1 / 44

Contributing to the extraction/parenthesis debate: judgement studies and historical data

International Conference on Linguistic Evidence 2-4 February 2006, University of Tübingen. Linguistic Data Structures. Contributing to the extraction/parenthesis debate: judgement studies and historical data. Katrin Axel & Tanja Kiziak katrin.axel@uni-tuebingen.de

gavin-gamble
Download Presentation

Contributing to the extraction/parenthesis debate: judgement studies and historical data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Conference on Linguistic Evidence 2-4 February 2006, University of Tübingen Linguistic Data Structures Contributing to the extraction/parenthesis debate: judgement studies and historical data Katrin Axel & Tanja Kiziak katrin.axel@uni-tuebingen.de tanja.kiziak@uni-tuebingen.de

  2. Talk Outline • Two competing analyses for critical construction • long extraction analysis • parenthetical analysis • Judgement studies of present-day German • Historical corpus data • Conclusions

  3. The critical structure Simple subordinate clauses: (1a) Du glaubst, dass Ede Peter angerufen hat. = that-Vlast you believe that Ede Peter called has (1b) Du glaubst, Ede hat Peter angerufen. = V2 you believe Ede has Peter called Wh-constructions: (2) Weni glaubst du, ti dass Ede ti angerufen hat? who believe you that Ede called has? = extraction construction (3)Wen glaubst du, hat Ede angerufen? who believe you has Ede called?” =extraction or parenthetical construction?

  4. Two analyses of critical structure (3) Wen glaubst du hat Ede angerufen? who believe you has Ede called ‘Who do you believe Ede has called?’ / ‘Who - do you believe - has Ede called?’ Analysis I: Extraction construction derived from dependent V2-clause with intermediate tracein its ‘Vorfeld‘ (SpecCP) Weni glaubst du ti hat Ede ti angerufen? Analysis II: Parenthetical construction parenthetical insert: glaubst du host: Wen hat Ede angerufen?

  5. Extraction analysis: [taken from Grewendorf/Hamm/Sternefeld 1989:242] Parenthetical analysis: Two analyses of critical structure

  6. The judgement studies Methodology: Magnitude Estimation Theoretical assumptions The study series

  7. Gathering judgements experimentally • Magnitude Estimation (Bard et al 1996) • elicited grammaticality judgements, but ... • judgements in numerical form • relative to a reference item and relative to own previous judgements • scale is open-ended and has no minimum division • task: “you gave this one a 20, and that one a 30, so what score will you give this one?” • “How natural do these examples sound?” • online questionnaire (WebExp-Tool, Keller et al 1998)

  8. Three similar constructions I.)Critical construction (4) Wen glaubst du hat Ede angerufen? = (3) ‘Who do you believe Ede has called?’ II.)Extractions from dass-clause = (2) (5) Wen glaubst du, dass Ede angerufen hat? ‘Who do you believe that Ede has called?’ III.)Verb-first parentheticals in other insertion slots: (6a) Wen hat Ede angerufen, glaubst du? (6b) Wen hat Ede, glaubst du, angerufen? ‘Who has Ede (do you believe) called (do you believe)?’ Central question of our experiments: Do critical constructions behave like uncontroversial extractions or like uncontroversial parentheticals?

  9. Test case: predicate restrictions Reis (2002) claims: Some predicates occur in dass-extractions but not in integrated parentheticals • (strong) factive predicates • negative/negated predicates • preference predicates • adjectival predicates An Example [Reis 2002, (55b)]: (10a) Wohin wünschte er, dass sie zu Fuß ginge?dass-extraction (10b) *Wohin ginge sie, wünschte er, zu Fuß?V1-parenthetical (10c)*Wohin wünschte er ginge sie zu Fuß?critical structure ‘Where does he wish (that) she should go on foot?’

