Skip to main content
×
Home

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

  • REMI VAN TRIJP (a1)
Abstract
abstract

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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris, 6, Rue Amyot, 75005 Paris, France. e-mail: remi@csl.sony.fr
Footnotes
Hide All
*

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.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Alexiadou Artemis, Kiss Tibor, & Müller Gereon (Eds.) (2012). Local Modelling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax (Linguistische Arbeiten 547). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anderson Stephen R. (2008). English reduced auxiliaries really are simple clitics. Lingue e Linguaggio, 7, 169186.
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: <https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/> (last accessed 9 November 2012).
Bouma Gosse, Malouf Rob, & Sag Ivan A. (2001). Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19 (1), 165.
Cheng Lisa Lai-Shen, & Corver Norbert (Eds.) (2006). WH-movement: moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky Noam (1977). On WH-movement. In Culicover Peter W.Wasow Thomas, & Akmajian Adrian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71132). San Francisco & London: Academic Press.
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.
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.
Dabrowska Ewa (2008). Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (3), 391425.
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.
Demberg Vera, & Keller Frank (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109 (2), 193210.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gazdar Gerald (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 155184.
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.
Gibson Edward (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 176.
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.
Ginzburg Jonathan, and Sag Ivan A. (2000). Interrogative investigations: the form, the meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Goldberg Adele E. (1995). A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg Adele E. (2002). Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (4), 327356.
Goldberg Adele E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hale John (2003). The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32 (2), 101123.
Halliday M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Haspelmath Martin (2007). Pre-established categories don’t exist: consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology, 11 (1), 119132.
Haspelmath Martin (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86 (3), 663687.
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.
Hengeveld Kees (1989). Layers and operators. Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), 127157.
Hudson Richard (1997). The rise of auxiliary DO – verb raising or category-strengtehning? Transactions of the Philological Society, 95 (1), 4172.
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.
Kathol Andreas (2000). Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kay Paul, & Fillmore Charles J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75 (1), 133.
Knight Kevin (1989). Unification: a multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computer Surveys, 21 (1), 93124.
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.
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.
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.
Müller Stefan (2005). Zur Analyse der deutschen Satzstruktur. Linguistische Berichte, 201, 339.
Müller Stefan (2006). Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82 (4), 850883.
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.
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.
Richter Frank (2004). A mathematical formalism for linguistic theories with application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. (Unpublished DPhil dissertation), University of Tübingen.
Sag Ivan A. (2010). English filler−gap constructions. Language, 86 (3), 486545.
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.
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.
Steels Luc (Ed.) (2011a). Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steels Luc (2011b). A design pattern for phrasal constructions. In Steels Luc (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 71114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steels Luc (Ed.) (2012). Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Van de Velde Freek (2011). Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics, 15 (2), 387415.
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.
Vasishth Shravan, & Lewis Richard L. (2006). Argument−head distance and processing complexity: explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language, 82 (4), 767794.
Verhagen Arie (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 46
Total number of PDF views: 17 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 188 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.