Hostname: page-component-cd4964975-pf4mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-30T00:05:49.648Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Long-distance dependencies without filler−gaps: a cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2014

Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris
Address for correspondence: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris, 6, Rue Amyot, 75005 Paris, France. e-mail:


Long-distance dependencies are notoriously difficult to analyze in a formally explicit way because they involve constituents that seem to have been extracted from their canonical position in an utterance. The most widespread solution is to identify a gap at an extraction site and to communicate information about that gap to its filler, as in What_FILLERdid you see_GAP? This paper rejects the filler−gap solution and proposes a cognitive-functional alternative in which long-distance dependencies spontaneously emerge as a side effect of how grammatical constructions interact with each other for expressing different conceptualizations. The proposal is supported by a computational implementation in Fluid Construction Grammar that works for both parsing and production.

Research Article
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



While this paper was undergoing review, I learned the sad news of Ivan Sag’s passing away. His contributions to the field can hardly be overestimated, and it is with the utmost respect for his work that I disagree with his analysis of long-distance dependencies. The research reported in this paper has been conducted at and funded by the Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris. I would like to thank Luc Steels, director of Sony CSL Paris, for his feedback and support. I also thank Pieter Wellens from the VUB AI-Lab for his recent additions to FCG that have made this implementation possible. I also thank Frank Richter (University of Tübingen) and Stefan Müller (Free University of Berlin) for helping me to better understand HPSG. Finally, I would like to thank the editors and reviewers of Language and Cognition for their efforts that have helped to improve this paper. All remaining errors are of course my own.



Alexiadou, Artemis, Kiss, Tibor, & Müller, Gereon (Eds.) (2012). Local Modelling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax (Linguistische Arbeiten 547). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (2008). English reduced auxiliaries really are simple clitics. Lingue e Linguaggio, 7, 169186.Google Scholar
Baker, Colin F., Fillmore, Charles J., & Lowe, John B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 1(pp. 8690). Montreal: Association for Computational Linguistics. Online: <> (last accessed 9 November 2012).Google Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Rob, & Sag, Ivan A. (2001). Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19 (1), 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, & Corver, Norbert (Eds.) (2006). WH-movement: moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1977). On WH-movement. In Culicover, Peter W.Wasow, Thomas, & Akmajian, Adrian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71132). San Francisco & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, Miriam, & Geuder, William (Eds.), The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors (pp. 2163). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William (2005). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Östman, Jan-Ola, & Fried, Mirjam (Eds.), Construction grammars: cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa (2008). Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (3), 391425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Mike, & Meurers, Walt Detmar (2004). A grammar formalism and parser for linearization-based HPSG. In Lemnitzer, Lothar, Meurers, Detmar, & Hinrichs, Erhard (Eds.), COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 169175). Geneva: COLING.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demberg, Vera, & Keller, Frank (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109 (2), 193210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dik, Simon C. (1997). The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause (2nd rev. ed., edited by Hengeveld, Kees). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. (1997). Are grammatical relations universals? In Bybee, Joan L.Haiman, John, & Thompson, Sandra A. (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 115143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, & Levinson, Stephen C. (2009). The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, Charles J. (1977). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Cogan, Cathy, Thompson, Henry, Thurgood, Graham, Whistler, Kenneth, & Wright, James (Eds.), Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123−131). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 155184.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk (2008). Cognitive linguistics. In Momma, Haruko, & Matto, Michael (Eds.), Blackwell companion to the history of the English language (pp. 618629). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward (2000). The dependency of locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, AlecMiyashita, Yasushi, & O’Neil, Wayne (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A. (2000). Interrogative investigations: the form, the meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (2002). Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (4), 327356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, John (2003). The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32 (2), 101123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2007). Pre-established categories don’t exist: consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology, 11 (1), 119132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86 (3), 663687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2011). The gradual coalescence into ‘words’ in grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko, & Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 342−355). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees (1989). Layers and operators. Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), 127157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard (1997). The rise of auxiliary DO – verb raising or category-strengtehning? Transactions of the Philological Society, 95 (1), 4172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., & Zaenen, Annie (1995). Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Dalrymple, MaryKaplan, Ronald M.Maxwell, John T. III, & Zaenen, Annie (Eds.), Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar (pp. 137165). Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas (2000). Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, & Fillmore, Charles J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75 (1), 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Kevin (1989). Unification: a multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computer Surveys, 21 (1), 93124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert D., & Meurers, Walt Detmar (2006). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: linguistic approach, formal foundations, and computational realization. In Brown, Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed. (pp. 237252). Oxford: Elsevier.
Levy, Roger (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106 (3), 11261177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michaelis, Laura (2013). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Hoffman, Thomas, & Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 133152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan (2005). Zur Analyse der deutschen Satzstruktur. Linguistische Berichte, 201, 339.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan (2006). Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82 (4), 850883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2011). Pattern versus process concepts of grammar and mind: a cognitive-functional perspective. In Brdar, MarioGries, Stefan Th., & Fuchs, Milena Žic (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: convergence and expansion (pp. 4766). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reape, Mike (1994). Domain union and word order variation in German. In Nerbonne, JohnNetter, Klaus, & Carl Pollard, (Eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 151197). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank (2004). A mathematical formalism for linguistic theories with application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. (Unpublished DPhil dissertation), University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. (2010). English filler−gap constructions. Language, 86 (3), 486545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., & Wasow, Thomas (2011). Performance-compatible competence grammar. In Borsley, Robert D., & Börjars, Kersti (Eds.), Non-transformational syntax: formal and explicit models of grammar (pp. 359377). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spranger, Michael, Pauw, Simon, Loetzsch, Martin, & Steels, Luc (2012). Open-ended procedural semantics. In Steels, Luc, & Hild, Manfred (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. 153172). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc (Ed.) (2011a). Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc (2011b). A design pattern for phrasal constructions. In Steels, Luc (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 71114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc (Ed.) (2012). Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek (2011). Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics, 15 (2), 387415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, Remi (2011). A design pattern in for argument structure constructions. In Steels, Luc (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 115145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan, & Lewis, Richard L. (2006). Argument−head distance and processing complexity: explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language, 82 (4), 767794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar