read.

Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not.

i.e. tensedness + overt subject = 1 complexity factor (rather than 2 individual factors)

Hypothesis 3 (universality): Tensedness and overt subject are

a) universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps

i.e. Without clause / temporal adverb / purpose clause / manner adverb domain

b) universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions.

i.e. These are the documents John filed after reading… them / pg.



















General Design32 native speakers of English4 sets of 50 items:

Experiment 1: 3 factors (tensedness, overt subject, Pgap) in 1 domainExperiment 2: 2 factors (tensedness, overt subject) in 4 different domains

50 test sentences

30 Target sentences

18 sentences Experiment 1


20 Distractors

Method: Thermometer Judgments

Method: Thermometer Judgments

Method: Thermometer JudgmentsComparing Thermometer Judgments

1 reference item 2 reference item

open- ended scale

General Design32 native speakers of English4 sets of 50 items:

Experiment 1: 3 factors (tensedness, overt subject, Pgap) in 1 domain

Testing factors structure-independently (Pgap vs. pronoun)

Experiment 2: 2 factors (tensedness, overt subject) in 4 different domains

Testing factors for all adjunct Pgap domains

50 test sentences

30 Target sentences



20 Distractors

Design – Experiment 1 (Temporal Adverbs)

temporal adverbs

- P- T- S

- P- T+ S

- P+ T- S

- P+ T+ S

+ P- T- S

+ P- T+ S

+ P+ T- S

+ P+ T+ S

[+ / - Pgap] [+ / - Tense] [+ / - Subject]

Sample Item – Experiment 1

Parameters Type Tense Subject Examples

Pgap vs. pronoun,tensed vs. untensed, overt vs. no overt subject

no Pgap

- + These are the documents John filed after Peter reading them.

- - These are the documents John filed after reading them.

+ - These are the documents John filed after read them.

+ + These are the documents John filed after Peter read them.

Pgap

- + These are the documents John filed after Peter reading.

- - These are the documents John filed after reading.

+ - These are the documents John filed after read.

+ + These are the documents John filed after Peter read.

Results – Experiment 1 (Temporal Adverb)Mean ratings of experiment 1 (by subjects) [P= Pgap, T = Tensedness, S = overt Subject]

Structure-dependent main effect of tensedness and overt subject.

Evaluating HypothesesHypothesis 1 (tensedness): CORRECTPgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed.

Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): CORRECT Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not.


a) universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps:

b) universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions:

NO, the effect is STRUCTURE-DEPENDENT

Design – Experiment 2 (Adverbial Conjunctions)

Adjunct Pgaps

Temporal Adverbs

- T+ S

- T- S

+ T+ S

Without Clauses

- T+ S

- T- S

+ T+ S

Purpose Clauses

- T+ S

- T- S

+ T+S

MannerAdverbs

- T+ S

- T- S

+ T+S

[+ / - Tense] [+ / - Subject]

Sample File – Experiment 2Parameters Adverb Tense Subject Examples

without clause vs. purpose clause vs. manner adverb; tensed vs. untensed; overt subject vs. non overt subject

temporal adverb

- + These are the documents John filed after Peter reading.

- - These are the documents John filed after reading.

+ + These are the documents John filed after Peter read.

without clause

- + These are the periodicals Robert filed without George reading.

- - These are the periodicals Robert filed without reading.

+ + These are the periodicals Robert repeated lest he read.

manner adverb

- + These are the portraits Susan praised as if Nancy selling.

- - These are the portraits Susan praised as if selling.

+ + These are the portraits Susan praised as if he had sold.

purpose clause

- + These are the books Steven bought in order for Ben to read.

- - These are the books Steven bought in order to read.

+ + These are the books Steven bought in order that he might read.

