Multiple long-distance scrambling: Syntax as reflections of processing

Abstract

This paper argues that, with syntax defined as progressive projection of semantic representations along the left-to-right dimension provided by the sequence of words (Cann, Kempson & Marten 2005), explanations for local and (multiple) nonlocal scrambling of NPs in Japanese and Korean follow from general principles of tree growth, allowing differences between the languages while nevertheless retaining an integrated account of scrambling itself. This formalism is similar to the parsing mechanism of Miyamoto (2002), but goes further in using this as the base grammar formalism, with all concepts of movement replaced by progressive articulation of structural underspecification and tree growth starting from the left periphery. The account extends the analysis of Japanese scrambling of Cann et al. to encompass multiple long-distance scrambling, capturing both the attendant relative locality restriction on the constituents moved, and interaction of this restriction with scope-construal effects. Scope-construal variability is expressible as interaction between individual lexical specifications for the two languages and general constraints on scope construal; and the relative locality constraint on the construal of the expressions involved in multiple long-distance scrambling is an immediate consequence of the general dynamics of the framework. The resulting account extends Hawkins' (2004) program of defining grammars relative to performance considerations.

Building meaning in context: A dynamic approach to Bantu clause structure

“…This property of these nodes is captured in their address 〈↑*〉Tn(α) which means that they are dominated by some node which may only be reached by crossing over the type‐t requiring node. Kempson & Kiaer () consider * adjunction to introduce a type‐e‐requiring node or a type e‐requiring unfixed node. Seraku () assumes that * adjunction induces only a type‐t‐requiring node in Japanese.…”

“…The question is then whether there are reflexes of the same constraint operative elsewhere, possibly resulting in different effects in different languages 36. Indeed, a range of work shows the effects of this constraint cross‐linguistically in the so‐called Person Case Constraint (Chatzikyriakidis & Kempson 2011), clitic placement in various varieties of Modern Greek (Chatzikyriakidis ; ), and in different historical stages of Spanish (Bouzouita ), as well as the interaction between scrambling and constructive case in Korean and Japanese (Kempson & Kiaer ), the properties and interpretation of clefts in Japanese (Seraku ; ), as well as object marking restrictions in Bantu more broadly (Kempson et al. ).…”

Standard Modern and Pontic Greek Person Restrictions: A Feature-Free Dynamic Account

“…10 Relative to DS assumptions, it is straightforward to refl ect this incrementality while preserving the fact that, in the result, it is the structure once created which refl ects bottom-up compositionality. Th is is made possible by relying on a constructive use of case whereby some assigned output fi lter is taken to trigger a process of structural enrichment so that a fi xed relation matching that fi lter is induced between the argument node in question and its dominating node (see Kempson & Kiaer 2010 ). For example, a locally unfi xed node can be introduced and decorated with some formula value, together with an output fi lter requirement that its immediately dominating node be of predicate type (the characterization of accusative case).…”

“…Such overgeneration is precluded, however, and without any structure-specifi c stipulation. Further empirical motivation is available from multiple long-distance dependency eff ects in Japanese and Korean, argued in Kempson & Kiaer ( 2010 ) to be available through the interaction of operations of *Adjunction and Local*Adjunction while being in accordance with this constraint. For more discussion on the nature of the constraint see Cann et al, 2005 : chapter 5. of argument nodes but no provided predicate.…”

“…iii) Yet other clitics refl ect neither the building of an unfi xed node, nor an unfi xed node with a fi lter on output, but rather what we have called 13 Our nomenclature of constructive case echoes Nordlinger ( 1998 ), but in our interpretation this is taken dynamically as an action induced from the case morphology, rather than being merely a fi lter on output structure. See Kempson & Kiaer ( 2010 ) for detailed justifi cation of this as an update process in connection with verb-fi nal languages.…”