  10. Study Idass-extraction vs. critical construction 2 syntactic conditions (a) the critical construction Welchen Bewerber PRED du stellt unser Chef ein? Which applicant PRED you hire our boss in (b) long extraction over dass Welchen Bewerber PRED du dass unser Chef einstellt? Which applicant PRED you that our boss in-hire ‘Which applicant do you PRED (that) our boss will hire?’ 18 predicates • predicates of thought & speech • negative, preference & adjectival predicates

  11. (I) Predicates of thought & speech: sagen say glauben believe hoffen hope behaupten claim fürchen fear erzählen tell erklären explain (II) Negative, preference & adjectival predicates: bezweifeln doubt wünschen wish wollen want vorziehen prefer bevorzugen favour lieber sein be preferable besser sein be better ratsam sein be advisable das Beste sein be the best klar sein be clear bekannt sein be known Predicates in study I

  12. Predictions of study I The judgements of the critical construction and the dass-extraction will respond to the continuum of predicates in a similar way if they are both extraction constructions. Two schematic pictures showing “similarity”

  13. Results of study Idass-extraction vs. critical construction

  14. Impact of dependent V2-clause? On extraction analysis: critical construction = extraction from dependent V2-clause Note: Dependent V2-clauses more restricted than dass-clauses Only a subset of the predicates which select a dass-clause also select a V2-clause. Question: Does acceptability of dependent V2-clauses with certain predicates influence judgements of critical construction?

  15. Study IIImpact of dependent V2-clause? 2 syntactic conditions (a) the critical construction Welchen Bewerber PRED du stellt unser Chef ein? Which applicant PRED you hire our boss in ‘Which applicant do you PRED our boss will hire?’ (b) dependent V2-clause Du PRED, unser Chef stellt diesen Bewerber ein. You PRED our boss hire this applicant in ‘You PRED, our boss will hire this applicant.’ 12 predicates, a subset of the earlier tested predicates

  16. Results of study II – dependent V2-clause vs. critical construction No direct correlation between critical construction and dependent V2-clauses throughout range of tested predicates

  17. Intermediate result Differences between critical construction and dass-extraction cannot be related back to the factor “V2-subordination”. Does the critical construction pattern like …

  18. Study III parenthetical vs. critical construction 3 syntactic conditions (a) the critical construction Welchen Bewerber PRED du stellt unser Chef im März ein? “Which applicant do you PRED our boss will hire in March?” (b) clear parenthetical in post-subject position Welchen Bewerber stellt unser Chef PRED du im März ein? “Which applicant will our boss - do you PRED - hire in March?“ (c) long extraction over dass Welchen Bewerber PRED du dass unser Chef im März einstellt? “Which applicant do you PRED that our boss will hire in March?” 12 predicates, a subset of the earlier tested predicates

  19. (I) Predicates of thought & speech: glauben believe hoffen hope fürchen fear erzählen tell (II) Negative, preference & adjectival predicates: bezweifeln doubt wünschen wish wollen want vorziehen prefer bevorzugen favour lieber sein be preferable ratsam sein be advisable klar sein be clear Predicates in study III

  20. Predictions of study III The judgements of the critical construction and the clear parentheticals will respond to the continuum of predicates in a similar way if they are both parenthetical constructions. The earlier finding concerning dass-extraction and critical construction should also be replicated.

  21. Results of study IIIdass-extraction vs. critical construction • findings of first study replicated • predicate-class dependent pattern

  22. Results of study IIIparenthetical vs. critical construction • no predicate-class dependent pattern • both Pearson‘s correlation and ANOVAs confirm findings

  23. Tentative Conclusion & Objections In predicate restrictions, the critical construction behaves: • differently from dass-extractions • similarly to clear integrated parentheticals Possible objections: • preference predicates as a special verb class (Frank 1998, Meinunger 2004)? • the role of the complementizer dass in marginal structures? • can speakers have two analyses of same surface structure?

  24. The historical study Question: Extraction or parenthetical analysis better motivated from historical perspective?

  25. Corpus Old High German (OHG) - oldest attested period of German (8th century - ca. 1050) Corpus - Isidor translation (ca. 790 A.D.) - The Monsee Fragments (ca. 790 A.D.) - Otfrid‘s Gospel Harmony (poem) (ca. 870 A.D.) • Notker III.: ›Consolatio philosophiae‹, (ca. 1000 A.D.) ›Martianus Capella‹,› De Interpretatione‹, ›Psalter‹, ›Categoriae‹,