Results – Experiment 2

with

out c

laus

es

man

ner a

dver

bs

purp

ose

clau

ses

tem

pora

l adv

erbs

Results – Experiment 2

[+ tense / - subject] > [+ tense / + subject] > [- tense / + subject]

Results – Experiment 2Engdahl’s (1983) Hierarchy of Accessibility

without clauses ˅

˅manner adverbs

Results – Experiment 2Hierarchy with Pattern:


Hypothesis 2 (tensedness overt subject): CORRECT (if variation can be explained)Every tensed Pgap domain must have an overt subject; every untensed Pgap domain may not.


a) universally applying factors of complexity for all adjunct Pgaps: YES, with ONE EXCEPTIONb) universally applying factors of complexity regardless whether they occur in Pgap constructions:

NO, the effect is STRUCTURE-DEPENDENT (superadditivity: much stronger effect in Pgaps)






Results – Experiment 2These are the periodicals Robert filed without George reading.

with

out c

laus

es

man

ner a

dver

bs

purp

ose

clau

ses

tem

pora

l adv

erbs

These are the books Steven bought in order for Ben to read.

Evaluating HypothesisHypothesis 1 (tensedness): CORRECTPgap constructions with a temporal adverb domain are more acceptable if the domain is untensed rather than tensed.





ConclusionEngdahl‘s (1983) Hierarchy and Culicover‘s (2008) Complexity Factors:• As in Engdahl (1983), adverbial domains were preferred in the following order:

without clauses > temporal adverbs > purpose clauses > manner adverbs

• The complexity factors tensedness and overt subject affected each adverbial domain in the same way. This translates into the following pattern:


Interrelation of complexity factors:

• The complexity factors under investigation have structure dependent effects:a Pgap construction

different effect of overt subject in a tensed domain ina non-Pgap equivalent

• The effect of complexity factors does not increase in proportion to the number of factors.

ConclusionEngdahl‘s (1983) Hierarchy and Culicover‘s (2008) Complexity Factors:• As in Engdahl (1983), adverbial domains were preferred in the following order:

without clauses > temporal adverbs > purpose clauses > manner adverbs

• The complexity factors tensedness and overt subject affected each adverbial domain in the same way. This translates into the following pattern:


Interrelation of complexity factors:

• The complexity factors under investigation have structure dependent effects:a Pgap construction

different effect of overt subject in a tensed domain ina non-Pgap equivalent

• The effect of complexity factors does not increase in proportion to the number of factors.

OutlookCase:

The smaller effect of overt subject in a tensed domain in a purpose clause may be due to the particular construction, viz. complementizer + accusative subject:

• These are the documents John marked after Peter filing. • These are the documents John marked after he/Peter filed. • These are the documents John marked in order for Peter to read. • These are the documents John marked in order that he/Peter (might) read.

The complementizer helps the parser to identify the phrase boundary.

Semantics of adverbial conjunctions:Without is argued to carry less semantic processing load than a temporal adverb. The decline in complexity could explain why without clauses are cross-linguistically favored in Pgap domains• These are the documents John filed without Peter reading.• These are the documents John filed after Peter reading

Saliency in Discourse:• These are the articles John filed without reading. • Which are the articles John filed without reading? • What are the articles John filed without reading?

Stronger discourse saliency ameliorates the complexity of Pgaps.

OutlookCase:The smaller effect of overt subject in a tensed domain in a purpose clause may be due to the particular

construction, viz. complementizer + accusative subject:• These are the documents John marked after Peter filing. • These are the documents John marked after he/Peter filed. • These are the documents John marked in order for Peter to read. • These are the documents John marked in order that he/Peter (might) read.





OutlookCase:The smaller effect of overt subject in a tensed domain in a purpose clause may be due to the particular

construction, viz. complementizer + accusative subject:• These are the documents John marked after Peter filing. • These are the documents John marked after he/Peter filed. • These are the documents John marked in order for Peter to read. • These are the documents John marked in order that he/Peter (might) read.





Contact: [email protected]

THANK YOU

Documents

Complexity Factors in Adjunct Parasitic Gaps