  26. Critical construction With wânen ‘believe’ (11) uuéderêr déro uuânest tu gemág mêr whichnom of-those believe you is-capable more ‘Which one, do you believe, is capable of more?’ (N Cons IV 189,18) (12) Was wánet werde thánne themo úmbitherben wálde whatnombelieve2.pl becomes then thedat unfit forest ‘What do you believe becomes then of the unfit forest?’(O IV 26,51) With quedan ‘say, speak, tell‘ (13) Fone uuîu chist dû nâhent? from whatinstr.. say you approach3.pl ‘From where do you say they are approaching?’(N Ps. 54 189,14)

  27. Extraction analysis (14) uuéderêr déro uuânest tu gemág mêr = (11) which of-those believe you is-capable more ‘Which one of those, do you believe, is capable of more?’ Extraction analysis derived from dependent V2-clause: (15) [uuéderêr déro]iuuânest tu [ ti gemág timêr ]? Preconditions for extraction analysis • long wh-extraction • dependent V2-clauses (as argument clauses) Question Are both (i) and (ii) present in Old High German?

  28. Long wh-extraction over thaz? Long wh-extraction (16) waziwánist [ ti thaz er ti wérde]whatnombelieve2.sg that he becomesconj..‘What do you believe that he becomes?’ (O I 9,29) (17) [uuélên uuéhsel]i múgen uuír chéden. [ ti dáz tîe ti lîdên]? which transitionakk can we say that those undergo ‘Which transition can we say that they undergo?’ (N Cons IV 216,1)

  29. Secondary Literature Behaghel (1928: 547-552)Paul (1919: 319-324)Blatz (1896: 929-932)Lenerz (1985: 112-114) Long wh-extraction over thaz • OHG corpus

  30. Extraction hypothesis – preconditions

  31. Thaz-less complement clauses With wânen ‘believe’ (18)Uuânest [tu dehéin mûot keuéstenôtez ába stéte eruuékkêst]?believe2.sgyou any disposition determined from position softenconj..‘Do you believe that you can soften such a determined disposition?’ (N Cons II 90.25) (19)wánu [ sie ouh thaz rúzin]believe1.sg they also thatacc. weptconj.‘I believe that they also wept for that’ (O IV 26,6) With quedan ‘say’ (20) ih chido, [ iz tempus bezeichenne] I say it ‘tempus’denoteconj.‘I tell you that it denotes ‘tempus’’ (N Int. I 10,12)

  32. Thaz-less complement clauses Thaz-less complement clauses in OHG corpus • are verb last (!) • frequently occur with uuânen, quedan as matrix predicates • are attested with volitional predicates (e.g. wellen ‚want‘) and after negated matrix predicates (versus modern V2-complement clauses) → possible analysis: silent complementizer (‚Comp drop‘): (21) ih chido, [ ø iz tempus bezeichenne ] = (20) I say it ‘tempus’ denoteconj.

  33. Dependent V2-clauses In OHG corpus • dependent V2-clauses (as argument clauses) not attested • preconditions of extraction analysis

  34. Long extraction from thaz-less complement clauses Long Wh-extraction (22) wasi wanist [ tiØ thémo ti irgange (the …)] what believe the-onedat. faresconj. who ‘What do you believe happens to somebody (who …)?’ (O V 21,10) ↔ Critical Construction of (22) (22’) wasi wanist [ ti Øthémo tiirgange ] (23) wasi wanist [ ti irgangek thémo ti tk] (example made up)

  35. Summary – extraction hypothesis • one precondition fulfilled in OHG: long wh-movement attested from (verb-last) complement clauses with ±thaz (bridge prediactes: uuânen, quedan etc.) bridge predicates uuânen, quedan also attested in critical construction • second precondition:dependent V2-clauses not attested → Extraction analysis not very well motivated for OHG

  36. Parenthetical analysis (24) uuéderêr déro uuânest tu gemág mêr = (11) which of-those believe you is-capable more ‘Which one of those, do you believe, is capable of more?’ Parenthetical analysis: parenthetical insert:uuânest tu host:uuéderêr dérogemág mêr?

  37. Parenthetical inserts • numerous uncontroversial V1-parentheticals in OHG corpus (notably in Otfrid and in Notker’s texts) • most prominent verbs: wânen ‘believe’, quedan ‘say’ • V1-parentheticals as a typical property of historical German texts (from OHG to NHG period, e.g. Maurer 1924) • various insertion slots (in the middle field, clause-finally)

  38. Parenthetical inserts – slots In the middle field (e.g. after the left bracket, after the subject): (25) … thaz, [ wán ih ] , thu nu fíndes whichrel.pron. believe I you now find ‘… which you will now find here, I believe’ (O IV 18,8) (26) uuánda dû nû [ uuâno ih ] uuácherôren óugen hábest. because you now believe I more-vigilant eyes haveconj.‘because you have now, I believe, more vigilant eyes’ (N Cons III 174,16) In clause-last position: (27) Ír uuéllent iz sô bríngen [ uuâno íh ] . táz íu nîehtes nebréste you want it so bring believe I that youdat.nothinggen. NEGlack ‘You want to bring it about that you won’t lack anything’ (N Cons II 80,26) After the ‘Vorfeld’ (→ critical construction): (28) sun [ uuânint ir ] ist er son believe2.pl. you is he ‘He is the son, you believe’ (N Ps 77 276,3)

  39. Summary – historical study Constructions attested in OHG corpus • critical construction (with wânen, quedan) • extraction of ± wh-phrases out of verb-last complement clauses with ± thaz after a number of bridge predicates (including wânen, quedan) • V1-parenthetical inserts (with wânen, quedan etc.) Constructions NOT attested • dependent V2-clauses (as argument clauses) → Extraction analysis not well motivated for OHGParenthetical analysis well motivated for OHG

  40. Objections – historical study • lack of positive evidence ≠ negative evidence→ dependent V2-clauses (as argument clauses) really ungrammatical in OHG? • no prosodic evidence • implication for Modern German?

  41. Conclusion • both data types – judgement data and historical corpus data – favour parenthetical analysis of critical construction • alleged V2-extraction analysis of critical construction has implications - for models of German sentence structure and - for status of dependent V2-clauses (+/- embedded?) → impact on syntactic theories

  42. References Axel, K. (2005): Studien zur ahd. Syntax. Linke Satzperipherie, Verbstellung und Verb-zweit. PhD thesis, University of Tübingen. Bard, E./Sorace, A. (1996) „Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability“. Language 72(1). 32-68. Behaghel, O. (1928). Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band III. Heidelberg: Winter. Blatz, F. (1896). Neuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Third edition. Vol.II: Satzlehre (Syntax). Karlsruhe: J. Lang. Frank, N. (1998) „Präferenzprädikate und abhängige Verbzweitsätze“. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340:128. Stuttgart-Tübingen. Grewendorf, G./Hamm, F./Sternefeld, W. (1989) Sprachliches Wissen. Eine Einführung in moderne Theorien der grammatischen Beschreibung. (3rd edition) Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Haider, H. (1993) „ECP-Etüden: Anmerkungen zur Extraktion aus eingebetteten Verb-Zweit-Sätzen“. Linguistische Berichte 145.185-203. Lenerz, J. 1985. Diachronic syntax verb position and COMP in German. In Studies in German Grammar, J. Toman. (ed), 103-132. Dordrecht: Foris. Maurer, F. (1924): Zur Anfangsstellung des Verbs im Deutschen. In Beiträge zur germanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Festschrift für O. Behaghel, ed. by W. Horn, 141-184. Heidelberg: Winter. Meinunger, A. (2004) „Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences“. In: Lohenstein, H./Trissler, S. (eds.) The syntax and semantics of the Left Periphery. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 313-341. Paul, H. (1919): Deutsche Grammatik. Vols. III,IV: Syntax. Halle: Niemeyer. Reis, M. (2002) „Wh-Movement and Integrated Parenthetical Constructions“. In: Zwart, J.-W./Abraham, W. (eds.) Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 3-40. TITUS 3.0 = Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien: http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/indexd.htm.

  43. Thank you katrin.axel@uni-tuebingen.detanja.kiziak@uni-tuebingen.de

  44. Statistical data from third study Pearson‘s correlation dass-extraction and critical construction: 0.738 post-subject parenthetical and critical construction: 0.924 Interaction of factors PREDICATE and STRUCTURE dass-extraction and critical construction: highly significant both by subjects and by items (F1(11,297) = 5.853, p1< 0.001; F2(11,121) = 4.693, p2<0.001) post-subject parenthetical and critical construction: no significant interaction either by subjects or by items (F1(11,286) = 1.79, p1 = 0.056; F2(11,121)= 1.424, p2 = 0.221)

More Related